ELIMINATE SOCIAL SECURITY!!

[Mags]

Haven't watched Bill Maher in about a year since i unloaded HBO but they have a free sample this week or month on DTV. So i watched it and there was a good give and take with Ed Shultz and Republican Michael Steele. If someone wants to bring it up have at it. It shows u what happens when one of these neocon ball lickers has to actually debate one of their American back breaking platforms against a guy with some balls who will go at them. It is a lot different then them spewing their bullshit on Fox News without anyone challenging their lies. The best line was when Steele was trying to explain this back breaking platform saying "lets have an intelligent discussion" :mj07:

Sponge - I think most Republicans would tell you they don't like Steele. Not a good representative of the party - in fact, they have been doing their best to kick him out. Funny how Maher picks one of the dumbest republicans to have on his panel.

What I would love to see is a debate on fiscal policy between Ryan and Obama. No tell-a-prompters, no notes. Just speaking from their knowledge and experience.

Based on how Obama looked like a deer in the headlights when Ryan asked him questions on this healthcare reform bill at his health summit he held in early 2010, I have a hunch that Ryan would make Obama look very foolish. Or Obama would look foolish on his own. Not sure which.

The difference? Ryan understands the issues and is not afraid to put out solutions - whether you agree with them or not. Obama cannot move without finding out what Trumpka's thoughts are. The unions own Obama and he knows it.

Obama never bothered putting out a budget in 2010 (too scared) and he never would have put out "his" vision if Ryan didn't do it first. Then he saw he had to respond, because Obama wasn't going to doing anything in this regard first.

When it comes to leadership with Obama, the old saying applies - "Nothing to see here".

A Ryan-Obama debate - that would be delicious!

 

[MadJack]

What I find funny, Mags, is, if Obama came up with the plan that Ryan proposed, you would be bashing it instead of defending it. And that's a fact, Jack :facepalm:

 

[The Sponge]

Sponge - I think most Republicans would tell you they don't like Steele. Not a good representative of the party - in fact, they have been doing their best to kick him out. Funny how Maher picks one of the dumbest republicans to have on his panel.

What I would love to see is a debate on fiscal policy between Ryan and Obama. No tell-a-prompters, no notes. Just speaking from their knowledge and experience.

Based on how Obama looked like a deer in the headlights when Ryan asked him questions on this healthcare reform bill at his health summit he held in early 2010, I have a hunch that Ryan would make Obama look very foolish. Or Obama would look foolish on his own. Not sure which.

The difference? Ryan understands the issues and is not afraid to put out solutions - whether you agree with them or not. Obama cannot move without finding out what Trumpka's thoughts are. The unions own Obama and he knows it.

Obama never bothered putting out a budget in 2010 (too scared) and he never would have put out "his" vision if Ryan didn't do it first. Then he saw he had to respond, because Obama wasn't going to doing anything in this regard first.

When it comes to leadership with Obama, the old saying applies - "Nothing to see here".

A Ryan-Obama debate - that would be delicious!

The reason they hate Steele is because he actually has some balls and will go out in the public unlike most of these back breakers, who wouldn't be able to back up anything. As for Ryan? Another low life asshole who spent like a druken sailor under Bush who now is fiscally conservative. He gave Bush everything he wanted and now since Obama has a D next to his name everything has stopped.

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

What I find funny, Mags, is, if Obama came up with the plan that Ryan proposed, you would be bashing it instead of defending it. And that's a fact, Jack :facepalm:

Exactly. :facepalm:

 

[Duff Miver]

50% of the population pays NOTHING in Federal income tax.

It's about time you neocons got off that tired old whine.

Yes, it's true that low income folks pay a smaller percentage of their income, sometimes nothing, in Federal taxes, but it's also true, and you never mention, that they pay a much higher percentage of their income in sales, gasoline, cigarette, liquor, property, Social Security taxes, telephone and internet tax, not to mention license fees (which are really taxes), user fees (ditto), registration fees (ditto) and on and on.

Tell the truth for once, Maggot. What is the total percentage of income paid to tax by a billionaire like Warren Buffet as compared to his secretary?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s

You're enough to gag a maggot, Maggot.

 

[Mags]

What I find funny, Mags, is, if Obama came up with the plan that Ryan proposed, you would be bashing it instead of defending it. And that's a fact, Jack :facepalm:

Well, I'll admit, that's true. Don't care for socialistic Presidents, that's for sure. I voted for, and liked Clinton. The "spread the wealth" and constantly getting on his knees to blow unions doesn't endear me to Obama, that is for sure.

I'm kinda shocked that you are such an Obama lover, Jack. Being a small businessman, most of what he proposes hurts small business - including the large tax hikes in Obamacare and coming down the road in his budget. And I'm sure you fit in the category of those who make over $250K and are rich. And if you wife works, I'm sure you are there.

On a related note, I'm still shocked that openly members of the Senate that say they are socialists are even allowed to serve. Doesn't say much about the state of Vermont, I guess.....

 

[Mags]

It's about time you neocons got off that tired old whine.

Yes, it's true that low income folks pay a smaller percentage of their income, sometimes nothing, in Federal taxes, but it's also true, and you never mention, that they pay a much higher percentage of their income in sales, gasoline, cigarette, liquor, property, Social Security taxes, telephone and internet tax, not to mention license fees (which are really taxes), user fees (ditto), registration fees (ditto) and on and on.

Tell the truth for once, Maggot. What is the total percentage of income paid to tax by a billionaire like Warren Buffet as compared to his secretary?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s

You're enough to gag a maggot, Maggot.

Duffy - stop concentrating on the few like Buffet, of which there are 1-2 of in America, and concentrate on the "rich" that Obama talks about. Those families that make $250K a year that Obama calls "the super-rich".

If he'd change his approach and go after those who truly are rich - those who make $1M or more in income a year, then it would be a much different discussion. But he is including hard working familiies in that discussion and that is flat out wrong.

It's just class politics in his part - that is his whole game, pit the non-successful against the successful. It sickens me.

And, clearly, you are part of the non-winners. Or the whiners. Give me more, you say. It's not fair that I can't be successful, you say.

Well, Obama had no problem. It is time to stop pointing fingers and asking for more free stuff for the government, and start looking in the mirror and figure out why YOU can't be more successful.

 

[MadJack]

Well, I'll admit, that's true. Don't care for socialistic Presidents, that's for sure. I voted for, and liked Clinton. The "spread the wealth" and constantly getting on his knees to blow unions doesn't endear me to Obama, that is for sure.

I'm kinda shocked that you are such an Obama lover, Jack. Being a small businessman, most of what he proposes hurts small business - including the large tax hikes in Obamacare and coming down the road in his budget. And I'm sure you fit in the category of those who make over $250K and are rich. And if you wife works, I'm sure you are there.

On a related note, I'm still shocked that openly members of the Senate that say they are socialists are even allowed to serve. Doesn't say much about the state of Vermont, I guess.....

Who said I'm an Obama lover. Sheese, man!

 

[rusty]

It's about time you neocons got off that tired old whine.

Yes, it's true that low income folks pay a smaller percentage of their income, sometimes nothing, in Federal taxes, but it's also true, and you never mention, that they pay a much higher percentage of their income in sales, gasoline, cigarette, liquor, property, Social Security taxes, telephone and internet tax, not to mention license fees (which are really taxes), user fees (ditto), registration fees (ditto) and on and on.

Tell the truth for once, Maggot. What is the total percentage of income paid to tax by a billionaire like Warren Buffet as compared to his secretary?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s

You're enough to gag a maggot, Maggot.

Didn't I bring this up a while back?One thing people overlook is its not how much you make ,but how much you claim for exemptions.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Actually, I was listening to Fox News Talk on XM Radio during my 816 mile drive on Sunday.

Okay, so what about the folks under 55? Fucked? :shrug: That affects my wife. :0008

It doesn't matter anyway because it's not getting passed through the Senate.

And all they have to do is lift the ceiling max on SS tax. So what's the big harm in that?

THAT certainly would be my 1st move to help situation. It's a no brainer IMO.

You pay what you owe based on all you earn--can't see why it has ever been any other way and how could it be any fairer.:shrug:

Maybe both sides are afraid they will agree on something

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

THAT certainly would be my 1st move to help situation. It's a no brainer IMO.

You pay what you owe based on all you earn--can't see why it has ever been any other way and how could it be any fairer.:shrug:

Maybe both sides are afraid they will agree on something

I can't believe we agree on something.

Raise the cap.

 

[Mags]

THAT certainly would be my 1st move to help situation. It's a no brainer IMO.

You pay what you owe based on all you earn--can't see why it has ever been any other way and how could it be any fairer.:shrug:

Maybe both sides are afraid they will agree on something

DTB: the reason why it is "that way" is because from the beginning, benefits are loosly tied to amount contributed. But since they put a cap on the amount of benefit you can get, they put a cap on the amount you put in.

Pretty simple. And couldn't be any fairer. (well, it could - they could fix the benefit formula, but...)

 

[Duff Miver]

DTB: the reason why it is "that way" is because from the beginning, benefits are loosly tied to amount contributed. But since they put a cap on the amount of benefit you can get, they put a cap on the amount you put in.

Pretty simple. And couldn't be any fairer. (well, it could - they could fix the benefit formula, but...)

JFC, Maggot, do you ever wake up? Ever?

Social Security is NOT, can you comprehend that word NOT a savings and investment program like an IRA.

Social Security is primarily a social insurance program providing social protection or protection against socially recognized conditions, including poverty, old age, disability, unemployment and others.

Did you catch that key word INSURANCE?

And, as insurance always does, it pays out, based not on how much you have paid in, but on the insured amount. See whether you can put your pea-brain in gear to follow a simple example.

I have a million dollar house which I insure for a million dollars. It burns to the ground after I have made two months of premium payments. I collect.

My neighbor insures his million dollar house and pays premiums for fifty years, but he never has a claim. That's fair, and so is SS.

Working folks pay in, premiums, based on earnings. And if and when they have a claim, based on age or disability, widowhood or orphanage, they collect.

It isn't "fair" in your demented view, it's insurance. INSURANCE.

Now stop being such an ignorant turd.

No wonder this is becoming a backward country. It's growing morons like you.

 

[MadJack]

JFC, Maggot, do you ever wake up? Ever?

Social Security is NOT, can you comprehend that word NOT a savings and investment program like an IRA.

Social Security is primarily a social insurance program providing social protection or protection against socially recognized conditions, including poverty, old age, disability, unemployment and others.

Did you catch that key word INSURANCE?

And, as insurance always does, it pays out, based not on how much you have paid in, but on the insured amount. See whether you can put your pea-brain in gear to follow a simple example.

I have a million dollar house which I insure for a million dollars. It burns to the ground after I have made two months of premium payments. I collect.

My neighbor insures his million dollar house and pays premiums for fifty years, but he never has a claim. That's fair, and so is SS.

Working folks pay in, premiums, based on earnings. And if and when they have a claim, based on age or disability, widowhood or orphanage, they collect.

It isn't "fair" in your demented view, it's insurance. INSURANCE.

Now stop being such an ignorant turd.

No wonder this is becoming a backward country. It's growing morons like you.

opcorn2

 

[Mags]

JFC, Maggot, do you ever wake up? Ever?

Social Security is NOT, can you comprehend that word NOT a savings and investment program like an IRA.

Social Security is primarily a social insurance program providing social protection or protection against socially recognized conditions, including poverty, old age, disability, unemployment and others.

Did you catch that key word INSURANCE?

And, as insurance always does, it pays out, based not on how much you have paid in, but on the insured amount. See whether you can put your pea-brain in gear to follow a simple example.

I have a million dollar house which I insure for a million dollars. It burns to the ground after I have made two months of premium payments. I collect.

My neighbor insures his million dollar house and pays premiums for fifty years, but he never has a claim. That's fair, and so is SS.

Working folks pay in, premiums, based on earnings. And if and when they have a claim, based on age or disability, widowhood or orphanage, they collect.

It isn't "fair" in your demented view, it's insurance. INSURANCE.

Now stop being such an ignorant turd.

No wonder this is becoming a backward country. It's growing morons like you.

Duffy, you dumb a**, so you are saying benefits don't vary based on how much you pay in and how long you work?

Of course they do, and of course you are dumb.

The only reason they capped "premiums" into it was because they capped benefits one receives.

Geesh - look at the formula - your benefit is based on what you put in.

You are really stupid. Everyone knows that.

So, logically, if you take off the cap on contributions, you have to take the cap off benefits. That's the fair way. If you are a teet sucker such as yourself, you can't understand that.

 

[Mags]

JFC, Maggot, do you ever wake up? Ever?

Social Security is NOT, can you comprehend that word NOT a savings and investment program like an IRA.

Social Security is primarily a social insurance program providing social protection or protection against socially recognized conditions, including poverty, old age, disability, unemployment and others.

Did you catch that key word INSURANCE?

And, as insurance always does, it pays out, based not on how much you have paid in, but on the insured amount. See whether you can put your pea-brain in gear to follow a simple example.

I have a million dollar house which I insure for a million dollars. It burns to the ground after I have made two months of premium payments. I collect.

My neighbor insures his million dollar house and pays premiums for fifty years, but he never has a claim. That's fair, and so is SS.

Working folks pay in, premiums, based on earnings. And if and when they have a claim, based on age or disability, widowhood or orphanage, they collect.

It isn't "fair" in your demented view, it's insurance. INSURANCE.

Now stop being such an ignorant turd.

No wonder this is becoming a backward country. It's growing morons like you.

Here you go, Muffy the dumb shit:

Many people (even stupid ones like Muffy) wonder how their benefit is figured. Social Security benefits are based on your lifetime earnings. Your actual earnings are adjusted or "indexed" to account for changes in average wages since the year the earnings were received. Then Social Security calculates your average indexed monthly earnings during the 35 years in which you earned the most. We apply a formula to these earnings and arrive at your basic benefit, or "primary insurance amount" (PIA). This is how much you would receive at your full retirement age?65 or older, depending on your date of birth.


Obviously you are very, very dumb. Thinking it is a fixed benefit for everyone. Were you born yesterday, or just too senile now to understand?

 

[Duff Miver]

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. ~William G. McAdoo

 

[rusty]

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. ~William G. McAdoo

Hey Duff,

When Rodgers was named the starter of GB over Farve a while back I tried telling Mags it was the best thing the organization could of done.

His response was that the GM and coach were out of their mind and how could you throw a hall of famer to the curb.Me and him went back and forth on this till finally I said I had enough you win,he wouldn't quit.

We all know how that turned out.You quote hits the nail square on the head.

 

[Mags]

Hey Duff,

When Rodgers was named the starter of GB over Farve a while back I tried telling Mags it was the best thing the organization could of done.

His response was that the GM and coach were out of their mind and how could you throw a hall of famer to the curb.Me and him went back and forth on this till finally I said I had enough you win,he wouldn't quit.

We all know how that turned out.You quote hits the nail square on the head.

Hey Rusty - Rodgers did have a great year, no doubt. Proved a lot of doubters wrong, including me. He had a history of being brittle, but played tough this year and only missed 1.5 games due to a concussion (which is 1.5 more than Favre missed his whole career in GB, but that is besides the point).

My point is keeping Favre is, he was the guy who resurrected the franchise in the 90's - to make it what it is today. If there was no Favre, there would have been no Super Bowl this year.

He holds every major passing record in the history of the NFL. He was won 3 MVP's. Wanna bet that Rodgers doesn't do either of those? I'll take that bet any day of the week.

You just don't throw a guy like that to the curb. You don't see the Yankees doing it to Jeter or Mariano, you didn't see the Brewers do that to Robin Yount or the Royals to George Brett.

I remember how Unitas (to SD) and Joe Namath (to LA) were treated late in their careers and it was just shameful to go out like that. I'm not sure what GB could have done to handle this better truthfully, but to throw out the best QB (at least records wise) in the history of the game was shameful.

At least Favre got revenge on the Packers 2 years ago, smoking them both times and taking the Vikes to the NFC championship game. But 'ole Brett should have retired then.

So yes, today, no doubt Rodgers is better, and was the primary driver to the Super Bowl for the Packers. I'm not sure he was better when Favre was let go though - Favre had a better year 2 years ago than Rodgers. And Rodgers lost us his first playoff game in AZ.

Let's just hope Rodgers can be there every game going forward and not be missing games. That is one thing he CAN learn from Favre - toughness.

SO, long story short - it sure worked out for the Packers in 2010 - so you were right in that regard.

 

[Mags]

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. ~William G. McAdoo

OK, ignorant one, you said this:

And, as insurance always does, it pays out, based not on how much you have paid in, but on the insured amount. See whether you can put your pea-brain in gear to follow a simple example.

Which clearly is wrong in this case, as I said this:

Many people (even stupid ones like Muffy) wonder how their benefit is figured. Social Security benefits are based on your lifetime earnings. Your actual earnings are adjusted or "indexed" to account for changes in average wages since the year the earnings were received.

So, clearly you are wrong - benefits ARE tied to career earnings and how much you pay in.

So, who is the ignorant one?

I'll spell it for you... M U F F Y