Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Brighton, MI

#200 Jan 7, 2013
Let's hear the howls of limited liability voters as the two week pay checks come out. Then Obamacare will sneak in later.... Should be fun to watch......
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#201 Jan 7, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
Hi SIB:
When following the link I didn't see anything that said "What People Say about Social Security" but I found the one titled "The Truth About Social Security." Unfortunately it didn't tell much of the truth. If you have a chance you should read the trustee report on SS.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2012/in...
When SS was first established the age it used to determine when benefits began was set at 10+ years past the average life expectancy. The goal of the program was that more than 1/2 the people who paid into the system wouldn't live long enough to collect. If we made that change today the starting age would be in the mid 70's and would increase every year so that people being born today wouldn't be eligible until their late 80's or early 90's.
The real truth is that in net-present-value terms, Social Security owes $11.3 trillion more in benefits than it will receive in taxes. Your article said "As was stated earlier, Social Security taxes typically bring in more revenue than needs to be paid out" which was true when the article was written but hasn't been true since 2010 and won't be true again (or at least in our lifetime).
This 2012 number consists of $2.7 trillion to repay the special-issue bonds in the trust fund and $6.5 trillion to pay benefits after the trust fund is exhausted in 2033. This is an increase of $2.2 trillion from last yearís report. This is the largest one-year drop in the programís finances since 1994.
Congress would have to invest $11.3 trillion today in order to have enough money to pay all of Social Securityís promised benefits through 2086. This money would be in addition to what Social Security receives during those years from its payroll taxes.
The trustees reportís perpetual projection extends beyond the usual 75-year planning horizon. The perpetual projection is $20.5 trillion, including money necessary to repay bonds in the trust fund. Last yearís number was $17.9 trillion.
This means that Social Securityís deficit after 2086 is $9.2 trillion. These projections show that the programís total deficit continues to grow well beyond the 75-year projection period. For that reason, a successful reform would need to eliminate the deficits over the 75-year window and address those that come after that period.
BTW, the existence of a trust fund does not make Social Security healthy. Although those assets are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States, the bonds it contains must be repaid using general revenue that would otherwise go to other programs. Similarly, the interest that Social Security receives on existing trust fund balances is not spendable income. It merely inflates the numbers in the trust fund and increases the amount that Social Security will eventually receive from general revenue. The only part that counts today is the cash that Social Security receives from the Treasury to cover its annual operating losses.
And contrary to some raising payroll taxes by about 2.7 percent (the average percentage difference between revenues and outlays over the 75-year period) would not solve Social Securityís problems. The reality is that the programís future deficits are projected to be both large and growing, so this tax increase would still leave a huge shortfall.
I see nowhere where the Trustees say Social Security does or ever has contributed to the national debt.

Only a contrived convoluted explanation would make it seem like it has. But still it would be false conjecture.
Unless you are willing to inform me what page in the report says otherwise I have no desire to rifle through 252 pages to find it because I know it a false argument.

Yes it was a mistake to lower the payroll taxes causing another unnecessary deficit in the Fund but I do understand why it was done.

Where I was talking about is easily enough found. It's a little over half way down. The date being Friday, March 11, 2011...in green.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Highland, MI

#202 Jan 7, 2013
Welfare cards being used at strip clubs still. Is that why I send so much to Washington?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#203 Jan 7, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
Welfare cards being used at strip clubs still. Is that why I send so much to Washington?
Well if it bothers you that much why are you using your Bridge Card at strip clubs? How else would you find out... I know. You're doing important investigation on corruption. Ya. That's it.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Mount Morris, MI

#204 Jan 7, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if it bothers you that much why are you using your Bridge Card at strip clubs? How else would you find out... I know. You're doing important investigation on corruption. Ya. That's it.
OOOOHHHH! The facts in New York tell a different story..... Done a lot of investigations over the years and the sources used are not wrong..... Seems you got stung by the news......
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#205 Jan 7, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>OOOOHHHH! The facts in New York tell a different story..... Done a lot of investigations over the years and the sources used are not wrong..... Seems you got stung by the news......
No, that's not it. You know far more about Bridge Cards than I do. For real. I know very little about them.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Mount Morris, MI

#206 Jan 7, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's not it. You know far more about Bridge Cards than I do. For real. I know very little about them.
Because I am a part of the 50% who pays taxes, I care where the money goes... Now last week, the State announced that 85,000 cards did not get "reloaded for the day". Then they said that represented 1/10 of all cards in Michigan. Now, go stand in line at a food store and watch how many are using them.... That is our money, those that are paying.....
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#207 Jan 7, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>Because I am a part of the 50% who pays taxes, I care where the money goes... Now last week, the State announced that 85,000 cards did not get "reloaded for the day". Then they said that represented 1/10 of all cards in Michigan. Now, go stand in line at a food store and watch how many are using them.... That is our money, those that are paying.....
Ya, I saw that on the news. Mind boggling. What would be interesting is to know how many that are on them that have no other choice other than to starve and the ones just sucking off the system.

In every system there are those that will abuse it and all the ones using it legitimately get lumped into being the "takers" along with the actual takers.
TimeOut

Grand Rapids, MI

#209 Jan 8, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya, I saw that on the news. Mind boggling. What would be interesting is to know how many that are on them that have no other choice other than to starve and the ones just sucking off the system.
In every system there are those that will abuse it and all the ones using it legitimately get lumped into being the "takers" along with the actual takers.
That has always been my thought on the giveaways via taxpayer dollars. If a system can be developed to pass out say Bridge Cards, it stands to reason one can be developed to track their "effectiveness", usage and abuse.

It's not that Americans aren't willing to help their fellow countrymen. Just look at the overwhelming charity heaped upon Newtown after the shootings. That city had to literally turn gifts away! America is the most charitable nation and people on Earth.

I have no problem donating to a need, especially if children or animals are involved. But if our government is going to FORCE charity from it's citizens I don't think it's asking too much that it be tracked for effectiveness. Instead what we get is concerns that these giveaways on the taxpayers' dime are simply campaign payoffs for votes and to further a political agenda. That may not actually be the case, but you cannot blame people for at least questioning it when the government doesn't provide a means to track these expensive giveaways' effectiveness.

All most people want to know is whether the money being taken from their taxes is going to a legitimate need or not. There should be a better process to track that.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#211 Jan 8, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
I see nowhere where the Trustees say Social Security does or ever has contributed to the national debt.
Only a contrived convoluted explanation would make it seem like it has. But still it would be false conjecture.
Unless you are willing to inform me what page in the report says otherwise I have no desire to rifle through 252 pages to find it because I know it a false argument.
Yes it was a mistake to lower the payroll taxes causing another unnecessary deficit in the Fund but I do understand why it was done.
Where I was talking about is easily enough found. It's a little over half way down. The date being Friday, March 11, 2011...in green.
Second paragraph of the conclusion:
"The Trustees project that the OASI Trust Fund and the DI Trust Fund will have sufficient assets to pay full benefits on time until 2035 and 2016, respectively. Legislative action is needed as soon as possible to prevent exhaustion of the DI Trust Fund."

Since the DI fund goes underwater in 4 years, do you think all the people getting DI will just die off or that no one will ever need it again so we can just shut it down? Or do you think we'll neeed to continue it and thus borrow money to fund it? Same with the base fund that goes underwater in 2035. Have we told all those who folks born after 1970 that they will never get SS? Or will we have to borrow money to fund that?

In four years we will need roughly $20 Billion to pay out disability, and then billions more each year after that. By 2036 we'll need trillions to pay out the basic benefits. Right now we spend more than we take in as a country, with no sign of that changing, so unless our country changes drastically, both of these funds will shortly be contributing to the national debt.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#212 Jan 9, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Second paragraph of the conclusion:
"The Trustees project that the OASI Trust Fund and the DI Trust Fund will have sufficient assets to pay full benefits on time until 2035 and 2016, respectively. Legislative action is needed as soon as possible to prevent exhaustion of the DI Trust Fund."
Since the DI fund goes underwater in 4 years, do you think all the people getting DI will just die off or that no one will ever need it again so we can just shut it down? Or do you think we'll neeed to continue it and thus borrow money to fund it? Same with the base fund that goes underwater in 2035. Have we told all those who folks born after 1970 that they will never get SS? Or will we have to borrow money to fund that?
In four years we will need roughly $20 Billion to pay out disability, and then billions more each year after that. By 2036 we'll need trillions to pay out the basic benefits. Right now we spend more than we take in as a country, with no sign of that changing, so unless our country changes drastically, both of these funds will shortly be contributing to the national debt.
Okay so what's your solution?

My point has been from the beginning that it's a fact Social Security is not and has not been a contributor to the national debt. Unlike the conservatives have been asserting it is and wanting to bankrupt it for it.

It was explained very clearly in the link. There is no plausible reason for misunderstanding it.

The Social Security Fund HAS BEEN used to pay on the national debt for a very long time now. It is a secured by law source of money used to borrow from to pay on debts not incurred by it. If anything the way the Social Security is wrongly added to the national debt is because those funds are required to be paid back. No rational person can factually explain it away that the cause of a debt is from the requirement to pay back what has been borrowed to pay toward other debts. Borrowing from one source to pay toward debt caused by other does not make it the cause original debt.

I remember this exact same ballyhoo way back in the 80s.

My kids have complained there will be no SS available to them come time they retire even though they have been paying into it. I said that's true unless you (they) allow it to by believing all the lies the right-wing has been feeding you (them) and allow them to eliminate the fund. It doesn't matter that both "parties" have been guilty of borrowing from the fund to pay on other debts. In all my years I haven't heard the right-wing make a stand that borrowing from the SSF needs to be halted and repaying to where it should be. They did fight fervently against Gore and other Democrats calling for a lock-box law for the SSF. Yes Paul Ryan also called for a lock-box policy but his was to privatize it in it's entirety. So extreme even Bush called it irresponsible.

Yes this country needs to change dramatically but it's not by amputating the left hand because we are right handed and never use the left to write with.

The simplest way to put this is; it's unconscionable to be blaming the Social Security Trust fund for being underfunded when it has been continuously borrowed from to pay on other debts not related to it.

It's like borrowing your kids money to pay your bills and then telling them if they were more responsible they would have enough money for what they need it for. And then continuing to "borrow" their money. Sound familiar?

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#213 Jan 9, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay so what's your solution?
My point has been from the beginning that it's a fact Social Security is not and has not been a contributor to the national debt. Unlike the conservatives have been asserting it is and wanting to bankrupt it for it.
It was explained very clearly in the link. There is no plausible reason for misunderstanding it.
The Social Security Fund HAS BEEN used to pay on the national debt for a very long time now. It is a secured by law source of money used to borrow from to pay on debts not incurred by it. If anything the way the Social Security is wrongly added to the national debt is because those funds are required to be paid back. No rational person can factually explain it away that the cause of a debt is from the requirement to pay back what has been borrowed to pay toward other debts. Borrowing from one source to pay toward debt caused by other does not make it the cause original debt.
I remember this exact same ballyhoo way back in the 80s.
My kids have complained there will be no SS available to them come time they retire even though they have been paying into it. I said that's true unless you (they) allow it to by believing all the lies the right-wing has been feeding you (them) and allow them to eliminate the fund. It doesn't matter that both "parties" have been guilty of borrowing from the fund to pay on other debts. In all my years I haven't heard the right-wing make a stand that borrowing from the SSF needs to be halted and repaying to where it should be. They did fight fervently against Gore and other Democrats calling for a lock-box law for the SSF. Yes Paul Ryan also called for a lock-box policy but his was to privatize it in it's entirety. So extreme even Bush called it irresponsible.
Yes this country needs to change dramatically but it's not by amputating the left hand because we are right handed and never use the left to write with.
The simplest way to put this is; it's unconscionable to be blaming the Social Security Trust fund for being underfunded when it has been continuously borrowed from to pay on other debts not related to it.
It's like borrowing your kids money to pay your bills and then telling them if they were more responsible they would have enough money for what they need it for. And then continuing to "borrow" their money. Sound familiar?
If you used generally accepted accounting principles for SS, then yes, it currently contributes to the deficit. But government has different accounting rules so under those rules it doesn't.

Fix is easy.
1) Fix the COLA so it provides the most accurate estimate of inflation.
2) Increase the retirement age. SS wasn't supposed to kick in until 10 years after the expected life span. So set it up so folks born before 1960 get it at 65. Born in the 60's get it at 75. Born in the 70's get it at 77. Born in the 80's get it at 80. Born in the 90's get it at 83. Born in 2000 get it at 85. Fewer people get it and they don't get it as long.
3)Focus benefits on lower-income workers by paying lower or even zero benefits to those with high levels of non-Social Security retirement income.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#214 Jan 9, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
If you used generally accepted accounting principles for SS, then yes, it currently contributes to the deficit. But government has different accounting rules so under those rules it doesn't.
Fix is easy.
1) Fix the COLA so it provides the most accurate estimate of inflation.
2) Increase the retirement age. SS wasn't supposed to kick in until 10 years after the expected life span. So set it up so folks born before 1960 get it at 65. Born in the 60's get it at 75. Born in the 70's get it at 77. Born in the 80's get it at 80. Born in the 90's get it at 83. Born in 2000 get it at 85. Fewer people get it and they don't get it as long.
3)Focus benefits on lower-income workers by paying lower or even zero benefits to those with high levels of non-Social Security retirement income.
So under general accepted accounting principles how does it contribute to the national debt?

Other than when borrowing from one sector to pay the debts of another and the borrowed money has to be repaid.

It would be interesting to know how fixing COLA so it reflects the most accurate estimate of inflation when COLA isn't allowed for until a year after the actual inflation rate has been experienced. I frankly don't know of anyone so good as to be able accurately estimate" the inflation rate for the up coming year.

As far as your increase in age eligibility I am in the age bracket where we have paid double the FICA, that Reagan put in place, to allow for the increased number of people expected to receive benefits. And after the last of the Baby Boomers died the rate was supposed to revert back to the original rate.

Gee, I wonder what happened to cause the SSF shortfall now projected.
Answer: "Apparently in 1983 Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan decided to double Social Security taxes, allegedly to balance the Social Security Trust Fund for future payments in the future, but then diverted (that is, stole) any excess tax payments and used them to run the government, replacing the money lost to tax cuts that Reagan had granted to the wealthiest of Americans. They then changed the Treasury Notes issued to the Trust Fund so that they were non-marketable, that is, unlike the Treasury Notes bought by individuals and banks, they were just IOU's on paper that could not be sold.(No, this is not a joke. It's all documented.) This practice continues to today."
http://www.cqs.com/community-alert/socialsecu...

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#215 Jan 10, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
So under general accepted accounting principles how does it contribute to the national debt?
Other than when borrowing from one sector to pay the debts of another and the borrowed money has to be repaid.
It would be interesting to know how fixing COLA so it reflects the most accurate estimate of inflation when COLA isn't allowed for until a year after the actual inflation rate has been experienced. I frankly don't know of anyone so good as to be able accurately estimate" the inflation rate for the up coming year.
As far as your increase in age eligibility I am in the age bracket where we have paid double the FICA, that Reagan put in place, to allow for the increased number of people expected to receive benefits. And after the last of the Baby Boomers died the rate was supposed to revert back to the original rate.
Gee, I wonder what happened to cause the SSF shortfall now projected.
Answer: "Apparently in 1983 Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan decided to double Social Security taxes, allegedly to balance the Social Security Trust Fund for future payments in the future, but then diverted (that is, stole) any excess tax payments and used them to run the government, replacing the money lost to tax cuts that Reagan had granted to the wealthiest of Americans. They then changed the Treasury Notes issued to the Trust Fund so that they were non-marketable, that is, unlike the Treasury Notes bought by individuals and banks, they were just IOU's on paper that could not be sold.(No, this is not a joke. It's all documented.) This practice continues to today."
http://www.cqs.com/community-alert/socialsecu...
You said it yourself, borrowing money from one sector to pay the debts of another and the borrowed money has to be repaid, with interest is why it currently contributes to the national debt. That just started but it gets worse every year.

As for as the COLA, it isn't about being able to predict better, it's about accuracy. Just as the current official unemployment measure doesn't accurately measure unemployment, the index that SS uses isn't as accurate as a "chained" index, which has been available since 1999 and measures inflation for about 87 percent of the workforce. This isn't a big thing but if someone asked how you would fix unemployment, fixing the measure would be one thing, but not the only or main thing.

I donít dispute what Reagan but I also donít remember Tip OíNeill fighting him on it. But if liberals were so upset about it, Clinton had 8 years to fix it, the Dís controlled the government recently and I donít think Obama will do anything about it in his two terms. As you said ďThis practice continues to today." So blaming the Rís for something both parties have been guilty of for 20+ years is being disingenuous. Given the SS is going to run out of money soon, if the amount had not increased it would be running out of money even sooner. So are you complaining that SS is lasting too long? You said ďAnd after the last of the Baby Boomers died the rate was supposed to revert back to the original rate.Ē The last of the Baby Boomers isnít going to die for another 40 years or so, and I donít know but I would expect that if that is the law that SS has factored that in to their calculations for 2060 and on.
Remember, FDRís original intent was that roughly 75% of those who paid into the system would not receive anything back, thatís why he set the beneficiary age at life expectancy +10. And remember that SS is not supposed to be a retirement fund. Itís supposed to be a small life preserver for the very old (which 65 isnít) who are very poor. If you put $100/month into a retirement account (which is less then one pays to SS) from 25-65, they would have over $600,000, a lot more than what SS would pay out.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#216 Jan 10, 2013
This has all been worn thread bare:
I would be much better that you understood I'm saying, backed by facts the Social Security Fund payouts have no basis in causing the national debt. Plain and simple. The national debt is not caused by the Social Security Trust Fund. So the arguments lawful benefits have to be decreased to offset the national debt is a ruse. A fabrication. An intended deceit. The solution is logical, rational and ethical to raise income taxes to pay back the national debt, including the money borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay on other obligations not related to Social Security.

Oh ya Tip O'Neil didn't fight it. Why? Because it served to secure the Social Security Trust Fund. Unlike the Teapublicans, actually the conservative stance from it's inception, to destroy it. Lets ignore Reagan, the current day Republican/Teapublican god, raised taxes 11 times. But oh no we can't raise taxes because look at what good Reagan did by lowering taxes. When he had to continually raise taxes to offset every time he lowered them. I went though the three recessions of the Reagan Presidency. Well two actually. The first he inherited. Oh wait. Did I just let Reagan "off the hook" by acknowledging he inherited a recession? I should retract it because the Teapublicans won't Obama inheriting a fiscal calamity. But lets lay waste to Obama saying we need to raise taxes to pay down the national debt because of what good Reagan did by lowering them. Oh ya, again, Reagan raised taxes ELEVEN times. Including the doubling of the Social Security tax. Of which we are STILL paying.

Lets forget about the two wars W. Bush started with countries that had nothing to do with the attack of 9/11. I said countries. Not radical factions from those countries. Of which none of the attackers were from Iraq. Why didn't we go to war with Saudi Arabia because most of the attackers were from there? Lets forget about even the Secretary of State Collin Powell saying he was duped into believing the wars were necessary. And lets today, after all the facts have come to light, minimize it by saying the Dems supported them.

We are the only industrialized nation ON THE PLANET that measures unemployment by the number of new applications and timed out recipients of unemployment benefits on balance instead of the actual number of unemployed.

And why can't Obama get anywhere? It has absolutely nothing to do with the obstructionist Teapublicans. Oh no. Oh I don't agree with every way Obama handles everything. He should have stuck to his guns and told the Teapublicans 'you don't want to do what's best for the country, we're going over the "fiscal cliff". Have a nice ride. There are simply just some who will learn NOTHING that doesn't hurt them more than just a band-aid will cover up.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Fenton, MI

#217 Jan 10, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
This has all been worn thread bare:
I would be much better that you understood I'm saying, backed by facts the Social Security Fund payouts have no basis in causing the national debt. Plain and simple. The national debt is not caused by the Social Security Trust Fund. So the arguments lawful benefits have to be decreased to offset the national debt is a ruse. A fabrication. An intended deceit. The solution is logical, rational and ethical to raise income taxes to pay back the national debt, including the money borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay on other obligations not related to Social Security.
Oh ya Tip O'Neil didn't fight it. Why? Because it served to secure the Social Security Trust Fund. Unlike the Teapublicans, actually the conservative stance from it's inception, to destroy it. Lets ignore Reagan, the current day Republican/Teapublican god, raised taxes 11 times. But oh no we can't raise taxes because look at what good Reagan did by lowering taxes. When he had to continually raise taxes to offset every time he lowered them. I went though the three recessions of the Reagan Presidency. Well two actually. The first he inherited. Oh wait. Did I just let Reagan "off the hook" by acknowledging he inherited a recession? I should retract it because the Teapublicans won't Obama inheriting a fiscal calamity. But lets lay waste to Obama saying we need to raise taxes to pay down the national debt because of what good Reagan did by lowering them. Oh ya, again, Reagan raised taxes ELEVEN times. Including the doubling of the Social Security tax. Of which we are STILL paying.
Lets forget about the two wars W. Bush started with countries that had nothing to do with the attack of 9/11. I said countries. Not radical factions from those countries. Of which none of the attackers were from Iraq. Why didn't we go to war with Saudi Arabia because most of the attackers were from there? Lets forget about even the Secretary of State Collin Powell saying he was duped into believing the wars were necessary. And lets today, after all the facts have come to light, minimize it by saying the Dems supported them.
We are the only industrialized nation ON THE PLANET that measures unemployment by the number of new applications and timed out recipients of unemployment benefits on balance instead of the actual number of unemployed.
And why can't Obama get anywhere? It has absolutely nothing to do with the obstructionist Teapublicans. Oh no. Oh I don't agree with every way Obama handles everything. He should have stuck to his guns and told the Teapublicans 'you don't want to do what's best for the country, we're going over the "fiscal cliff". Have a nice ride. There are simply just some who will learn NOTHING that doesn't hurt them more than just a band-aid will cover up.
And how do you benefit by Washington taxes. All I know is that half the Country will have less to survive on.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#218 Jan 10, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text> And how do you benefit by Washington taxes. All I know is that half the Country will have less to survive on.
What 50% will have less to survive on? You're not paying attention again Batch. Only 3% of the tax returns filed claimed incomes exceeding $200,000. That's 3% claiming $200,000 much less the $250,000 benchmarked by Obama. Remember that only the income above $250,000 would experience the tax rate prior to the 2001 Bush tax cut. Again, ONLY the amount of money OVER $250,000. Those making $250,000 and over would still be getting the lower tax rate on the first $250,000, and below. Also remember that that is still on the adjusted gross income.

According to Factcheck.org that 3% is actually 2%.

Only 2%, or 3%, will have less to spend. They will still have NO PROBLEM surviving on it. Will they have to make some adjustment in their lifestyle? Perhaps. I'll even say yes. But there can be a huge difference between "surviving on it" and having to make some spending adjustments. I mean you are okay with those who have the least having to lower their lifestyle but not those who are the haves and have more.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#219 Jan 10, 2013
Here's another way to look at it Batch; let's say Romney was correct in his 47% of the population pay no Federal Incomes taxes, because he was SO PROFOUNDLY wrong to say pay no (Federal) taxes...implicating none at all. That leaves 53% of the population left to pay those taxes. So if 3% of those make an adjusted gross income of $250,000 and below that leaves your (actual) 50% and they will have no change in their tax situation whatsoever. Thus no less to "survive on".

Why? Because everyone in the lower 97% earn less than $250,000 adjusted gross income.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Fenton, MI

#220 Jan 10, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
Here's another way to look at it Batch; let's say Romney was correct in his 47% of the population pay no Federal Incomes taxes, because he was SO PROFOUNDLY wrong to say pay no (Federal) taxes...implicating none at all. That leaves 53% of the population left to pay those taxes. So if 3% of those make an adjusted gross income of $250,000 and below that leaves your (actual) 50% and they will have no change in their tax situation whatsoever. Thus no less to "survive on".
Why? Because everyone in the lower 97% earn less than $250,000 adjusted gross income.
Just wait a few months. Hope you don't have grandkids. 27% are supporting this system. I have made changes to not be robbed any more. Seeing too much govt Santa Claus out there.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#221 Jan 10, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>Just wait a few months. Hope you don't have grandkids. 27% are supporting this system. I have made changes to not be robbed any more. Seeing too much govt Santa Claus out there.
Yes I do have grand-kids.

You've made the statement like it should be believed because you say it. Now show where it is 27% are supporting this system. And how.

Oh and exactly what system that would be? Because if you are talking about the system as-a-whole that is just Kilimanjaro sized hogwash.

Be precise if what you say is to be believed. Otherwise it's just one more conspiracy theory because the facts don't prove it out.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) 1 hr Go Blue Forever 1,473
Experience a historical Christmas in downtown G... 2 hr Who 37
3 reasons Grand Rapids-area Muslims want to ope... 3 hr tom_ 21
City of Pentecost Christmas program 4 hr COP OUTREACH 1
Put Tolls on Our Interstate Highways 7 hr Really 15
The curse of success - america 11 hr Idea Maker 2
Commission wants Servaas off bench (Feb '08) Tue Servaas is a clown 232
Grand Rapids Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:21 am PST

NBC Sports 8:21AM
PFT Live: Bears talk with John Mullin, Week 16 picks
NBC Sports 9:58 AM
Unnamed Bears "confused and uncomfortable" with benching Cutler
ESPN10:10 AM
Vegas reacts to Bears' benching of Cutler
ESPN10:10 AM
Vegas reacts to Bears' benching of Cutler
NBC Sports10:10 AM
Is Chicago protecting Cutler's trade value by benching him?