Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[Dora]

Sell my house? What does that have to do with their FICA taxes? They can't support me on *that* money. They couldn't even pay for my health insurance on that money.

[innocentbystander]

Sell my house? What does that have to do with their FICA taxes? They can't support me on *that* money. They couldn't even pay for my health insurance on that money.

Sell your house. Use the proceeds on the sale of your house to pay for your health care and living expenses. Live in their house rent free, play with your grandkids.

[Dora]

IB, you're talking about me supporting myself. That would certainly not be my kids supporting me on their FICA tax money.

[innocentbystander]

IB, you're talking about me supporting myself. That would certainly not be my kids supporting me on their FICA tax money.

If every retired person did exactly as I am suggesting YOU DO, then we wouldn't need to pay FICA anymore.

Take that entire ponzi scheme and throw it in the trash, forever.

[Dora]

I have no problem paying FICA. I would rather do that than take in some old folks to live with me.

[innocentbystander]

I have no problem paying FICA. I would rather do that than take in some old folks to live with me.

That is pretty selfish Dora.

You aren't taking in "some" old folks, you are taking in "YOUR" old folks to live (and subsequently, DIE) with you. That is the way it was prior to FICA/Medicare and other government safety net bullshit. You end up dying alone... and for what? Because adult children can't be bothered to be involved in their parents lives. Either way, that SSI check is not intended to entirely support you. It is insurance meant to "help" support you.

My in-laws live with me eight months of the year. They are much more help than burden.

[puterbac]

We've already determined that Dora does give a damn as long as she gets hers. That voting style is why nothing will be done until the there is no choice for something to be done which will be far more painful for the entire country.

[innocentbystander]

We've already determined that Dora does give a damn as long as she gets hers. That voting style is why nothing will be done until the there is no choice for something to be done which will be far more painful for the entire country.

I mean seriously, 90% of men in this country jump on the SSI the instant they hit 62. Its like they are not even the least bit concerned the financial burden that puts on their children and grandchildren. They just want to get theirs.

[Red Bird]

Never mind the exact dates of the tax cuts, if lowering taxes spurs the economy and Bush’s tax cuts were in effect by 2006, why did tax revenue start to fall a short time later?

[Red Bird]

Dirty secret:

It’s true that Social Security isn’t a welfare program. On the contrary, Social Security is one of the government’s biggest creditors.

Before going further, let’s get some facts straight. Fact one: the top ten percent of rich people hold about 90% of the wealth in this country, and they earn the vast majority of the income. For this reason, they pay most of the income tax. Fact two: The payroll tax receipts come mostly from middle class and working class wage earners.

Now, no one likes to pay taxes so both facts are less than happy ones. But here’s the fun part for the rich: Over the last few decades, the congress has been lowering the wealthys’ income tax burden by spending the Social Security Trust fund (the money collected from wage earners for retirement benefits) on fighter planes and whatnot.

Truth be told, the government has “borrowed” the entire Social Security trust fund. In other words, the US government owes future retirees about $3 trillion. Sounds like a lot of loot, but this was OK with everyone as long as the payroll tax was creating a surplus.

The trouble, and the reason the Republicans want to privatize Social Security, is that due to changing demographics, payroll tax receipts are no longer exceeding outlays. What does that mean? It means that next year, the Social Security Trusties are going to be calling on the congress insisting that they start paying the money back.

That’s not a popular idea for conservatives because the only way they can come up with that kind of money is to raise taxes on the wealthy. So they suggest reforming Social Security, but that goes over like drag queen singing in the church choir.

So what can they do? How bout getting rid of Medicare? So they claim that the system is terribly broken, it simply can’t be fixed! “The Numbers don’t work!!!”

True, the numbers don’t work if you insist on keeping tax rates as they are. But they work rather easily if you return to the Clinton tax rates.

[Red Bird]

nm

[Red Bird]

And CBO is ALWAYS wrong.

-puterbac

That's an interesting claim coming from someone who posts charts citing the CBO as their source.

As you did here:



and again here:

[Red Bird]

Would someone please do something about the horrible dark background on alternate posts here? I can barely see those posts!

[puterbac]

Never mind the exact dates of the tax cuts, if lowering taxes spurs the economy and Bush’s tax cuts were in effect by 2006, why did tax revenue start to fall a short time later?

Because they were in full effect in summer 2003 not 2006 and revenues increased every year from 2003 to 2007?

I guess I need information from others. Is Red one of those who just likes to rile things up and continues to fake stuff to see how long people will continue?

Because nobody can be this dumb.

[puterbac]

And CBO is ALWAYS wrong.

-puterbac

That's an interesting claim coming from someone who posts charts citing the CBO as their source.

There is a difference in projections and then looking back at historical facts.

Fine..PROJECTIONS are almost always wrong and usually by large amounts.

[Red Bird]

Good idea! Pick and chose which numbers are good as needed.

Because they were in full effect in summer 2003 not 2006 and revenues increased every year from 2003 to 2007?"

You're dates are wrong, but never mind that. If cutting taxes spurs economic growth, why did tax revenues not increase as much as projected by the CBO before Bush took office?

And why, if cutting taxes is such a boost to the economy, did the revenues actually start to collapse in 2008?

Because nobody can be this dumb.

I've been doing this for a while, and I find that when people can't win arguments on the merits they often start tossing insults around. For your own sake, I suggest you stop now, because the ploy only makes you look desperate.

[Hacksaw]

Truth be told, the government has “borrowed” the entire Social Security trust fund. In other words, the US government owes future retirees about $3 trillion. Sounds like a lot of loot, but this was OK with everyone as long as the payroll tax was creating a surplus.

This was most certainly NOT okay with many of us. And a lot of people have been warning for decades that this was going to be a problem. But people like you wouldn't listen. You conveniently believed what you chose to believe and voted for people who kept the scam going. Now you want to pretend like taxing the rich will solve everything, even though plenty of evidence has been posted here that suggests it won't work. You're still putting your hands over your ears, because it isn't what you want to hear.

This is actually a perfect illustration of the problem. We have too many people who act like spoiled children and seem to think the government is some kind of real-life Santa Claus. And, unfortunately, they are allowed to vote.

[Hacksaw]

And why, if cutting taxes is such a boost to the economy, did the revenues actually start to collapse in 2008?

"Because nobody can be this dumb."

I've been doing this for a while, and I find that when people can't win arguments on the merits they often start tossing insults around. For your own sake, I suggest you stop now, because the ploy only makes you look desperate.

I hate to have to be the one to break this to you, but nobody who is reading your posts thinks you are winning anything.

[Red Bird]

You paint pretty pictures with your broad rhetorical strokes, but your claims are as empty as the US treasury.

"People like You?"

What makes you think I support politicians spending the SS Trust fund so that they could keep income tax rates down? Fact is, I've been complaining about it for decades.

I've never voted for any of the members of congress. I only vote for people who support the same ideas I support and while their are a few of them in congress, I don't live in their districts.

You keep talking about evidence but you never produce any. What evidence? What, specifically, proves that raising taxes won't work?

"hands over ears" What?

Your comments are not argument, they are statements of opinion. But we already know your opinion, what we need now is some evidence that supports your opinion.

Saying something is a fact, does not make it a fact no matter how forcefully you say it.

[Red Bird]

I hate to have to be the one to break this to you, but nobody who is reading your posts thinks you are winning anything.

Sure you do. If you didn't, you wouldn't bother to make this claim.