A little History test, not sure if all the Qusetions are real

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I don't believe there's anything scary about that............seems like she's talking a lot about us as a society and of the common good, which is what government is supposed to be doing.

Please point out to me where, in the founding documents of the United States that this is the role of government.

Quote

She says that it's time to end a government of the few, by the few, and for the few. Makes sense.........75% of this country doesn't want to be in a war right now, yet we're in it because the top 1% are getting more wealth by staying in it. It also seems that these are the same people that are in power.

You must think the US is a democracy.

Quote

I hear messages of accountability for that elite class that's dictating prices..........for instance, keeping oil prices high for max profits while your average citizen is getting raped so that some billionaire can make an extra couple of million that year.

Do you know how a free market economy works? Do you know how commodities are traded? It's based on speculation.

Quote

***Income Inequality Hits Post-WWII Record

The Skinny: Richest 1 Percent Of Americans Taking Home Almost A Quarter Of The Pie

NEW YORK, Oct. 12, 2007

You know America's embarrassingly little income inequality problem has gotten bad when even President Bush is blushing.

New IRS figures out today reveal that the wealthiest 1 percent of Americas earned 21.2 percent of all income in 2005, the Wall Street Journal reports. That's up sharply from 19 percent in 2004, and surpasses the previous high of 20.8 percent in 2000, at the beak of the previous bull market in stocks.

What the NYT conveniently left out is that the wealthiest 1% pay nearly 35% of all income taxes collected. The wealthiest 10% pay nearly 50%.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rushmc 23]

What the NYT conveniently left out is that the wealthiest 1% pay nearly 35% of all income taxes collected. The wealthiest 10% pay nearly 50%.

I am afraid that to sv3n, that is not enough

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nerdgirl 0]

Historically (per the thread title), when Social Security was created it was explicitly not to be subject to a means test.

After some 70 years is it time to reconsider that?

President Bush's plan included a proposal for “progressive indexing” -- cutting benefits of the more affluent.

How about reconsidering the FICA wage caps (rather than raising the FICA tax rate)?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[sv3n 0]

First of all.........no, it's not a democracy.....it's a democratic republic. That doesn't mean that illegal actions and bribes are ok. Nor does it mean that the people on the top are meant to walk all over the people on the bottom.

Ok, let's start with your perspective...........so what do you think the role of this government is?

Yup..........speculation alright. You don't pay this and you'll either end up bankrupt or dead. Seems more like a hostage situation.

Could we see some evidence or proof of the fact that those people pay 85% of the taxes.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Oh, by the way.........I did read your posts. But the simple fact is that states only got into healthcare because consumers were getting f'd over by the insurance companies. The same thing why the government had to get involved with the auto industry to put seatbelts into automobiles and then later to mandate airbags. Another great example of your theory failing. The consumers wanted both those products, but the only thing that got them released was the government steping in and saying that they needed to be equipped with those features.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Oh, by the way.........I did read your posts. But the simple fact is that states only got into healthcare because consumers were getting f'd over by the insurance companies.No, that is not what I said. Read again The same thing why the government had to get involved with the auto industry to put seatbelts into automobiles and then later to mandate airbags.Apples and oranges and by the way, I think they went overboard there too Another great example of your theory failing.Not mine, yours. You have not said anything correct about my posts yet The consumers wanted both those products,no, special interest groups did, as I stated had you read my posts but the only thing that got them released was the government steping in and saying that they needed to be equipped with those features.

Ya, let keep adding sex changes and cosmetic coverage to the mandates

you want a socialist set up. That is your opinion but you will not admit it here because it destroys your chance to get it implimented

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gawain 0]

Quote

First of all.........no, it's not a democracy.....it's a democratic republic. That doesn't mean that illegal actions and bribes are ok. Nor does it mean that the people on the top are meant to walk all over the people on the bottom.

*buzzer* The United States is a Federal Republic. Aka, a Representative Republic. We have democratic traditions, but in the area of federal government referendums, etc., we are not a democracy.

Quote

Ok, let's start with your perspective...........so what do you think the role of this government is?

If you don't want to answer my question, just say so. The role of government in the United States is stated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in particular. The opening paragraph is a decent summary:

Quote

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Quote

Yup..........speculation alright. You don't pay this and you'll either end up bankrupt or dead. Seems more like a hostage situation.

This indicates to me that you do not understand how commodities are traded and why their value goes up or down.

Quote

Could we see some evidence or proof of the fact that those people pay 85% of the taxes.

You asked...my numbers were off a little:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/10/top-1-pay-more-.html
http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/comments/what_percentile_pays_what_percent_of_taxes/

It turns out the top 1% are paying 40% of the taxes. The top 25% are paying 86%.

There is more at www.taxfoundation.org

It's things like this that make me a fan of the flat tax, if I can't have a "fair tax" sales tax.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[1969912 0]

Quote

It turns out the top 1% are paying 40% of the taxes.

But when are those money-grubbing abusers of the little guy going to pay their fair share (~100%)? All they do is steal from the working class (through unfair pay, but they probably also steal cookies and stuff from their lunch bags), deprive them of free health care, poison them in their factories, etc. And when the workers are all sick or dead, the CEO's just move the companies to Mexico. They should really have to pay much more than 100% in tax.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Thanks to all of you for re-copying & re-pasting every goddam line of every goddam post in the thread into each new post before responding with about 5 new words. Really enhances the readability of the thread.

Lazy bastards, alla yiz.

Ummm NO, not ALL of us. For example:

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2994854#2994854

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

What the NYT conveniently left out is that the wealthiest 1% pay nearly 35% of all income taxes collected. The wealthiest 10% pay nearly 50%.

Of course we do. Willie Sutton strikes again.

I expect to pay more taxes than someone on minimum wage.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[rushmc 23]

Too bad the point of your post from your search was false. For you anyway

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Too bad the point of your post from your search was false. For you anyway

Would you care to explain in English what that gobbledegook is supposed to mean.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Thanks to all of you for re-copying & re-pasting every goddam line of every goddam post in the thread into each new post before responding with about 5 new words. Really enhances the readability of the thread.

Lazy bastards, alla yiz.

no fucking kidding! And how many poorly done citations, making it completely unclear who is saying what?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money.

NO, IT IS NOT. Bush used that scare tactic as an election ploy and clearly you bought it hook line and sinker. Even if nothing is done SS will be in surplus for decades.

If you're as old as your avatar, yes, there's nothing to worry about. You're the reason why Clinton didn't fix it (and yes, it certainly was an objective of his, esp as the surplus emerged), and why Bush couldn't fix it either.

The Democrats are addicted to the deficit masking surpluses currently being generated. And so are the Republicans - that is war fighting money! But the program will no longer be swimming in black ink for even 2 more decades. The 'surplus' you speak of is merely of accounting. It will be a deficit increaser at the same time Medicare is really hitting the deficit. If nothing is done, either taxes will have to go up, benefits reduced (on the street with no new kidney!), or spending (social or wars) will have to go.

Bush floated out the same idea that has popular support in the late 90s - private accounts. Those were attacked by those who preferred the current system (the seniors and near seniors) as well as those who would not benefit (those too fucking stupid to understand the stock market). Their unfounded attacks on the risk got a receptive audience after the dot com crash. And that's why Bush got nowhere with it in his administration. Didn't have 60 votes in the Senate, and didn't even have all of his party on board. They like that extra budget money too and any privitization plan will increase the shortfall in the short term.

It is the inevitable solution though, just as companies had to get away from guaranteed pensions where they bore all the risk and their employees had none of the responsibility. I'm far happier with the new solution - it's portable since few of us can trust our employer and it's transparent. Every paycheck my employer puts 6% of my salary in my schwab account which has access to 20 funds (which are cost free since my employer is the manager). After I hit the 12 month point, they'll also put 6% in matching for my 401k account.

Since SS is a joke anyway, it's time to just stop lying about what it is. Increase all the marginal tax rates by 6.2 or 12.4%. Apply the means testing we know will come at retirement. Anyone who was responsible will get no SS money. Those who saved nothing will get their cat food money.

Bringing this back to the original topic - the comparison to Marx is inappropriate. She's been trying to reform the health care system since 1993. Like Bush with SS, at least she's offering up something. And on this subject, she's probably right. Letting the free market do it isn't working very well. Letting the government run it all won't do much better, so how do you find the mix that does? Not talking about it or demonizing her for forcing the conversation isn't a solution. Nor is it one for social security. If we don't get a reach on this problem now, the debt from medicare will be staggering. Perhaps the only saving grace is Americans will be dying sooner due to bad practices and insufficient care, so at least the SS shortfall will likely be reduced. (a good reason to repeal the cigarette taxes while we're at it)

[rushmc 23]

You posted

"Bush used that scare tactic as an election ploy and clearly you bought it hook line and sinker"

This is a lie that you got caught in. If I am wrong, prove it is true.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

You posted

"Bush used that scare tactic as an election ploy and clearly you bought it hook line and sinker"

This is a lie that you got caught in. If I am wrong, prove it is true.

Your posts in this thread prove very clearly that you DID buy into his lies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,174]

On the whole I'd believe the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants view of SS before I believed yours.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

You posted

"Bush used that scare tactic as an election ploy and clearly you bought it hook line and sinker"

This is a lie that you got caught in. If I am wrong, prove it is true.

Your posts in this thread prove very clearly that you DID buy into his lies.

See, you cant prove he lied..It is a blind assurtion you make to justify your position. I await you next lie.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

On the whole I'd believe the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants view of SS before I believed yours.

bad link. Guess these guys don't know web stuff or social security very well.

But no surprise- like most people, you find ways to believe only those that support your view.

It's a political question, not an accounting question, other than that pyramid schemes only work for so long.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

It's a political question, not an accounting question, other than that pyramid schemes only work for so long.

Is it only a political or an economical question?

Or are the historical and ethical issues so far subsumed that they are not to be considered? Given: history & ethics are much harder to correlate with data and hard numbers.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[pirana 0]

Quote

Let's play a little game.

Did you go see Saw IV this weekend?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Is it only a political or an economical question?

Or are the historical and ethical issues so far subsumed that they are not to be considered?

History is *always* part of politics, esp when it comes to how the two parties play together.

Any analysis driven by a single group of accountants is unlikely to be very comprehensive. More likely it will be an analysis with an agenda.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

On the whole I'd believe the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants view of SS before I believed yours.

bad link. Guess these guys don't know web stuff or social security very well.

But no surprise- like most people, you find ways to believe only those that support your view.

It's a political question, not an accounting question, other than that pyramid schemes only work for so long.

Try this one:
www.gao.gov/new.items/d05193sp.pdf

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

On the whole I'd believe the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants view of SS before I believed yours.

bad link. Guess these guys don't know web stuff or social security very well.

But no surprise- like most people, you find ways to believe only those that support your view.

It's a political question, not an accounting question, other than that pyramid schemes only work for so long.

Try this one:
www.gao.gov/new.items/d05193sp.pdf

So what bullet points do you want to cite here?

It says the same thing I said - SS currently masks the size of the deficit. This will stop being true in 2017, at which point it's only in the black due to interest income on the 4T in treasuries. By 2027, the 'surplus' will begin to decline.

It also argues that it's a problem that needs to be solved now rather than later. In short, everything I wrote. So ... what was your point this time?

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

On the whole I'd believe the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants view of SS before I believed yours.

bad link. Guess these guys don't know web stuff or social security very well.

But no surprise- like most people, you find ways to believe only those that support your view.

It's a political question, not an accounting question, other than that pyramid schemes only work for so long.

Try this one:
www.gao.gov/new.items/d05193sp.pdf

So what bullet points do you want to cite here?

It says the same thing I said - SS currently masks the size of the deficit. This will stop being true in 2017, at which point it's only in the black due to interest income on the 4T in treasuries. By 2027, the 'surplus' will begin to decline.

It also argues that it's a problem that needs to be solved now rather than later. In short, everything I wrote. So ... what was your point this time?

My original point was to rushmc who claimed SS is broken. It isn't broken, but it will be in 30 years if we do nothing.

It's like saying I'm dead, because chances are I will be in 30 years time.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.