2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won't go up

[timesjoke]

lol, just like your talk, talk, talk.

You got some sugar in your gastank RO? I swear you chat like a schoolgirl about nothing at all.

By the way, it is arrogant to think only you can read and I must be relying on you to offer me "talking points". I do read what you offer and sometimes it offers me something new but most of what you post I have seen from thrity or more places or directly from the books they are taken from, your not as original as you like to think you are.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

lol, just like your talk, talk, talk.
You got some sugar in your gastank RO? I swear you chat like a schoolgirl about nothing at all.

By the way, it is arrogant to think only you can read and I must be relying on you to offer me "talking points". I do read what you offer and sometimes it offers me something new but most of what you post I have seen from thrity or more places or directly from the books they are taken from, your not as original as you like to think you are.

Ohhh... like you post anything short of stagnant air.

 

[phreakwars]

Hey, I'll at least give R.O. the credit for being a free thinker and admitting the flaws of the party he likes the most. TJ, your ranting on your usual mindless authoritarian rant about me not wanting to admit this or that about Obama, Jesus, do you want a comprehensive fukking rundown of things I have listed in the past. For one, he's a *****, he plays too *** **** nice with people, he tries to *** **** hard to please people, he doesn't have the ***** to be straight forward and say "hey, we NEED to tax more because of this and this and this". That's fukking reality. Taxes are a *****, but we can't solve America's problems with tax cuts, your buddy Bush 1 soon found that out with his bullshiit promises of "READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES"

Are we gonna get lied to by people seeking office... yep, it's pretty much something you can guarentee. So what gives with voting for the "MESSIAH"

Ain't nothing to do with guilt, or entitlement, or promises... it was about VISION.

Can you HONESTLY say McCain had any vision for our futures? ****, if the old fart would of actually had one, I would have voted for him. The ONLY Republican that DID have a vision was Ron Paul who would have EASILY had my vote over anything the Democrats were offering.

So, yep, that's why the Negro got my vote that you wanna put those authoritarian buzz words of "LIBERAL, SOCIALIST, MARXIST" on me for.

Fukking sore loser with no vision is all you are.

Furthermore. You say:

The general welfare......well I have read a lot of papers on this subject from historians and political science professors but your asking me what "I" believe it means so I will give you my purely honest answer.........
It means what it says......."general" welfare. What is general? To me general is to set the stage for prosperity and freedom. General is not specific or individual in my opinion, it is more of a basic concept. An example would be roads, roads ensure general welfare by making travel of goods and people safer and faster and benefit everyone on the whole.

So, do you think the GENERAL WELFARE of citizens were on the mind of lawmakers who came up with the VERY SOCIALIST Social Security system, or the VERY SOCIALIST Medicaid system?(which BTW Republicans were against both) Or was this just a plan to "enslave us under government control"?
Spare me your authoritarian rhetoric of socialism. These systems were designed to do just like section 8 of our Constitution granted congress the authority to do. Collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the citizens of the United States.

.

.

 

[ImWithStupid]

So, do you think the GENERAL WELFARE of citizens were on the mind of lawmakers who came up with the VERY SOCIALIST Social Security system, or the VERY SOCIALIST Medicaid system?(which BTW Republicans were against both) Or was this just a plan to "enslave us under government control"?

Spare me your authoritarian rhetoric of socialism. These systems were designed to do just like section 8 of our Constitution granted congress the authority to do. Collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the citizens of the United States.

.

.

Actually, Medicare wouldn't have passed under LBJ if it weren't for the Republicans, and Social Security was supposed to be temporary and was only supposed to be insurance in case you didn't save enough for retirement and was only supposed to go to those who contributed.

Had it stayed that way I would have been alright with SSI, but when it allowed people to draw from it that didn't contribute and people decided it was a retirement plan and became a complete entitlement is when it went to ****.

Personally, I'd gladly give up Social Security and Medicare if they gave me back what I've paid in, didn't have to pay in any more, and could invest that money, myself.

Just my opinion.

 

[phreakwars]

Actually, Medicare wouldn't have passed under LBJ if it weren't for the Republicans.
Personally, I'd gladly give up Social Security and Medicare if they gave me back what I've paid in, didn't have to pay in any more, and could invest that money, myself.

Just my opinion.

How noble of you... here's the reality... if you DID get all that money back, it wouldn't even be anywhere close to what the government gives you in benefits when you retire. Don't believe me... next time you get your socialist security statement, add up all the money you paid into the system over the years, then look at your estimated monthly benefit amount and figure out how long that money you paid in would last you if that was all you were gonna get back. A couple years worth at most.
The most common rebuttal for that is usually "WELL, I COULD HAVE INVESTED THAT MONEY AND MADE MYSELF RICH"

Oh REALLY? The Republicans had the very stupid idea (that was thankfully thwarted) of wanting to dump our social security into the stock markets. We all know what happened there, don't try and fool yourself and think you could have thwarted that market crash and saved your own retirement funds. That's just VERY wishful thinking.

The system set in place now sustains the retired in a very decent way... although not perfect, it still provides those who are too elderly to work with the "GENERAL WELFARE" they need to survive in America.

.

.

 

[ImWithStupid]

How noble of you... here's the reality... if you DID get all that money back, it wouldn't even be anywhere close to what the government gives you in benefits when you retire. Don't believe me... next time you get your socialist security statement, add up all the money you paid into the system over the years, then look at your estimated monthly benefit amount and figure out how long that money you paid in would last you if that was all you were gonna get back. A couple years worth at most. .

I know it isn't as much as you put in. That's the problem. It goes to people who don't put in anything at all.

You're taking a figure off of just what is contributed. That's wrongful thinking in this matter.

You have to take into consideration investment returns and compounding interest. Neither of which you get with SSI.

Social Security was conceived as a pure Ponzi scheme. Contributions collected were immediately paid out to beneficiaries. That worked adequately back in the 1930s when payouts started at age 65 and life expectancy was 67. Over the years life expectancy has risen to 78 and substantial payouts have been added for surviving dependent children and other welfare functions. One substantial reform was initiated under Reagan, in which a trust fund was added to help cover the withdrawals of retiring baby boomers.

The trust fund is invested entirely in government bonds, which means that Social Security contributions have been funding the debt load. We know that most Social Security contributions are paid out without being invested, but it?s still interesting to see what would happen if the contributions were all invested in either government bonds or the stock market.

With the market having crashed last year, some say that should put an end to the notion that the risky stock market might be a viable alternative to safe bonds.

I have been contributing to Social Security since 1964. Like everyone, I received a year-by-year accounting of the my contributions from the Social Security Administration, so I put the data into a spreadsheet to see theoretically how alternatives might have fared. I found on the internet the ten-year Treasury Bill rates and the gains and losses of the S&P 500. The S&P 500 is a broader-based index than the Dow Jones Industrial Average, so I took it as a more stable investment.

My method in building the spread sheet was to begin each year with the balance from the previous year, adjust the balance with investment gains or losses, and finally add the contributions for the year. I included both my contributions and my employer?s contributions, but only the Social Security part, not the Medicare contribution

The stock market provided more excitement than Treasury Bills. The $216K in contributions grew steadily to be worth $613K at the start of 2009. The stock investments lost a heart-stopping plunge from $1,740K last year, but nonetheless still had $1,093 at year end. So despite the worst market year in the 45 year period, the stock investment was still 78% ahead of Treasuries.

View attachment 2457

In the past the market declined in eight of the 45 years, but never more than two years in a row. As investment firms are fond of saying, that is no guarantee of future performance. Nonetheless, from the viewpoint of pure statistics it?s likely to recover considerably more than T-bills over the next few years.

One implication is that if a portion of my Social Security contributions were invested in the stock market, say 25%, all of the welfare payments could have been made and my retirement benefits might have nearly doubled. And that?s true despite the biggest market sell-off in 45 years.

FactsPlusLogic: Suppose Social Security contributions were invested

The most common rebuttal for that is usually "WELL, I COULD HAVE INVESTED THAT MONEY AND MADE MYSELF RICH".

I never said that.

Oh REALLY? The Republicans had the very stupid idea (that was thankfully thwarted) of wanting to dump our social security into the stock markets. We all know what happened there, don't try and fool yourself and think you could have thwarted that market crash and saved your own retirement funds. That's just VERY wishful thinking. .

Actually, the plan was to allow people to invest a "portion" not all of their contribution themselves. Giving themselves some control of their money.

As far as the "market crash", I have a long time till retirement. Most of the loss anyone who wasn't stupid enough to panic and sell their investments has had, was a paper loss.

The economy will come back eventually and that money will be recouped, so yea I would much rather of had my SSI money invested.

The system set in place now sustains the retired in a very decent way... although not perfect, it still provides those who are too elderly to work with the "GENERAL WELFARE" they need to survive in America. .

.

That's the most laughable statement I've read in a long time.

You realize that Social Security alone is almost $7 trillion in debt of unfunded liabilities.

Sustains. It can't be sustained. It's exactly the same Ponzi scheme that Bernie Madoff pulled. Wait no, I take that back. SSI, and Medicare are worse. Madoff wasn't making divident payments to people who didn't invest in the system like SSI and Medicare does.

 

[phreakwars]

Sure it's a ponzi scheme, but it does pay off. Sustainable, probably not, we'll all be screwed someday anyway, until then, it IS the system we use to care for the elderly who would be dead on the streets without it. But, bet you couldn't come up with any other way to go about it without it ALSO being a socialist system.

What was the prediction, wasn't it like by 2050 we would have no more socialist security? Sure, it's easy to ***** about... but then... what can you do? The system was intended for the "GENERAL WELFARE" of people, it wasn't intended to make anyone rich.

And like I said, it's WAY too easy to think to yourself or find a bunch of charts on the internet that say you could have made more here or here or if you did this or that, but that just isn't an option for alot of people. Of course TJ will chime in about people needing to educate themselves, get better jobs, blah blah blah, but what about people like farmers? Or dairy producers? And a whole list of jobs that people do because it's the family business?

Try that stupid line about educating yourself and being in your own world of shiit on a 50 year old dairy farmer who has spent his life running the family business that's been around for generations, who did make a decent living, but now has to watch his entire empire collapse under dairy prices. You'll more then likely get punched right in the mouth for your retardation and arrogance.

There are way too many examples of situations like this to list, it's not all about the capability's, effort, and income of the McDonalds minimum wage worker.

There are many people who work very hard all their life for a decent wage that find themselves in a situation where investing money is not an option for them. You can't turn your back on these people and say, "you didn't chip in on all the capitalism, tough luck, now suffer"

Socialist Security isn't perfect, but it at least it helps those who put money into the system sustain themselves.... Sure it also pays those who DIDN'T put any in, but NOT THAT **** MUCH.

Take my uncle for instance. He has mental problems... kinda senile... ****** has pretty much lived with mamma all his life and mooched off everyone else, he worked some jobs, but hasn't built up any real SS benefits. He sure as **** isn't eligible for much in benefits in his SS. His estimated payments for a retirement at 65... About $340

Oh, I'm sure he'll end up in a nursing home somewhere and us taxpayers will have to support him, but then, if he didn't, he sure as **** wouldn't be able to live off that measly amount.

But ****, what do you do with people like that? He CAN'T work, his mind is too gone, has been for years. He's only 51 and has many years to go before retirement age. He can't handle money, he has to be told to bathe, people like him are a HUGE problem. The LOGICAL thing to do would be to take people like that out back and put a bullet in their skulls and do away with the burden. But this is America.... the HUMANE thing to do, is to AT LEAST look out for his general welfare. Yeah, it costs us tax payer money, call it socialism if it helps you sleep better, but it's what we MUST do and are obligated to do for our citizens.

.

.

 

[ImWithStupid]

I understand that there are people out there like your uncle, but that's why we have disability (which needs to be fixed also. I swear they approve every sheister who could work if they want to and have no problem climbing up on a bar stool, but people who genuinely need it have to fight forever to get on or are denied, but that's a different issue) but I was referring to me.

The plan that Bush had was not only allowing people like me to have control over a portion of my SSI investment, but if you didn't want to do it, you could just stay in the regular SSI plan. People weren't going to be forced into the partial privatization plan.

The only reason they won't allow people who want to invest their own money in a personal account style of mandatory retirement, is that there would be that many fewer people supporting those who didn't contribute.

 

[timesjoke]

Hey, I'll at least give R.O. the credit for being a free thinker and admitting the flaws of the party he likes the most.

I like RO, and agree he is a free thinker. my point before was his claim that I did not have the same ability to read as he does, pretty arogant to assume something likk that, but he is angry so I forgive him.

TJ, your ranting on your usual mindless authoritarian rant about me not wanting to admit this or that about Obama, Jesus, do you want a comprehensive fukking rundown of things I have listed in the past. For one, he's a *****, he plays too *** **** nice with people, he tries to *** **** hard to please people, he doesn't have the ***** to be straight forward and say "hey, we NEED to tax more because of this and this and this". That's fukking reality. Taxes are a *****, but we can't solve America's problems with tax cuts, your buddy Bush 1 soon found that out with his bullshiit promises of "READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES"

So you believe he should break more promises?

Do you liberals even know what integrity is?

Are we gonna get lied to by people seeking office... yep, it's pretty much something you can guarentee. So what gives with voting for the "MESSIAH"

You were the one captivated with him, not me Bender, you explain to me why he is so godlike to you you can't admit he is breaking his promises?

Ain't nothing to do with guilt, or entitlement, or promises... it was about VISION.

And where did the vision come from Bender? Your finally on the right track so let's run down it a little.

We as a Nation base our vision on his promises of what he will do. When Obama breaks most of his promises, he breaks the vision.

It is called bait and switch.

Can you HONESTLY say McCain had any vision for our futures? ****, if the old fart would of actually had one, I would have voted for him. The ONLY Republican that DID have a vision was Ron Paul who would have EASILY had my vote over anything the Democrats were offering.

McCain at least did not want socialist programs Bender. I don't want "change" for the sake of change, If we can't get improvement I will take no increased harm as an alternative.

I knew Obama was telling lies, I predicted he would do exactly as he is doing now long before he was elected. I knew all the pretty words about working with the other side and transparancy was impossible for a guy like him, but so many people swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.....

So, yep, that's why the Negro got my vote that you wanna put those authoritarian buzz words of "LIBERAL, SOCIALIST, MARXIST" on me for.

No, I call you liberal and socialist because you support their ideas. I judge you based on your words of support for transforming America into a daycare Nation and your desire to ignore the constitution.

Fukking sore loser with no vision is all you are.

Blind follower of socialist agendas is all you are, that is why you cannot say your messiah has broken his word over and over again, it would be too great a crime for you to speak poorly of the great one. If Obama has broken his word it must be for the best, so you will accept that behavior as his will that is above normal standards of human behaviors.

So, do you think the GENERAL WELFARE of citizens were on the mind of lawmakers who came up with the VERY SOCIALIST Social Security system, or the VERY SOCIALIST Medicaid system?(which BTW Republicans were against both) Or was this just a plan to "enslave us under government control"?

Spare me your authoritarian rhetoric of socialism. These systems were designed to do just like section 8 of our Constitution granted congress the authority to do. Collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the citizens of the United States.

IWS did a pretty good job of covering the concepts so I will go back to my personal feelings on the matter.

Eliminate all welfare programs, we can't afford them and the Federal Government should not be in the business of playing Robin Hood. Each of us do not just pop into existence, we have family and friends as well as community and churches who will take care of those who truly need help.

If your so bad your own family will not support you and your friends will not support you, I guess you reap what you sew and your going to die because of it.

There is no gurantee of equal results, just equal opportunity.

The more Government tries to force equal results, the less equal they will make everyone. The Government is not capable of fixing lives.

 

[phreakwars]

The government is not obligated to fix lives, the government is obligated to do just as the Constitution says in section 8. Promote the general welfare of the citizens. You wanna label that socialism. Don't like it, take it up with our founding fathers. I don't support socialist ideas, I support ideas that do just as section 8 calls for.

And again, not any vision in the Republican party, with the exception of Ron Paul.

The talk now a days is who is the leader of the Republican party... My question is, why are people overlooking Ron Paul and focusing on an Entertainer like Rush? If he (Ron Paul) ran against Obama in 2012, I'd vote for him, not Obama. Would you STILL label me a socialist?

.

.

 

[ImWithStupid]

The government is not obligated to fix lives, the government is obligated to do just as the Constitution says in section 8. Promote the general welfare of the citizens. You wanna label that socialism. Don't like it, take it up with our founding fathers. I don't support socialist ideas, I support ideas that do just as section 8 calls for.

Promote the general welfare of the "nation". The broad view of the "General Welfare Clause" as it is currently based on Hamilton's definition, is flawed. Hamilton is not only iln the minority, but was absent from the Constitutional Convention when it was debated and crafted.

So if we were to take it up with the founding fathers, the majority wouldn't be on your side.

Also, it's Article I, Section 8, but that's not important. Joe Biden couldn't get that stuff right in the VP debate either.

And again, not any vision in the Republican party, with the exception of Ron Paul.
The talk now a days is who is the leader of the Republican party... My question is, why are people overlooking Ron Paul and focusing on an Entertainer like Rush? If he (Ron Paul) ran against Obama in 2012, I'd vote for him, not Obama. Would you STILL label me a socialist?

.

.

OK. I gotta ask, because you have had to have seen me wonder how your kind of creature could even exist.

Ron Paul and Barack Obama are exact opposites. Ron Paul wants to go back to the way the Federal Government was in 1787 and Barack Obama wants to go back to the way Russia was in 1917.

It is perplexing how someone can say they would have been for Thomas Jefferson but Vladamir Lenin was the only one on the ballot that he liked.

As for Rush, the only ones focusing on Rush as a candidate in 2012, is the White House and the John Podesta/Mayor Daly Chicago Way Mafia.

Just the same old Obama tactics, straight out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

 

[phreakwars]

Barack Obama wants to go back to the way Russia was in 1917.

Nice FEAR MONGERING there. You know *** **** well that's not even close to accurate. It's just the way you want to portray him (of course, your an authoritarian thinker as well, gotta throw out those buzz words and post those political cartoons, don't ya). And again, I don't support socialism, I support ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8, there happy now
And it just goes to show ya, if I can be supportive of Ron Paul, who in your words, is an opposite of Obama, then evidently I support visionary concepts, not party lines.

I voted for Bob Dole, And George Bush (his was a campaign promise of change as well, do you remember that?) the first time, I'm not a captive to political posturing like you are. You know very well yourself from our local boards the MANY MANY times I have praised and endorsed Ron Paul during the campaigning.

Evidently, if I don't like the old guy with the completely undeniable dip shiit dingbat for a VP running mate, and no vision for our future, and vote for the negro, I'm now a socialist.

.

.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Nice FEAR MONGERING there. You know *** **** well that's not even close to accurate. It's just the way you want to portray him (of course, your an authoritarian thinker as well, gotta throw out those buzz words and post those political cartoons, don't ya). And again, I don't support socialism, I support ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8, there happy now
And it just goes to show ya, if I can be supportive of Ron Paul, who in your words, is an opposite of Obama, then evidently I support visionary concepts, not party lines.

I voted for Bob Dole, And George Bush (his was a campaign promise of change as well, do you remember that?) the first time, I'm not a captive to political posturing like you are. You know very well yourself from our local boards the MANY MANY times I have praised and endorsed Ron Paul during the campaigning.

Evidently, if I don't like the old guy with the completely undeniable dip shiit dingbat for a VP running mate, and no vision for our future, and vote for the negro, I'm now a socialist.

.

.

No fear mongering here. I'm just showing the difference between Ron Paul and Barack Obama in terms even you could understand because we've established that you don't understand the difference between, capitalism, socialism and fascism.

No, if you can be supportive of both Ron Paul and Barack Obama, it just proves you have absolutely zero grasp of politics and economics which leaves you as a bandwagon jumper.

 

[phreakwars]

And what is this grasp that I am lacking? Why should I subscribe to Capitalist views and be opposed to socialist views? Because that's what each party thinks is best? Whatever happened to the concept of doing what's best for the citizens?

.

.

 

[timesjoke]

Bender, your supportive of erasing insurance companies, taking over private companies like GM, you want Obama to break all his promises and enact purely socialist ideas, how can you at the same time say you would support Ron Paul who would not do any of those things and is one of the biggest "complainers" against the things Obama is currently doing?

Are you an anarchist?

Radical change for the sake of change without direction?

Why should you support things like Capitalist views? Well you say your starting your own business, your looking like a Capitalist to me. Why not support other people to make the same move your making? Make it easier to create a new business instead of harder? Reduce penalties for hiring people instead of increasing them? Reduce overhead instead of increasing it? Reward those who get off their behinds and work instead of rewarding only the lazy?

 

[phreakwars]

Jesus, how many times do I have to say it. VISION. It's all about vision.

You take one path, and it puts you in a deep hole, do you keep taking that path or do you try another route even though the nay sayers are saying that route is even worse. I have to ask, how do the naysayers know, they have never taken that route. They don't know, all they have is a worn, tired argument about a political structure half way around the world over half a century old that they try to compare the new path with, and fall flat on their face.

That certainly is no visionary outlook for our futures. That's the usual fear and paranoia chicken little mentality.

.

.

 

[ImWithStupid]

.

 

[phreakwars]

Oh look, another authoritarian mindset cartoon. And an inaccurate one at that. Obama hasn't taxed ANYBODY yet except smokers. But I guess it's always good to give a perception that it's already happened or gonna happen, it keeps the fear and paranoia chicken littles happy.

If he was gonna flip flop on a campaign promise relating to taxes, he'd go back on taxing the rich more like he promised he was going to.

.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Oh look, another authoritarian mindset cartoon. And an inaccurate one at that. Obama hasn't taxed ANYBODY yet except smokers. But I guess it's always good to give a perception that it's already happened or gonna happen, it keeps the fear and paranoia chicken littles happy.
If he was gonna flip flop on a campaign promise relating to taxes, he'd go back on taxing the rich more like he promised he was going to.

 

[phreakwars]

Instead of posting the " " icon, how about proving me wrong and give me a nice list of taxes Obama has raised.

.

.