Goodbye, middle class

[chrisdfw]

I will use my money to live the comfort level I can afford.

As will I. But if someone can't they should not expect the government to subsidize it by stealing from others.

I just thing anyone who can't afford those luxuries should do without, not take from others through government. I believe everyone should pay their way. And not expect me to pay for their food stamps when they spend their money on bloated utility bills to have air conditioning, cable tv, and cell phones.

People could live near their work, and move when they got a new job, if they lived a simpler lifestyle. There is generally no law that you have to live 24 miles from work. If you can afford it great! Live whereever you want. But if you can't, don't cry about not being able to afford it, move closer or get a different job.

[gman]

As will I. But if someone can't they should not expect the government to subsidize it by stealing from others.

I just thing anyone who can't afford those luxuries should do without, not take from others through government. I believe everyone should pay their way. And not expect me to pay for their food stamps when they spend their money on bloated utility bills to have air conditioning, cable tv, and cell phones.

People could live near their work, and move when they got a new job, if they lived a simpler lifestyle. There is generally no law that you have to live 24 miles from work. If you can afford it great! Live whereever you want. But if you can't, don't cry about not being able to afford it, move closer or get a different job.

All Americans are about to go through some major readjustments on their expectations / "quality of life".

The ones that I think are going to be the most surprised by this are the Boomers, as they effectively voted themselves the Ponzi Schemes of Social Security and Medicare on the banks of their children and grandchildren.

The first year of Boomers (the 1946 babies) turn 65 next year. The sheer number of Boomers between 1946 and 1961 is staggering.

As they start to collect their "entitlements" - the money will simply not be there (at least not in the amount they promised/voted for themselves.)

As a group (not individuals) - I expect the majority to fight tooth and nail for their entitlements because they will claim "they paid into the system for years."

But the AMOUNT they paid in is a tiny, tiny fraction of what they believe they are entitled to.

Case in point: Most seniors will generate up to $500,000 in medical costs near the end of their lives. If a person worked and made a sum total of $1 million over their lifetime and we even counted the employer contribution to Medicare, the top "rate" they would have paid would have been 2.9%. This means they were only taxed by $29,000 while they expect benefits of $500,000. And, this assumes they paid the top rate...which many did not in their earlier years when Medicare tax rates were lower. I am not even counting the impact of the non-working spouses who will also collect their $500,000 in healthcare benefits.

So, in the scenario above, a couple with one wage earner would have put $29,000 into the system and are expecting $1,000,000 in benefits because they are "entitled." What they are really saying is they want their kids and grandkids to pick up the difference.

Ain't gonna happen. The difference in the bill is simply astronomical.

Same can be said for the Social Security Ponzi Scheme.

Obama and the rest on DC are already getting desparate because this month is the first ever where the amount of money taken in by social security is LESS than what they are paying out. And, we all know, when they ran a surplus on social security, they spent the money on other federal junk.

Did you know on Sep 14 and 15 of this month, the US Treasury Department was talking about nationalizing seizing IRA and 401k accounts? Don't believe me. Google it.


The powers that be are getting desperate. I expect them to grab the IRA/401k money and come up with many hidden taxes to try and keep the Ponzi going...but it won't work.

Like all Ponzi Schemes, this one will end - and it will crumble in our lifetimes. It does not matter that it is a government approved Ponzi. These schemes only last to the extent that the bottom of the pyramid can feed the top. When the top (think Boomers) outnumber the bottom (Gen X and Millennial), the gig is up.

In some ways this is very sad. In other ways it is infuriating. As a Gen-X person (early 40s), I simply see it for what it is, like a Winter blizzard coming in from the horizon.

Time to prepare yourselves and your families.

Don't worry though....does you no good. Just relax and prepare and realize that history repeats itself. We will all be OK and the good thing is we will start to re-appreciate the smaller things in life.

[WhatMoney]

What a pile of fear and misinformation.

As they start to collect their "entitlements" - the money will simply not be there (at least not in the amount they promised/voted for themselves.) FALSE

As a group (not individuals) - I expect the majority to fight tooth and nail for their entitlements because they will claim "they paid into the system for years."

But the AMOUNT they paid in is a tiny, tiny fraction of what they believe they are entitled to. FALSE

Case in point: Most seniors will generate up to $500,000 in medical costs near the end of their lives. FALSE

If a person worked and made a sum total of $1 million over their lifetime and we even counted the employer contribution to Medicare, the top "rate" they would have paid would have been 2.9%. This means they were only taxed by $29,000 while they expect benefits of $500,000. And, this assumes they paid the top rate...which many did not in their earlier years when Medicare tax rates were lower. I am not even counting the impact of the non-working spouses who will also collect their $500,000 in healthcare benefits. YOUR NUMBERS ARE WAY OFF FOR AVERAGE MEDICARE END OF LIFE CARE FOR ALL. SOME PEOPLE JUST DIE IN THEIR SLEEP AT HOME AND COST THE SYSTEM NOTHING.

So, in the scenario above, a couple with one wage earner would have put $29,000 into the system and are expecting $1,000,000 in benefits because they are "entitled." What they are really saying is they want their kids and grandkids to pick up the difference. FALSE


Same can be said for the Social Security Ponzi Scheme. FALSE

Obama and the rest on DC are already getting desperate because this month is the first ever where the amount of money taken in by social security is LESS than what they are paying out. And, we all know, when they ran a surplus on social security, they spent the money on other federal junk. FALSE and FALSE

Did you know on Sep 14 and 15 of this month, the US Treasury Department was talking about nationalizing seizing IRA and 401k accounts? Don't believe me. Google it.
YOU GOOGLE IT AND PR0VIDE A CREDIBLE REFERENCE, PLEASE - SOUNDS LIKE A BS RUMOR TO ME.

The powers that be are getting desperate. I expect them to grab the IRA/401k money and come up with many hidden taxes to try and keep the Ponzi going...but it won't work. NONSENSE

Don't worry though....does you no good. Just relax and prepare and realize that history repeats itself. We will all be OK and the good thing is we will start to re-appreciate the smaller things in life. AT LEAST YOU AREN'T GOING TO KILL YOURSELF OVER ALL THESE SCARE TACTICS THE ANTI-GOVERNMENT NUTJOBS ARE FEEDING YOU.

Try reading something credible, instead of WND, FreeRepublic, and other right-wing anti-government winger sites. Here's a start:

Hands Off Social Security
September 30, 2010

A White House deficit commission is reportedly considering deep benefit cuts for Social Security, including a steep rise in the retirement age. We cannot let that happen. The deficit and our $13 trillion national debt are serious problems that must be addressed, but we can and must address them without punishing America's workers, senior citizens, the disabled, widows and orphans.

First, let's be clear: despite all the right-wing rhetoric, Social Security is not going bankrupt. That's a lie! The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund has run surpluses for the last quarter-century. Today's $2.5 trillion cushion is projected to grow to $4 trillion in 2023. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, experts in this area, say Social Security will be able to pay every nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary until 2039. Got that? In case you don't, let me repeat it. The people who have studied this issue most thoroughly and have no political bias report that Social Security will be able to pay out all benefits to every eligible beneficiary for the next twenty-nine years. It is true that by 2039, if nothing is changed, Social Security will be able to pay out only about 80 percent of benefits. That is why it is important that Congress act soon to make sure Social Security is as strong in the future as it is today.

The hatred of Social Security from the right-wing anti-government crowd is based on the fact that Social Security, a government program, has been enormously successful in accomplishing its mission. For seventy-five years, in good times and bad, Social Security has provided financial security for tens of millions of Americans.

Despite this outstanding record, Social Security has become a political football. For ideological reasons, some in Congress believe that government should not be in the business of providing benefits to seniors or the disabled. They want to privatize Social Security. Others say, incorrectly, that Social Security is going bankrupt, so benefits should be reduced and the retirement age set at 70. I strongly disagree with both assertions.

While the critics profess concern about Social Security's financial future, their fuzzy math ignores the fact that this highly successful program has not added a dime to our deficit. From the day when the first check landed in the Ludlow, Vermont, mailbox of retired legal secretary Ida May Fuller on January 31, 1940, Social Security has more than paid for itself.

With regard to the future of Social Security, there are some really dangerous ideas out there, and one proposal that makes a lot of sense.

One of the worst ideas is to privatize Social Security. After the greed and recklessness of Wall Street caused markets to collapse in 2008, does anyone still seriously believe it would be a good idea to turn the retirement security of millions of Americans over to Wall Street CEOs whose dishonesty and irresponsibility have no end? Their administrative fees alone would take a 15 percent bite out of workers' retirement investments, not to mention the real threat of another stock market collapse. In sharp contrast, administrative costs for Social Security are less than 1 percent of the program's budget. Most importantly, despite economic conditions and the ups and downs of the stock market, Social Security has never failed to pay full benefits to every eligible beneficiary.

Another horrible idea is to move the retirement age up to 70. That would cheat today's young workers out of about 15 percent of their retirement benefits over a lifetime. The proposal also ignores the reality that millions of workers in demanding professions simply cannot continue to work until they are 70. The upshot for them would be reduced lifetime benefits for retiring "early." Lower-income workers, those less likely to have other savings, would be hurt the most.

In the midst of all of the destructive rhetoric and ideas out there with regard to Social Security, there is one proposal that is simple, sensible and would keep Social Security strong and solvent in a fair and just way. Under the law today, the Social Security payroll tax is levied only on earnings up to $106,800 a year. That means millionaires and billionaires get off scot-free on all of their income above that amount. In other words, an individual who earns $106,800 pays the same Social Security tax as a multimillionaire. That's wrong. Applying the Social Security payroll tax on those with the most income, say over $250,000 a year, would correct this inequity. According to CBO, applying the tax to all income would provide all the revenue that Social Security needs for the foreseeable future—for our kids and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

As we mark the anniversary of Social Security, now is the time to pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. For seventy-five years, Social Security has lifted millions of people out of poverty and has provided stability and dignity for the elderly and for other vulnerable Americans. Our goal today must be to make sure that Social Security will be as strong and stable seventy-five years from now as it is today.

Bernie Sanders

http://www.thenation.com/print/artic...ocial-security

[chrisdfw]

To argue about social security is to worry about a mosquito bite while a bear is chewing on your leg, the bear is medicare.

But lets just look at social security for a moment. Yes, if you count the "trust funds" then there is enough to pay benefits for a long time, but the fact is that the government spent that money and the system is now cash flow negative, more money is being paid out in benefits than paid in taxes, that is a FACT, not a value judgement. Now, we should consider whether the government can continue to borrow endlessly, or cut other programs to have enough to pay it all out.

Either all other government programs have stiff cuts, the government borrows more money than exists or has existed in the history of the planet, or we make some changes to social security. I have some expertise in this area, I have attended several conferences where members of the office of management and budget, joint committee on taxation, the treasury, and several other government agencies, and without being partisan or making suggestions on the fix, they all agree there is a problem with social security, the government cannot be allowed to redeem those trust funds, its not fiscally possible. But small changes can be made to fix it.

On the other hand, medicare is a huge problem, a huge problem, yes, a huge problem. What gman said about medicare is true, the medicare rate has never been over 2.9%, so look at lifetime earnings and you can see the maximum someone could have possible paid. For someone who made 2 million dollars it would have been LESS than $58,000. There is no way medicare benefits are going to cost less than 58,000 on average, yet the average income is nowhere near 2 million in their working careers, do the math. Social security can be fixed with relatively small cuts and increases in taxes, but medicare is a big big big problem. There is no way we can afford to provide medical care for people for 20-30 years of retirement and not expect them to contribute a lot more of the costs. The fact is a great deal of the wealth is concentrated in this country in the hands of people 65 and older, they need to bear the costs of their healthcare and we need to make responsible choices.

I don't like the idea of death panels and hate the health care act of 2010, but we can't provide 500,000 in cancer care to an 85 year old. Sorry to be the *******, but we don't have unlimited resources.

[gman]

What a pile of fear and misinformation.


Try reading something credible, instead of WND, FreeRepublic, and other right-wing anti-government winger sites. Here's a start:

Hands Off Social Security
September 30, 2010

A White House deficit commission is reportedly considering deep benefit cuts for Social Security, including a steep rise in the retirement age. We cannot let that happen. The deficit and our $13 trillion national debt are serious problems that must be addressed, but we can and must address them without punishing America's workers, senior citizens, the disabled, widows and orphans.

First, let's be clear: despite all the right-wing rhetoric, Social Security is not going bankrupt. That's a lie! The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund has run surpluses for the last quarter-century. Today's $2.5 trillion cushion is projected to grow to $4 trillion in 2023. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, experts in this area, say Social Security will be able to pay every nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary until 2039. Got that? In case you don't, let me repeat it. The people who have studied this issue most thoroughly and have no political bias report that Social Security will be able to pay out all benefits to every eligible beneficiary for the next twenty-nine years. It is true that by 2039, if nothing is changed, Social Security will be able to pay out only about 80 percent of benefits. That is why it is important that Congress act soon to make sure Social Security is as strong in the future as it is today.

The hatred of Social Security from the right-wing anti-government crowd is based on the fact that Social Security, a government program, has been enormously successful in accomplishing its mission. For seventy-five years, in good times and bad, Social Security has provided financial security for tens of millions of Americans.

Despite this outstanding record, Social Security has become a political football. For ideological reasons, some in Congress believe that government should not be in the business of providing benefits to seniors or the disabled. They want to privatize Social Security. Others say, incorrectly, that Social Security is going bankrupt, so benefits should be reduced and the retirement age set at 70. I strongly disagree with both assertions.

While the critics profess concern about Social Security's financial future, their fuzzy math ignores the fact that this highly successful program has not added a dime to our deficit. From the day when the first check landed in the Ludlow, Vermont, mailbox of retired legal secretary Ida May Fuller on January 31, 1940, Social Security has more than paid for itself.

With regard to the future of Social Security, there are some really dangerous ideas out there, and one proposal that makes a lot of sense.

One of the worst ideas is to privatize Social Security. After the greed and recklessness of Wall Street caused markets to collapse in 2008, does anyone still seriously believe it would be a good idea to turn the retirement security of millions of Americans over to Wall Street CEOs whose dishonesty and irresponsibility have no end? Their administrative fees alone would take a 15 percent bite out of workers' retirement investments, not to mention the real threat of another stock market collapse. In sharp contrast, administrative costs for Social Security are less than 1 percent of the program's budget. Most importantly, despite economic conditions and the ups and downs of the stock market, Social Security has never failed to pay full benefits to every eligible beneficiary.

Another horrible idea is to move the retirement age up to 70. That would cheat today's young workers out of about 15 percent of their retirement benefits over a lifetime. The proposal also ignores the reality that millions of workers in demanding professions simply cannot continue to work until they are 70. The upshot for them would be reduced lifetime benefits for retiring "early." Lower-income workers, those less likely to have other savings, would be hurt the most.

In the midst of all of the destructive rhetoric and ideas out there with regard to Social Security, there is one proposal that is simple, sensible and would keep Social Security strong and solvent in a fair and just way. Under the law today, the Social Security payroll tax is levied only on earnings up to $106,800 a year. That means millionaires and billionaires get off scot-free on all of their income above that amount. In other words, an individual who earns $106,800 pays the same Social Security tax as a multimillionaire. That's wrong. Applying the Social Security payroll tax on those with the most income, say over $250,000 a year, would correct this inequity. According to CBO, applying the tax to all income would provide all the revenue that Social Security needs for the foreseeable future—for our kids and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

As we mark the anniversary of Social Security, now is the time to pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. For seventy-five years, Social Security has lifted millions of people out of poverty and has provided stability and dignity for the elderly and for other vulnerable Americans. Our goal today must be to make sure that Social Security will be as strong and stable seventy-five years from now as it is today.

Bernie Sanders

http://www.thenation.com/print/artic...ocial-security

All I can say to this is "wow."

For those who believe that Social Security and Medicare are "solvent" and there is plenty of money to fund them, I guess the idea of trillion dollar deficits on top of a national debt already in the double trillion digits is not a problem either.

We can believe the politicians, or we can understand the stark reality of the fact that these entitlement programs simply promised too much on the backs of too few.

[chrisdfw]

In the midst of all of the destructive rhetoric and ideas out there with regard to Social Security, there is one proposal that is simple, sensible and would keep Social Security strong and solvent in a fair and just way. Under the law today, the Social Security payroll tax is levied only on earnings up to $106,800 a year. That means millionaires and billionaires get off scot-free on all of their income above that amount. In other words, an individual who earns $106,800 pays the same Social Security tax as a multimillionaire. That's wrong. Applying the Social Security payroll tax on those with the most income, say over $250,000 a year, would correct this inequity. According to CBO, applying the tax to all income would provide all the revenue that Social Security needs for the foreseeable future—for our kids and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Are we going to provide increased benefits for the extra taxes those people pay? Not under this proposal, benefits are already very biased towards low income workers.

High income workers pay far more, yet their benefits are around 20% of their pre-retirement income if they make the cap amount.
Low income workers pay far less, yet they get around 40% of their pre-retirement income.

Are we going to make this work and undermine the support for the program. If we make this worse and tax the rich to pay the poor we turn it pfrom a universal program into a welfare program. How long before a lot of people who support the current system start to vote to end it. Remember many of the rich are the old as well.

[WhatMoney]

Are we going to provide increased benefits for the extra taxes those people pay? Not under this proposal, benefits are already very biased towards low income workers.

High income workers pay far more, yet their benefits are around 20% of their pre-retirement income if they make the cap amount.
Low income workers pay far less, yet they get around 40% of their pre-retirement income.

Are we going to make this work and undermine the support for the program. If we make this worse and tax the rich to pay the poor we turn it pfrom a universal program into a welfare program. How long before a lot of people who support the current system start to vote to end it. Remember many of the rich are the old as well.

No, the multimillionaires will never receive their "fair share" back from their social security payroll deductions. That's obvious - but you ignore the fact they don't need the benefits if their income is that high. If they suddenly became destitute, then a reliable social security check after retirement would benefit them.

It's called Progressive taxation - and you've repeatable made it clear you oppose Progressive taxation. Nothing to discuss after that.

You don't believe in safety nets for seniors and the disabled. You want them to just suffer - and then label any benefit they receive "welfare", when of course it is not welfare. We've had this discussion before. You are only concerned about yourself, and no matter how much extra income you still have after living the most consumptive lifestyle you can manage, it's your belief that you should just hold on to the rest of it. Keep the money in the family - hoard it - pass it on to you heirs. Let your heirs live a non-productive lifestyle on your inheritance instead of working for a living. The lifestyle of the rich and famous. Paris Hilton must be your dream child.

This proposal to fix Social Security would simply eliminate the income level cap for the wealthy. They would pay the 8% marginal tax beyond the present cap or on income over $250,000 net income, instead of paying NO SSA tax after the present $108K limit. Tell me how the wealthy are going to suffer here. And please no trickle-down theories - didn't work in the past, won't work in the future.

Old rich people may have assets, but few have a net $250,000 taxable income AFTER retirement. If you are retired, and your income stream from investments and retirement plans is over $250,000/yr after all deductions, you can probably afford to pay another 8% marginal rate up to age 70. The wealthy retired will invest in tax-free municipals anyway, and avoid paying any extra tax if they are smart. There is nothing in the proposal that says retirees who have a huge income after retirement will still pay into FICA anyway.

You would do what? Eliminate Social Security entirely? Force workers to take their chances in the stock market for their retirement funds? Limit the payout only to what one paid in? Raise SSA taxes on the middle-class instead of the wealthiest? Extend the retirement age to 75, or 80, reducing the job market for younger workers? I don't see where anything you propose would provide a minimum safety net for the poorest, which has always been the primary goal for Social Security. You just want to remove the net and not pay any taxes.

[WhatMoney]

Did you know on Sep 14 and 15 of this month, the US Treasury Department was talking about nationalizing seizing IRA and 401k accounts? Don't believe me. Google it.

As suspected, this is another false rumor that has resurfaced again as the Republicans and anti-government groups look for something to stir up the angry populace. You can find a recent article (based on a 2008 committee hearing) on any right-wing anti-government site, like ResistNet.com, FreeRepublic, and other hate sites.

You suppose it has anything to do with the upcoming elections? It was debunked in 2008, here:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...ating_ira.html

And the false rumor keeps popping up like a mushroom every year, only to get debunked again. The latest twist from that liar Newt Gingrich, is to accuse Obama of seizing your 401K's. I see Newt has now joined the disgusting Birther movement too. Is their any dirty trick or lie that Gingrich will not embrace?

http://mediamatters.org/research/201004060051

Will the United States Government Seize Your Retirement Accounts?
14th September 2010

There is growing buzz on the internet and around office water coolers all over the country regarding the subject of the government confiscating the retirement account of its American citizens for the purpose of satisfying our national debts. One of my clients sent me an email from a gold broker who even went as far as recommending that he liquidate all of his retirement assets and put the money into physical non confiscatable gold, better known as pre-33 coins and this way his money will both increase in value and be safe from all government confiscation.

While I do believe that gold is a good investment right now, due to the fact that the stock market is so weak and volatile, I would not suggest liquidating your retirement accounts to purchase gold, I would simply recommend setting up self directed retirement account, strictly for the purpose of holding physical gold (not gold stocks). This would avoid the tax penalties of withdrawal, because you are basically rolling over your money from your existing retirement accounts, into what is known as a gold IRA or precious metals IRA. The IRS basically says that as long as the gold is stored with a third party storage facility then you are ok to invest in gold and other precious metals and hold them within your self directed IRA.

There is no grand government scheme or plot to seize your retirement accounts. These rumors all stem from a committee hearing held on October 7th 2008. At this meeting One house member suggested that it may be a good idea to create a new type of retirement account, called a Guaranteed Retirement Account (GRA), this “GRA” would perhaps allow individuals to rollover their existing 401k’s or IRA’s into a “GRA” and receive a secure-government guaranteed return of 3% above the inflation rate. After this meeting the conservative John Locke Foundation, of Raleigh, N.C., released a publication with the following headline, “Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts: Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs.” The report is wrong. There’s been no such suggestion by the government.

The House Education and Labor Committee held hearings On October 7th 2008 where Teresa Ghilarducci a professor at the New School for Social Research in New York City, suggested the following:

Ghilarducci, Oct. 7: I propose … that the Congress allow workers to swap out their 401k assets, perhaps at August levels, for a Guaranteed Retirement Account. Just a one-time swap, trading your 401(k) for a Guaranteed Retirement Account that will be composed of the equivalent of government bonds that pay a 3% real return. (That means 3% more than the inflation rate, not 3% interest. As expected Rush Limbaugh got this wrong.)

Upon retirement, your GRA funds would move into a guaranteed annuity which would provide retirement income for life. It was considered a supplement income source in addition Social Security, adding about 25% to one's income over SS alone. And it was entirely an optional plan. Ghiladducci later said, when asked by Factcheck: "Teresa Ghilarducci, Nov. 18: It is utterly ridiculous [to suppose] that I advocate seizing 401k assets."

Ghilarducci went further to suggest that a $600 tax credit should be given to those who make contributions into these government retirement accounts. These proposals are very big ideas and very controversial, but they in no way suggest any seizure of American citizens retirement accounts.

http://www.theselfdirectedirapros.co...ment-accounts/

[houston7]

Whatmoney,
You do realize that arguing with a greedy assed rethuglican is a waste time, right?

Unless of course, you are playing to the lurkers/fencesitters.

Now, the next step happens when said rthug attempts to disassociate himself with the rthug party by claiming independent status.

No sale.

What these greed mongerers fail to realize is that if we let rethug$ have their way, this country will end up with a minority of "haves", and a majority of "have nots", who just happen to be armed, and pissed.

I don't need a chrystal ball to see how that's gonna play out.

[WhatMoney]

Whatmoney,
You do realize that arguing with a greedy assed rethuglican is a waste time, right?

Unless of course, you are playing to the lurkers/fencesitters.

Now, the next step happens when said rthug attempts to disassociate himself with the rthug party by claiming independent status.

No sale.

What these greed mongerers fail to realize is that if we let rethug$ have their way, this country will end up with a minority of "haves", and a majority of "have nots", who just happen to be armed, and pissed.

I don't need a crystal ball to see how that's gonna play out.

Well of course I'm playing to the lurker audience. I've learned long ago that arguing with conspiracy or political extremists is a waste of time. Actually, the more facts you present to a conspiracy theorist that invalidate his beliefs, the stronger his beliefs become that he is right. They just incorporate any new facts that disagree with their beliefs into the conspiracy, reinforcing the conspiracy ("see, it's larger than I thought".)

Scientific studies have recently shown that facts have no positive effect on people with extremist views. Maybe genetic science will discover the gene that causes a human to reject rational thought over self-serving conspiracies. Of course the scientists would then become part of the conspiracy...

Most of the posters here already claim they are not Republicans, but are Independents or Libertarians. Trouble is, they are spreading the exact same message as their Republican puppet-masters, who write the script for Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Rense, and company. Newt Gingrich, Carl Rove, Dick Cheney, Dick Armey, Eric Odom and others are writing the Tea Party talking points. The people are being used again, just like Bush used the Christian Fundamentalists to get elected.

[keepinitreal]

this country will end up with a minority of "haves", and a majority of "have nots", who just happen to be armed, and pissed.

This kind of short-sighted fearful thinking of "give them what they demand or they'll hurt people" is sad. Thank goodness England didn't cave in to that kind of thinking when they were threatened by the Nazis.

Oblamebush and the Democants think 98% of Americans should not pay higher taxes; the Republicans say 100% should not.

[banca rotta]

Oh you're all just so funny!

Go dems! I like you. You're for the little guy, You feed the hungry, you clean the water, You stop global warming, Yeah dems!

Go republicans the grand old party! You keep the streets safe at night, you stop terrorism, you cut taxes and balance the budget, you stick up for family values (except your own), yeah GOP!! Go Go Go!

Keep dreaming my friends, keep dreaming. No matter what happens in next months election nothing will change. Keep dreaming and then you will awaken.

[chrisdfw]

.... but you ignore the fact they don't need the benefits if their income is that high. ...
It's called Progressive taxation - and you've repeatable made it clear you oppose Progressive taxation. ....

I just believe that the government should not show a preference for one group over another. Don't take more from one group and give less to
benefit another group.

Progressive taxation is not equal treatment.

Why is it different when you tax someone to give to another person, but I am not allowed to steal from you and give to the poor?

Just because the majority votes to give themselves benefits on the backs of the minority does not make it right. Sorry, but if you believe that I have the obligation to pay taxes to support someone else, we will just have to disagree. Help for the poor is the province of charity, not government.

What is the difference between taking the fruits of one persons labor to benefit another and slavery? Nothing. What you propose and advocate is just fractional slavery where we take some of one persons efforts and give them to another. It starts small, just a little to help the poor, and eventually we take over half the income (state and local taxes and federal income taxes) to support other people.

I don't want to work to support someone else, that is slavery. Slavery by majority vote is not slavery.

I am no republican, those sons of *****es make me sick to my stomach. instead of protecting our country and defending our borders they cave to the interests of big business and vote to give seniors a new prescription drug benefit in order to score political capital. Republicans and democrats just want to make different people the slave masters.

Most men don't want to be free, only a master that doesn't beat them <- I forget the author.

[MSbklawyer]

No, the multimillionaires will never receive their "fair share" back from their social security payroll deductions. That's obvious - but you ignore the fact they don't need the benefits if their income is that high. If they suddenly became destitute, then a reliable social security check after retirement would benefit them.

Whatmoney's post illustrates just perfectly the philosophical differences between someone of a collectivist, socialist, Marxist mindset and those with a individualist, personal liberty, (some would say republican) mindset. See, to the collectivist, individual property rights are of merely passing concern, if at all. To the collectivist, wealth, much like air, belongs to everyone, irrespective of who earned it or produced it; and he, the collectivist, would be in charge of deciding who gets what and how much. The collectivist would allow the individual to keep his own wealth -- but only up to a certain point. Beyond that point, the point at which the collectivist deems the individual to have 'enough', the individual has no right to "hoard" (a nasty sounding word that collectivists use in place of "keep") the wealth that he produced or to pass it on to his on to his kids or, heaven forbid, to construct his own safety net instead of relying on the collective for it.

You don't believe in safety nets for seniors and the disabled. You want them to just suffer - and then label any benefit they receive "welfare", when of course it is not welfare. We've had this discussion before. You are only concerned about yourself, and no matter how much extra income you still have after living the most consumptive lifestyle you can manage, it's your belief that you should just hold on to the rest of it. Keep the money in the family - hoard it - pass it on to you heirs. Let your heirs live a non-productive lifestyle on your inheritance instead of working for a living. The lifestyle of the rich and famous. Paris Hilton must be your dream child.

This paragraph illustrates another immutable trait of the collectivist: frothing-at-the-mouth personal-attack arguments: How greedy of you to want to keep more of your own money than what I, the collectivist, have determined that you need! You just want to HOARD your own wealth and not give it to me, the collectivist, for distribution to those more deserving of it than you! You just want to see old people and disabled people on the skids so that you can ride by in your lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-famous limo and look down your nose at them! And as if that weren't enough, you even want to use your wealth to ruin your own children by turning them into irresponsible, over-privileged, coke-snorting, bimbo-sluts in the mold of Paris Hilton! To the guillotine with you, you rich greedy bastard!

You just want to remove the net and not pay any taxes.

Translated: You just want to HOARD your wealth and not give any of it to the collective so that we can give it to people who need it more than you!

Their arguments may sound funny or ridiculous to most of us, but history has shown them to be very dangerous people, especially in hard economic times when more people than usual are prone to be receptive to their You don't have enough because someone else has too much, so you should elect me so that I can take it from them and give it to you false reasoning.

[backtoschool]

Whatmoney's post illustrates just perfectly the philosophical differences between someone of a collectivist, socialist, Marxist mindset and those with a individualist, personal liberty, (some would say republican) mindset. See, to the collectivist, individual property rights are of merely passing concern, if at all. To the collectivist, wealth, much like air, belongs to everyone, irrespective of who earned it or produced it; and he, the collectivist, would be in charge of deciding who gets what and how much. The collectivist would allow the individual to keep his own wealth -- but only up to a certain point. Beyond that point, the point at which the collectivist deems the individual to have 'enough', the individual has no right to "hoard" (a nasty sounding word that collectivists use in place of "keep") the wealth that he produced or to pass it on to his on to his kids or, heaven forbid, to construct his own safety net instead of relying on the collective for it.



This paragraph illustrates another immutable trait of the collectivist: frothing-at-the-mouth personal-attack arguments: How greedy of you to want to keep more of your own money than what I, the collectivist, have determined that you need! You just want to HOARD your own wealth and not give it to me, the collectivist, for distribution to those more deserving of it than you! You just want to see old people and disabled people on the skids so that you can ride by in your lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-famous limo and look down your nose at them! And as if that weren't enough, you even want to use your wealth to ruin your own children by turning them into irresponsible, over-privileged, coke-snorting, bimbo-sluts in the mold of Paris Hilton! To the guillotine with you, you rich greedy bastard!



Translated: You just want to HOARD your wealth and not give any of it to the collective so that we can give it to people who need it more than you!

Their arguments may sound funny or ridiculous to most of us, but history has shown them to be very dangerous people, especially in hard economic times when more people than usual are prone to be receptive to their You don't have enough because someone else has too much, so you should elect me so that I can take it from them and give it to you false reasoning.

Wow this is pretty melodramatic stuff. I have heard liberals called a lot of things, but never dangerous. Liberalism=Marxism is the talk of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the like, and should be dismissed as self-serving tripe. Marxism is a political philosophy that says that history will create such disparity between workers and management, or between the haves and the have nots, that the have nots will rise up and revolt. The have nots will be led by "historically chosen" leaders who will decide what is best for all, and will create an economy where production for use and pay based on need replace other means of economic distribution. What does this outdated philosophy have to do with wanting to make sure Social Security is not disbanded, or making sure that kids have food to eat and proper medical care? I see absolutely no link between Marxism and paying taxes to fuel Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and all the programs that provide our social safety net.

Every country in Western Europe provides such aid and has since post WWII and all have elected leaders, private bank accounts, stock markets, pension plans, extreme wealth, and in some cases, even royalty. All those countries also have a thriving and stable middle class, something that we are losing in this country and that was the topic of this thread before "anti-Marxist" rants took over.

So are you calling the middle class the "collective" MSBklawyer? As a bk lawyer who sees suffering every day due to the greedy policies of the Bush era, I would have thought you would be on the front lines of noticing that the middle class is shrinking.