SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#222 Jan 10, 2013
Ya know Batch you just might want to try counting your blessings. I am absolutely positive there more under-performers out there that would just love to be doing better than they are, and would if they could, than there are those who are just sucking off the system. But hey, anybody will do better if they only work harder huh.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#223 Jan 10, 2013
I agree that up until 2010 SS had no impact on the debt. Now it is CONTRIBUTING to it, not CAUSING it as you state. It will continue to CONTRIBUTE to the national debt unless something is done to fix it.
I too went through the Reagan years. Also the Carter years and my income went way up under Reagan. Yes, both Reagan and Obama inherited a financial problem but Reagan didnt do anything to create the mess he inherited and while both are share some of the blame, the housing mess was caused by the Ds (going back to Carter) so they get more of the blame. More importantly Reagan did things to reverse course, Obama wants to increase the speed. You can sputter all you want, but weve been in a liberal recovery for over 3 years now. Ill take a Reagan recovery to an Obama recovery hands down.
The two wars that Bush started? Can you point to the vote in the house where all of the Dems, or even Pelosi and Reid voted not to fund Bushs wars? After all, we arent a dictatorship where he can just declare executive orders and go to war. So show me the Ds leadership voting against Bushs wars Oh, and Pelosi, Reid and Bush had the same info that Powell had. So why was Powell duped but not Bush? And if they were all duped, then why is it just Bushs fault but not the Ds?
The people in this country gave up doing whats best a long time ago, both as voters and as politicians. There are about 240 million adults in this country. Of those about 118 million voted so less than 1/2 the adults voted. 25.2% voted for Obama and 24% voted for Romney and 50.8% voted for who gives a rats rear. So, we have the government, the economy and the country that we the people voted for.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#224 Jan 10, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Here is a quick link since you aren't fond of actually looking through real data.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income...

The facts are simply that those making above $66K pay 87% of Federal income taxes even though they only represent the top 25% of income earners. And 1/2 of income earners only pay 2.25% of all Federal income taxes.

And if you want to dispute this, then let's go back to the IRS tables again and I can get really specific. Which won't help you at all.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#225 Jan 10, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a quick link since you aren't fond of actually looking through real data.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income...
The facts are simply that those making above $66K pay 87% of Federal income taxes even though they only represent the top 25% of income earners. And 1/2 of income earners only pay 2.25% of all Federal income taxes.
And if you want to dispute this, then let's go back to the IRS tables again and I can get really specific. Which won't help you at all.
National Tax Payers Union. Ya, real data. The National Tax payers Union is a right-wing activist organization that believes in and lobbies for lower taxes and smaller government on all levels. NTU president Duane Parde is the former Executive Director of ALEC, president of both the NTU and the NTUF. NTU is also a member of ALEC. No bias reporting of data there.

Again you have convoluted paying Federal Income Taxes with paying Federal taxes. Who pays more in income taxes is not disputed by me. It's also not disputed by me that Reagan took great pleasure in removing (even) those who don't currently pay Federal Income Taxes when he revamped the entire Federal Income Tax code.

So show me where the "data" is that discloses the combination of federal income taxes paid along with federal taxes paid and I'll just bet that 25% drops.

But then you aren't real fond of not casting a distraction over the original point.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#226 Jan 10, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
I agree that up until 2010 SS had no impact on the debt. Now it is CONTRIBUTING to it, not CAUSING it as you state. It will continue to CONTRIBUTE to the national debt unless something is done to fix it.
I too went through the Reagan years. Also the Carter years and my income went way up under Reagan. Yes, both Reagan and Obama inherited a financial problem but Reagan didnt do anything to create the mess he inherited and while both are share some of the blame, the housing mess was caused by the Ds (going back to Carter) so they get more of the blame. More importantly Reagan did things to reverse course, Obama wants to increase the speed. You can sputter all you want, but weve been in a liberal recovery for over 3 years now. Ill take a Reagan recovery to an Obama recovery hands down.
The two wars that Bush started? Can you point to the vote in the house where all of the Dems, or even Pelosi and Reid voted not to fund Bushs wars? After all, we arent a dictatorship where he can just declare executive orders and go to war. So show me the Ds leadership voting against Bushs wars Oh, and Pelosi, Reid and Bush had the same info that Powell had. So why was Powell duped but not Bush? And if they were all duped, then why is it just Bushs fault but not the Ds?
The people in this country gave up doing whats best a long time ago, both as voters and as politicians. There are about 240 million adults in this country. Of those about 118 million voted so less than 1/2 the adults voted. 25.2% voted for Obama and 24% voted for Romney and 50.8% voted for who gives a rats rear. So, we have the government, the economy and the country that we the people voted for.
So you explain to me how Social Security is contributing to the national debt leaving out that it (SSF) has been borrowed from to pay other debts and needs to be paid back. Because the Social Security payouts are not by law tied to the national debt.

"The BEA (Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) budget treatment of Social Security basically remains the law to the present day. Specifically, present law mandates that the two Social Security Trust Funds, and the operations of the Postal Service, are formally considered to be "off-budget" and no longer part of the unified federal budget.(The Medicare Trust Funds, by contrast, are once again part of the unified budget.) So where matters stand presently is that the transactions to the Social Security Trust Funds and the operations of the Postal Service are "off-budget" and everything else is "on-budget."

However, those involved in budget matters often produce two sets of numbers, one without Social Security included in the budget totals and one with Social Security included. Thus, Social Security is still frequently treated as though it were part of the unified federal budget even though, technically, it no longer is."
http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.ht...

I'd take the Reagan recovery too. He raised taxes to cause it every time. But then he didn't have the Teapublicans to deal with. And he certainly would not have been "accepted" in the modrn day Republican Party.

Here's Reagan's letters to Congress concerning Social Security:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/reaganstmts.html#l...
Dr X

Byron Center, MI

#227 Jan 10, 2013
Along time ago, there was a great kingdom with vast, rich fields of which to sow and harvest. Everyone loved the bountifulness that this kingdom bestowed onto the people and they were protected from invaders by a great dragon whom they gave livestock to in exchange for the dragons protection. Years went by and the kingdom and land prospered. Then one day, the dragon came upon the people and asked that they give more of their livestock to him because he had grown and was hungrier and that he needed more food so that he could continue to protect the people from invaders. The people agreed but the dragon continued to grow! After a while, the dragon returned and was much bigger in size and the dragon asked again for an increase in food from the people. This time the people were reluctant because they didn't seem to have enough for themselves and told the dragon so. To this, the dragon was angered and said "if you can't feed me I can't protect you"! The people, afraid, gave him more. After 40 years or so, the dragon had become so fat and gluttonous that he required almost all of the people
s food supply. The dragon, again, returned to ask for more. This time the people said no. No more food! You have taken enough! To this the dragon said " if you will not feed me then I can't protect you". The people responded with "well, we don't care"! " No one has invaded us for 40 years but you have starved us and are a greater threat to our existence that any foreign invader could ever be". The dragon was wroth! "If you will not feed me I will burn your fields with my fire", he said to people. Frightened, the people handed over every sheep and cow they had for they didn't want to have their fields burned away nor the castle and village destroyed. The people in the village began to see their situation and so, decided to kill the dragon. But how? Surely they could send an army into the dragons liar, but that's were they dragon is strongest and it would cost many many lives. One villager had an idea! He thought that the best way to slay the dragon was to starve it to death. "Let's hide our livestock so the dragon may starve"! Another person said, "but the dragon will burn our fields and homes". And so there was the conundrum, do we go kill the dragon in its liar or do we starve it to death knowing that will burn our homes and fields before it finally dies? The decision was made to hide the livestock and starve out the dragon. The dragon did come and burn the house and fields and killed many, but not all and before too long, the dragon lay dead from expending all his energy burning down the kingdom. The dragon was dead and the people started rebuilding.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#228 Jan 11, 2013
Dr X wrote:
Along time ago, there was a great kingdom with vast, rich fields of which to sow and harvest. Everyone loved the bountifulness that this kingdom bestowed onto the people and they were protected from invaders by a great dragon whom they gave livestock to in exchange for the dragons protection. Years went by and the kingdom and land prospered. Then one day, the dragon came upon the people and asked that they give more of their livestock to him because he had grown and was hungrier and that he needed more food so that he could continue to protect the people from invaders. The people agreed but the dragon continued to grow! After a while, the dragon returned and was much bigger in size and the dragon asked again for an increase in food from the people. This time the people were reluctant because they didn't seem to have enough for themselves and told the dragon so. To this, the dragon was angered and said "if you can't feed me I can't protect you"! The people, afraid, gave him more. After 40 years or so, the dragon had become so fat and gluttonous that he required almost all of the people
s food supply. The dragon, again, returned to ask for more. This time the people said no. No more food! You have taken enough! To this the dragon said " if you will not feed me then I can't protect you". The people responded with "well, we don't care"! " No one has invaded us for 40 years but you have starved us and are a greater threat to our existence that any foreign invader could ever be". The dragon was wroth! "If you will not feed me I will burn your fields with my fire", he said to people. Frightened, the people handed over every sheep and cow they had for they didn't want to have their fields burned away nor the castle and village destroyed. The people in the village began to see their situation and so, decided to kill the dragon. But how? Surely they could send an army into the dragons liar, but that's were they dragon is strongest and it would cost many many lives. One villager had an idea! He thought that the best way to slay the dragon was to starve it to death. "Let's hide our livestock so the dragon may starve"! Another person said, "but the dragon will burn our fields and homes". And so there was the conundrum, do we go kill the dragon in its liar or do we starve it to death knowing that will burn our homes and fields before it finally dies? The decision was made to hide the livestock and starve out the dragon. The dragon did come and burn the house and fields and killed many, but not all and before too long, the dragon lay dead from expending all his energy burning down the kingdom. The dragon was dead and the people started rebuilding.
And such are the ways of fairy tales.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Fenton, MI

#229 Jan 11, 2013
The long arguments serve no purpose other than to hide right from wrong.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#230 Jan 11, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
The long arguments serve no purpose other than to hide right from wrong.
To a degree I agree with that. Though at times lengthy explanations are required for some. But then again it's probably not going to make a whole lot of difference. People can be anchored in what they want to believe rather than believe what is sound reasoning.

And short opinion bombs are worthless.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Fenton, MI

#231 Jan 12, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
To a degree I agree with that. Though at times lengthy explanations are required for some. But then again it's probably not going to make a whole lot of difference. People can be anchored in what they want to believe rather than believe what is sound reasoning.
And short opinion bombs are worthless.
I am well read so my responses only need to be short and to the point. Right is right and wrong is wrong.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#232 Jan 12, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>I am well read so my responses only need to be short and to the point. Right is right and wrong is wrong.
You need to be more well read to be able to discern what is right from what is wrong.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Fenton, MI

#233 Jan 12, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to be more well read to be able to discern what is right from what is wrong.
you need to realize the life experience of a subject is just as valuable as yours. You have no idea

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Fenton, MI

#234 Jan 12, 2013
Tax the poor.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#235 Jan 12, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>you need to realize the life experience of a subject is just as valuable as yours. You have no idea
And neither do you. Yet you keep claiming others life experience isn't as real and/or as accurate and/or as important as yours.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#236 Jan 12, 2013
....like in "tax the poor". Point made.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#237 Jan 15, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>National Tax Payers Union. Ya, real data. The National Tax payers Union is a right-wing activist organization that believes in and lobbies for lower taxes and smaller government on all levels. NTU president Duane Parde is the former Executive Director of ALEC, president of both the NTU and the NTUF. NTU is also a member of ALEC. No bias reporting of data there.

Again you have convoluted paying Federal Income Taxes with paying Federal taxes. Who pays more in income taxes is not disputed by me. It's also not disputed by me that Reagan took great pleasure in removing (even) those who don't currently pay Federal Income Taxes when he revamped the entire Federal Income Tax code.

So show me where the "data" is that discloses the combination of federal income taxes paid along with federal taxes paid and I'll just bet that 25% drops.

But then you aren't real fond of not casting a distraction over the original point.
If you had read the tables you would have seen "Source: Internal Revenue Service" but then again I've sourced the IRS before and it has been too difficult for you to read.

If you have FACTS to dispute the IRS or the article then use them. Or admit you can't factually support your POV but you aren't arguing facts, you are arguing emotions, and in your world your emotions beat facts every time.

BTW I did a search for the "data" is that discloses the combination of federal income taxes paid along with federal taxes paid but all I could find was a New York Times article that said:

A household making $350,000 in 2010, roughly the cutoff for the top 1 percent, on average paid 42.1 percent of its income in taxes, compared with 49 percent for a household with the same inflation-adjusted income in 1980 — a savings of about $24,100.

A household making $52,000 in 2010, roughly the median income, on average paid 27.7 percent of its income in taxes, compared with 30.5 percent in 1980, saving $1,500.

A household making $22,000 in 2010 — roughly the federal poverty line for a family of four — on average paid 19.4 percent in taxes, compared with 20.2 percent, saving $200.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-ame...

So including all taxes, you are still wrong.

Now, do you have any real facts to support your fantasy world "Cliff"?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#238 Jan 15, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
If you had read the tables you would have seen "Source: Internal Revenue Service" but then again I've sourced the IRS before and it has been too difficult for you to read.
If you have FACTS to dispute the IRS or the article then use them. Or admit you can't factually support your POV but you aren't arguing facts, you are arguing emotions, and in your world your emotions beat facts every time.
BTW I did a search for the "data" is that discloses the combination of federal income taxes paid along with federal taxes paid but all I could find was a New York Times article that said:
A household making $350,000 in 2010, roughly the cutoff for the top 1 percent, on average paid 42.1 percent of its income in taxes, compared with 49 percent for a household with the same inflation-adjusted income in 1980 — a savings of about $24,100.
A household making $52,000 in 2010, roughly the median income, on average paid 27.7 percent of its income in taxes, compared with 30.5 percent in 1980, saving $1,500.
A household making $22,000 in 2010 — roughly the federal poverty line for a family of four — on average paid 19.4 percent in taxes, compared with 20.2 percent, saving $200.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-ame...
So including all taxes, you are still wrong.
Now, do you have any real facts to support your fantasy world "Cliff"?
It's obvious nothing I could present to you you would consider to be facts.

Like I told you before, you need to win? you got it.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#241 Jan 16, 2013
Ron wrote:
<quoted text>
Your a loser again! Lol! Some things never change.
If that were true it wouldn't be by any intellectual contributions from you.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#243 Jan 16, 2013
Ron wrote:
<quoted text>
Time and time again wether me or somebody else. It's ok, you can live in your fantasy world. What does it really hurt for you to be dumb all your life?
I wouldn't know. You tell me as your the one with the most experience in it.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#245 Jan 16, 2013
Rob wrote:
<quoted text>
Surprise! I call you dumb and you tell me you don't know. Lol!
You can't even follow the course of what you write. You ended with a question, "What does it really hurt for you to be dumb all your life?" to which my response was the answer.

There is a difference between ignorance and dumb. In this case it's not that you're ignorant.

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
2014 wastebook 44 min Phil 5
New chiropractic tool treats back pain without ... (Apr '08) 3 hr Chiropractor From... 231
upsy daisy Fri bobolinq 1
WLLA channel 64 - off the air? (Feb '12) Thu Sharon 9
Local News Women (Apr '09) Thu Casual Shoes 2,317
Back in Iraq. WMD's? oil? Oct 22 No_More_Dems 106
Obama and cocaine addicts Oct 22 Leroy 11
Grand Rapids Dating
Find my Match

Grand Rapids Jobs

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 ]