|
Post by osha on Feb 8, 2018 19:54:36 GMT -7
easily fixed by scrapping the FICA cap and for medicare medicaid these can be fixed by congress stopping to accept bribes from big pharma and big insurance to keep the status quo and doing nothing to lower healthcare costs which are primarily pharmaceutical costs. I agree but when will our government bite the hand that feeds them? The rich is the savior in this world (I'm being funny here) and we would never want to cost them more. They need money to control the slaves so the government can mandate costs (SS) and lie about the returns. Sick world we live in and it seems to be getting sicker by the day.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Feb 8, 2018 19:51:49 GMT -7
What ever the government 'gives' it can also take away. Social security was intended to help widows, orphans, and disabled from WWII. The tax collected went to a trust fund and was locked there until (I believe) the Nixon administration started the practice of borrowing from it. Soon, the baby boomers will flood the fund and outbound money will exceed inbound money. Any decent accountant will tell you that if the same money were invested safely and over a long period of time, the returns will be much larger than any SS program would pay out. That's the power of compound interest. We should all have mandatory IRA accounts. Example: Let's say at 20 years old, you start saving $40 per month (roughly $10/week)at an interest rate of 6% compounded monthly. By age 65, your total payments are $21,600 but your account would have earned $89,190 for a total balance of $110,790. I would love the option to invest my portion of the SS deduction and allow the employer's deduction to go to the government. I'd also be willing to have my SS payout to be reduced similarly. I understand your point. But, my issue is the promise. If the government can tell the people they can work and pay into a system with mandatory deductions, they owe it. If I walk away from my house because I go broke, who takes ownership? I cannot be dishonest no matter the circumstance and why should we give the government a pass? Sure, better options, but they were promising something and they need to stand behind that promise just like I can't walk away from my house payment and say oops without punishment. My big issue is we are a system backed by confidence. We have monopoly money and everyone is forced to play the game. So when someone says "I will trade your life (labor) for some peace when you age" they should stand behind that. And if they lie, then I should have the right to lie and walk away from my responsibility with no punishment. I mean, I give you my life and you get to lie in return while I am forced and have been forced to pay honestly? Intended for X person or not, a promise is a promise and it's a heck of a time to look at old people and say "oh, by the way, we lied, sorry about your luck" all while looking in the eyes of someone who has the economic cards stacked against them.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Feb 7, 2018 22:02:16 GMT -7
But if you hire me and tell me that I will retire in a good way and even have me sign on the dotted line agreeing to such, you can lie?
It's not the point that things will fail, the point is people can lie. If there is no honesty with our leadership at local and state governments, then why should we expect honesty from anyone?
To add to your point, if we are going to say programs for the poor and elderly are going to fail, then why don't we demand a living wage for people? Sad reality is most people barely have two pennies to rub together. But this is the cow that is capitalism... Own the workers and own the government and always impress your investors with constant growth in the form of profits on the backs of modern day slave labor.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Feb 5, 2018 20:51:30 GMT -7
www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-05/tiny-corner-rhode-island-shows-us-future-social-securityThis goes to show how this all works. It's crap! What about the people who worked their whole life and counted on this retirement as it was promised? Nope, the government can lie and they will all enjoy and comfy retirement while the slaves are left with scraps. You know, I believe in involuntary servitude. If a person has to work because this is the way this life is structured and you as an employee get to lie to my face about my future, you are enslaving me for your own personal gain and lying to me to keep me happy. Children get issued numbers when they are born so they can pay into a lying system against their own will. Involuntary servitude? When are people going to wake up. If we cannot trust our own leaders to be honest, how in the h*ll do we expect people to be honest?
|
|
|
Post by osha on Dec 19, 2017 22:33:05 GMT -7
I've lived the American dream - and it wasn't from fear of moving or taking risks. Crying won't help anybody. Maybe with a bit more maturity you will realize this. Yes, "I did and so can everyone else" as did the other 7 sibs of my lower class family. Four of them are flaming Democrats. All have at least a bachelor's degree, two of those have master's, one a J.D., one a PhD, and one a ParmD. Not bad showing for those born just above the poverty level. My wife, from a poor small farm in Pickens Co, has her masters. She's the only one of her generation or the one before to go to collage. My children have opportunities not even dreamed about in my generation, but they also have the same freedom their parents had to squander them. Yes, you poor baby, until you get off your lazy butt you'll stay in that life you've earned but complain bitterly about. "When you make your bed, you must lie in it." I sure hope that as I get older I keep my compassion. The other day a fourth stage cancer woman asked a republican about healthcare and was ejected from the town hall: thinkprogress.org/dean-heller-laura-packard-health-care-29b7e4649631/If I get to the point I care about people so little, I want took out behind the barn and shot. And the other day when reading a letter to Santa from a young girl online who needed a blanket and to find out one in five children live in extreme poverty. That is crazy and it is a reality in our world. And while one party would shrug their shoulders and say "oh well, should have worked harder". I will say "I am here to help and if I have to pay more taxes to help, so be it. Then you have inflation and inflation not following wages. So in 1960 if you loaned someone 20 bucks and they were to pay you back today, they would owe you $166. Where are we compared to 1960? www.usinflationcalculator.com/Far as I can tell, the minimum wage should be a little north of ten bucks an hour. But it is not and the right complains when things ain't like the good ole days.So in reality, in 1960, your buying power was much higher. So of course, owning a home and such was much easier. Today, not so much. I'm glad there is a piece of humanity that took advantage of a system in a time when the system worked. Now the system don't work and to expect the same today is nuts. This is a large reason I don't buy into statistics. The stock market being up? Of course the rich investors are excited about the prospect of tax cuts and why wouldn't they be? That is not the gauge of the average Joe here. www.cbpp.org/blog/jct-millions-of-households-face-tax-increase-or-no-tax-benefit-under-republican-tax-billAnd isn't it sick how much of the work force makes under $30k a year? If you're making that much in this society you are broke. But who cares? All while the same set in humanity will vote against their own best interests and usually it is to save the fetus or whatever. And the funny thing is the want to force a hardship and at the same time take no responsibility for the hardship/ But George Carlin said it best when he said they only want obedient workers. They know every child born is a benefit to the rich so why not force children into birth even when it creates a hardship. Sure, they will grow into to slaves after all while the people who follow religion cheer them on because they saved the fetus. Wow, hard concept.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Dec 19, 2017 18:29:43 GMT -7
Ah gee whiz. Poor ol' Joe doesn't want to take the risk to move and better his situation. Poor baby. In my minority I moved every one to two years, three times overseas. Only once I was in a place for three years! In 12 years of primary education, I was in 9 schools, 10 if kindergarten is counted. I also did a bit of research to ensure I majored with a money making degree, and guaranteed it in the Army. Of 12 years active duty I moved 8 times - twice overseas. Of 12 years in the reserve components I made 10 deployments - one to a combat zone. Move to better my situation is the name of the game. Also, speaking of taxes, Joe should have got off his lazy butt and done a bit of research. My military retirement is not state taxed in Alabama. There are a bunch of states that don't either. When I finally retire from the university, that teacher's retirement pension is state exempt also. Mine is an easy story. Hoofie took the big risks of a businessman. Apparently his investments are panning out. BTW, he moved recently to another state to better his situation. Not all that long ago my dad's Scottish ancestors left the mother country rather than being hung, drawn and quartered by the British after one of the Jacobite revolts. My mother's Irish side left rather than starve during the potato famine. Both were too poor to move and take risks knowing those risks might not pay off. Failure meant death. Cry me a river! And let me guess, you are close to sixty and grew up in a booming economy and had job opportunities as far as the eye could see? And you are even perhaps a baby boomer? And this might even pertain to Hoofie as well. Your very own "poor baby" crap is the result of the Republican idea that "I did and so can everyone else". You did it in a much cheaper world, you done it in a world that had endless opportunists, you did it in a world where the land of opportunity was real and you did it in a time where the taxes on the rich was much higher and people were able to see the top of the economic ladder. So my reply? The older generations are dwindling little by little every single year. This means that you will be replaced by people who have to live in this reality today. At that time we will see fixes because the people of today understand the issues while the boomers have wet dreams about the 60s. The future looks bright.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Dec 19, 2017 16:28:34 GMT -7
Fact: Joe needs to move to a state with lower taxes. My effective tax rate on my pay check is 22.5% because my 401K and HSA contributions are deducted before taxes. Fact: Joe needs to fix his family problems and sleep with his wife instead of on his friends couch. Fact: If Joe has a crappy job he needs to develop a marketable talent that pays better. Minimum wage is a starting point, not a career. Fact: Social security was created to help widows and orphans of WW-II. It was never intended as a retirement plan. Fact: The left loves taking other peoples money by force and calling it taxes then redistributing it with a made up flourish. Pay out "programs" are almost exclusively from the left and sometimes called "subsidies", creating a culture of entitlement. It's not just taxes. It could be insurance cost which are needed deductions. Joe chooses to sleep on a friends couch because Joe can help his family the best that way. Why do we always suggest a move? I am "poor" but not real "poor" but poor enough to get assistance. If I were to move, it would be a huge and expensive undertaking and if you look at someone who makes crap wages and tell them to save for a move, not going to happen. Not to even mention that Joe has friends and many of his friends are college graduates stuck in the same crap he himself is stuck in. So why would Joe want to take risks knowing those risks might not pay off? And chances are, those risks won't pay off at all. Hey, the right loves to force me and take my money to fight wars I don't support. The right wants to take my money and provide welfare to the rich I don't support. It works a bit both ways here. Social Security has become a promise and they should keep that promise or else it is simply theft. Low wage jobs are simply a result of the wealthy buying up more. Who cares about how happy an employee is when said employee can be replaced in a matter of minutes with another low wage worker? It's a circle that many cannot escape and sadly no options. And instead of fixing a problem, we look at a population and seclude them by whatever name while the problem remains. We could offer tax breaks based on amount of pay. So whatever the company does to help reduce the tax burden on others, they get a tax break. This could reduce the need for food stamps and such. And the tax break could make up for costs due to the increase. But no, the rich create a need for programs and they get tax breaks. The right cuts programs that the rich created out of greed and that greed costs the tax payer. So, who do we blame? Do we blame the people who need assistance to survive or do we blame the people who create that need?
|
|
|
Post by osha on Dec 19, 2017 4:18:35 GMT -7
Alright, no distractions right now so here it goes.
The rich pay more into the system, I would not deny that. However, the rich accounts for creating people who need food stamps and such and wasn't Warren Buffet who said his effective tax rate was lower then his secretary? So yes, you can pull up every statistic in the world and it will prove that the rich pay more, pull up statistics on the costs of the rich? They are out there. And now we get more breaks for the rich on the backs of the working class. How you may ask? Look for cuts in things that help people. Now of course you right wing folks who want to go back to the 1960s will ignore the facts.
Fact: the rich love to pay low wages Fact: Low wages create a need as prices rise Fact: Social Security is something people paid into and they should get back what they were forced to pay Fact: Cutting the elderly and giving them less to make the rich happy is theft
Now, That's simple logic and right wing folks will ignore it because they praise the rich. There are however two sides to every coin. So, stat this and stat that... Blah... Reality speaks in other terms. For instance, if Joe is working a crap job trying to support his family and his effective money out rate (before his bring home) is only 52% of his pay and yet the rich pay more but bring home much, much more, who is the tax and medical and such hurting? Poor Joe sleeps on a friends couch and he is only trying to do what he is supposed to do.
And yet the right sits around and complains because hey, they did it in the 60s when they were kids. This is not the 60s and those days are gone and will never return.
So yes, the rich pay more money but also cost a lot of money protecting their own bottom line. All while the right complains and wants to gut programs the rich build a need for. Why do we not demand higher wages to save money? It would, instead of looking at families and asking them to starve their kids. Or even looking at the elderly and disabled and telling them to skip medication they need.
Compassion vs. greed, I know where I stand.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Dec 16, 2017 19:20:07 GMT -7
You pointed that I said mandatory when I mean total. I have a life, do you? 3 kids and a wife and a weekend spells all kinds of distractions. Your always looking for an argument, I should know this about you already and learn not to respond to you. I pointed out that you said mandatory when you wrote mandatory. You failed to correct yourself even when your misstatement and contradiction were shown. And I pointed out the problem and why it happened. I will not go down this rat hole with you.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Dec 16, 2017 19:00:49 GMT -7
That's a typical right wing talking point I have heard for years. So because the smart people in society see that the working class is being bent over while the rich sit at desks with a smile and collect money on the back of the working, the right gives breaks and suggests the poor pay more if they don't like it. All while bowing to their corporate overlords. That ideology has worked so well. ThaTrump and his party for the end of the free web as wellnk . I suppose if we don't like it, we can start our own internet companies.... But wait.... I'm sure there are regulations that prevent that as that would hurt the corporate overlords.The top 1% of income earners pay over 50% of the taxes while the bottom 48% pay nothing. As for the Trump administration's FCC, they simply tossed out an Obama administration 2015 regulation that that hampered the freedom of the internet in this country. They gave it back to the citizens rather than continue to regulate innovation. The incoming breaks prove you wrong. How can the top pay as much as you say when they hide their money to avoid taxes? Something even your Trump admits doing. Hampered the freedom of the internet? Freedom for who? Or do you mean the freedom for Verizon to block P2P traffic like they done before? Or the freedom for Comcast to slow streaming ike they have done before? Oh right, you right wingers looking out for corporate interests all the time. Enjoy when your own internet company starts doing bad things to you and remember it's all in the name of freedom.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Dec 16, 2017 18:56:46 GMT -7
I pointed out none of your distractions. I did point out that you made so many misstatements and contradictions, this last one of yours is equally flaky. More than likely that is the exactly the reason why you no longer post on forums. Do your basic research and make credible claims. You'll find forums much more fun and educational. BTW, nothing I've posted is right wing. You pointed that I said mandatory when I mean total. I have a life, do you? 3 kids and a wife and a weekend spells all kinds of distractions. Your always looking for an argument, I should know this about you already and learn not to respond to you.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Dec 16, 2017 7:41:12 GMT -7
Thank you so much and because I don't sit on a forum and spend my life doing such things and my mind is many times other places, you point out my distractions.
Exactly why I no longer post on forums because of right wing folks like you.
Now, I got a life to get back to. Toodles
|
|
|
Post by osha on Dec 15, 2017 21:41:39 GMT -7
Really matters not. We are broke and about to be more broke. Don't matter terminology or what I or you say, we are broke.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Dec 15, 2017 19:00:56 GMT -7
It accounts for 25% of all spending. And again, it don't count and I don't care. They should have fixed the problem ages ago and kept their hands out the pot.
|
|
|
Post by osha on Dec 15, 2017 17:33:29 GMT -7
Social Security accounts for 25% of mandatory spending. But people pay into Social Security so we can scratch that as people paid in to get that money. Medicare is a pay to play came and again, people paid into it so it is owed.
Then if you look at what is left, military and non defense spending is pretty close and war will tip that scale.
It's really not my fault or do I care that the government could not manage programs right. The money they spend on S.S would be a lot easier if they would have kept their hands out the pot.
So yes, military spending is out of control while we always look for cuts on the back of the poor and elderly, the government created the problem and now they want to expand on the problem by cutting taxes for the rich.
Oh well, to each their own.
|
|