Pat Murray and Kerry named to Super Debt Panel

[3rdnlng]

You are seriously just cracking me up today... you have objectivity. How can you honestly say that? You only believe in your side, you only think the Republican way is right. Give me a break. Again, you are just wasting time.

 

Now on to your nostradamous-like vision. First thing do you realize that recalls are ridiculously hard to do? I wished for that third seat, no doubt. However I am still happy with the two they gained. Plus, the numbers show that the bigger recall of Walker is truly possible. I am not worried about unions losing power.. if anything our members are offering concessions and paying more towards their benefits. Yet, that is still not good enough for the "I wish my benefits package was like that" crowd. They want more. I hope that unions do not give more back. It does nothing for them. They are still being bashed, still being demonized, etc., etc. Until that mentality calms down, why give in.

 

The sad thing is that middle-class people are now fighting each other and some actually believe that the Tea Party and Republicans have their best interests in mind. They have not shown that they do. Not in any way.

 

So go on... act like you're objective... act like you are independent... all you are doing is making a fool out of yourself. I can easily hang my hat the fact that I am true to my beliefs. I am a Democrat, I believe in unions and I can STILL see that both things CAN be improved upon. That they aren't perfect. But they are A LOT better than the filth coming from the right.

 

What is the Tea Party's motivation for wanting fiscal responsibility?

[pBills]

What is the Tea Party's motivation for wanting fiscal responsibility?

 

Funny thing it's not just Tea Party that wants fiscal responsibility. Everyone does, they just have different ways of getting it.

 

I'm waiting for the praise to come regarding the GOPs picks. Even though they all signed the pledge and some have walked out of meetings before... Will they now put their pledges and Tea Party aside and be able to compromise?

[OCinBuffalo]

Funny thing it's not just Tea Party that wants fiscal responsibility. Everyone does, they just have different ways of getting it.

 

I'm waiting for the praise to come regarding the GOPs picks. Even though they all signed the pledge and some have walked out of meetings before... Will they now put their pledges and Tea Party aside and be able to compromise?

You cannot say you want fiscal responsibility....

 

....and also say you want no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and SSI in this universe. They are diametrically opposing concepts.

 

But, no cuts to anything is Nancy Pelosi/Dick Durbin's position currently. We would have to have $46 trillion in the bank right now, collecting interest, to meet the obligations Pelosi, etc. currently demand.

 

W...T....F is "responsible" about that? This is not a "matter of perspective", opinion, or anything even approaching them. This is outright denial of reality. This is delusion. How the F is anyone supposed to compromise with delusional people? Where do we start exactly? Your side has no basis in reality...so how are we supposed to find the middle ground between here and fairyland? Do you have a map we can use?

[....lybob]

So how much has SSI contributed to the debt so far?

[OCinBuffalo]

So how much has SSI contributed to the debt so far?

 

So every disabled person and everybody that goes on disability will have contributed what they get out?

 

It's the same problem with Medicare. For every apples to apples $1 people have paid in, they are being paid $4.

 

Why? Because Democrats, and some Republicans, have been irresponsible in what they have promised people.

 

The question is now: do we sign up for more bad behavior until the whole thing comes crashing down? Or, do we take the steps we need to gradually fix the problem?

 

I'm for the last one. But again, I don't see how we compromise with people like you, unless you give us a map to your home in fairyland, so that we have a starting place on both sides from which to create a compromise. Or, we can sign up for more irresponsible nonsense. Hey, I know, let's have another stimulus that creates shovel ready green jobs! That will raise all the revenue we need and, after waving our Pelosi magic wand, all our problems will go away, and then we can self-congratulate on how "moral" we are all.

 

Right now that last part is the ...lybob plan...unless you tell me different.

[....lybob]

So every disabled person and everybody that goes on disability will have contributed what they get out?

 

It's the same problem with Medicare. For every apples to apples $1 people have paid in, they are being paid $4.

 

Why? Because Democrats, and some Republicans, have been irresponsible in what they have promised people.

 

The question is now: do we sign up for more bad behavior until the whole thing comes crashing down? Or, do we take the steps we need to gradually fix the problem?

 

I'm for the last one. But again, I don't see how we compromise with people like you, unless you give us a map to your home in fairyland, so that we have a starting place on both sides from which to create a compromise. Or, we can sign up for more irresponsible nonsense. Hey, I know, let's have another stimulus that creates shovel ready green jobs! That will raise all the revenue we need and, after waving our Pelosi magic wand, all our problems will go away, and then we can self-congratulate on how "moral" we are all.

 

Right now that last part is the ...lybob plan...unless you tell me different.

fix it- sure- how about removing the $106,000 cap to start

 

oh and why did you reply if you couldn't answer the question

Edited August 10, 2011 by ....lybob

[OCinBuffalo]

fix it- sure- how about removing the $106,000 cap to start

 

I don't see how or why we would want any cap on anything. Each person is different, has different abilities and earning power in their lifetime, so what's with a cap?

 

Similarly, I know wtf I am doing when it comes to investments. Why can't I be allowed to manage my own SSI? Do you really think some tool in DC knows better than I do how to manage money?

 

If there is: I want a name and number. I want specifics. I'd rather pay a financial adviser to manage my SSI, with strict conservative instructions, then collect less interest than I would get from a f'ing savings account. But, if there's some government guy that knows better than my adviser, give me his number.

 

The problem is: I don't fit into the liberal "one size fits all" mentality. I also don't fit into the "we know better than you" liberal mentality, because liberals have proven that they patently do not.

 

 

Edit: I did answer the question, with a question. You know damn well that SSI doesn't operate as designed, and hasn't for a very long time. So spare me. This isn't 1965, there LBJ.

 

Edited August 10, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Magox]

You are seriously just cracking me up today... you have objectivity. How can you honestly say that? You only believe in your side, you only think the Republican way is right. Give me a break. Again, you are just wasting time.

 

Now on to your nostradamous-like vision. First thing do you realize that recalls are ridiculously hard to do? I wished for that third seat, no doubt. However I am still happy with the two they gained. Plus, the numbers show that the bigger recall of Walker is truly possible. I am not worried about unions losing power.. if anything our members are offering concessions and paying more towards their benefits. Yet, that is still not good enough for the "I wish my benefits package was like that" crowd. They want more. I hope that unions do not give more back. It does nothing for them. They are still being bashed, still being demonized, etc., etc. Until that mentality calms down, why give in.

 

The sad thing is that middle-class people are now fighting each other and some actually believe that the Tea Party and Republicans have their best interests in mind. They have not shown that they do. Not in any way.

 

So go on... act like you're objective... act like you are independent... all you are doing is making a fool out of yourself. I can easily hang my hat the fact that I am true to my beliefs. I am a Democrat, I believe in unions and I can STILL see that both things CAN be improved upon. That they aren't perfect. But they are A LOT better than the filth coming from the right.

 

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

 

So how much has SSI contributed to the debt so far?

It's the long-term outlook, silly.

[....lybob]

I don't see how or why we would want any cap on anything. Each person is different, has different abilities and earning power in their lifetime, so what's with a cap?

 

Similarly, I know wtf I am doing when it comes to investments. Why can't I be allowed to manage my own SSI? Do you really think some tool in DC knows better than I do how to manage money?

 

If there is: I want a name and number. I want specifics. I'd rather pay a financial adviser to manage my SSI, with strict conservative instructions, then collect less interest than I would get from a f'ing savings account. But, if there's some government guy that knows better than my adviser, give me his number.

 

The problem is: I don't fit into the liberal "one size fits all" mentality. I also don't fit into the "we know better than you" liberal mentality, because liberals have proven that they patently do not.

 

 

Edit: I did answer the question, with a question. You know damn well that SSI doesn't operate as designed, and hasn't for a very long time. So spare me. This isn't 1965, there LBJ.

Excellent So I can put you down for lifting the $106,000 cap on SSI payroll tax.

[OCinBuffalo]

Excellent So I can put you down for lifting the $106,000 cap on SSI payroll tax.

 

Sure. If we are going to treat this as a real retirement program that actually gets better than a 2% ROI....with the assumption that rich people are by definition going to pay more, which in turn covers the poor people/disabled/etc. taking out more than they paid in...

 

...then there's a chance I will collect social security after all.

 

See, the difference here is: I want solutions, not delusions. If this is the only way to get it done, then just come out and f''ing say it. Then, f'ing do it. Stop demagoging the rich. If there are other ways to do it, I'm all ears. I would think that if you removed the cap, but at the same time, cut the corporate tax rate, you won't find many "rich" people bitching. Besides, their "income" usually pales in comparison to their capital gains anyway. Right?

 

That's the only problem I see with your "the only thing we do is remove the cap" idea. Without anything else, people will simply find ways around it. I used to work for the Big 6. I am certain they would be overjoyed with your plan, as they could bill tons of hours circumventing it.

Edited August 10, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Magox]

Sure. If we are going to treat this as a real retirement program that actually gets better than a 2% ROI....with the assumption that rich people are by definition going to pay more, which in turn covers the poor people/disabled/etc. taking out more than they paid in...

 

...then there's a chance I will collect social security after all.

 

See, the difference here is: I want solutions, not delusions. If this is the only way to get it done, then just come out and f''ing say it. Then, f'ing do it. Stop demagoging the rich. If there are other ways to do it, I'm all ears. I would think that if you removed the cap, but at the same time, cut the corporate tax rate, you won't find many "rich" people bitching. Besides, their "income" usually pales in comparison to their capital gains anyway. Right?

 

That's the only problem I see with your "the only thing we do is remove the cap" idea. Without anything else, people will simply find ways around it. I used to work for the Big 6. I am certain they would be overjoyed with your plan, as they could bill tons of hours circumventing it.

Means testing should definitely be part of the solution.

[DC Tom]

It's the long-term outlook, silly.

 

That would be why he said "so far".

 

But of course, if people paid attention to the long-term, we wouldn't need SS.

[Magox]

That would be why he said "so far".

 

But of course, if people paid attention to the long-term, we wouldn't need SS.

He didn't mean it in the context that you were eluding to.

[OCinBuffalo]

Means testing should definitely be part of the solution.

 

yes, I am fine with that, provided we stop acting like Billy the minimum wage drifter = OC the consultant both in terms of what we have contributed, and our ability to manage our money.

 

We are not equal. We will never be equal. "Treating everybody the same" is a great management style if we all work at the highway department. Billy might, but I don't. You don't.

 

We need better solutions. The current ones fail, and they fail to address today's problems. Again, I will remind ...lybob(LBJ) that it is not 1965.

[DC Tom]

He didn't mean it in the context that you were eluding to.

 

Really? That's how it read to me...

[....lybob]

Sure. If we are going to treat this as a real retirement program that actually gets better than a 2% ROI....with the assumption that rich people are by definition going to pay more, which in turn covers the poor people/disabled/etc. taking out more than they paid in...

 

...then there's a chance I will collect social security after all.

 

See, the difference here is: I want solutions, not delusions. If this is the only way to get it done, then just come out and f''ing say it. Then, f'ing do it. Stop demagoging the rich. If there are other ways to do it, I'm all ears. I would think that if you removed the cap, but at the same time, cut the corporate tax rate, you won't find many "rich" people bitching. Besides, their "income" usually pales in comparison to their capital gains anyway. Right?

 

That's the only problem I see with your "the only thing we do is remove the cap" idea. Without anything else, people will simply find ways around it. I used to work for the Big 6. I am certain they would be overjoyed with your plan, as they could bill tons of hours circumventing it.

yes you are trying to circumvent it right now by trying to squash talk about it - exactly how would you circumvent a payroll tax because everyone who pays a payroll tax on every cent of their income right now would like to know.

[OCinBuffalo]

yes you are trying to circumvent it right now by trying to squash talk about it - exactly how would you circumvent a payroll tax because everyone who pays a payroll tax on every cent of their income right now would like to know.

I just spent 3 posts talking about how to do something, but am trying to squash talking about it...at the same time.

 

Y'know when I say you are delusional? The above suffices as an example.

 

 

...

 

I never worked on the tax side. Hell, I never worked on the accounting side at all. You'd have to ask them. However, in a contest between Big 6(is it 3 or 4 now?) accountants and you? Um, they'd win, and they probably wouldn't even need to assign a manager to it, never mind a partner.

 

I do have an easy way to circumvent it though: don't pay people as much in traditional payroll. Issue them stock and pay dividends-->capital gains. Pay people per diems for expenses. We are talking about people that make more than 100k, right? It's easy to "pay" them in expenses, while keeping their salary low, we already do that. Hell, most of the recruiters out there are constantly trying to get consultants/programmers to take their gigs by dangling large per diem checks, and paying us out of Texas, so that we get to keep more of our money...and that's just what the F already goes on.

 

A while back I had a guy out of Columbus offer me 40k a year in salary, and 100k in per diem none of which is taxable. I told him he was going to get busted. He told me he already had 20 people working under those terms. So what the F do you want?

Edited August 11, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[....lybob]

I just spent 3 posts talking about how to do something, but am trying to squash talking about it...at the same time.

 

Y'know when I say you are delusional? The above suffices as an example.

 

 

...

 

I never worked on the tax side. Hell, I never worked on the accounting side at all. You'd have to ask them. However, in a contest between Big 6(is it 3 or 4 now?) accountants and you? Um, they'd win, and they probably wouldn't even need to assign a manager to it, never mind a partner.

 

I do have an easy way to circumvent it though: don't pay people as much in traditional payroll. Issue them stock and pay dividends-->capital gains. Pay people per diems for expenses. We are talking about people that make more than 100k, right? It's easy to "pay" them in expenses, while keeping their salary low, we already do that. Hell, most of the recruiters out there are constantly trying to get consultants/programmers to take their gigs by dangling large per diem checks, and paying us out of Texas, so that we get to keep more of our money...and that's just what the F already goes on.

 

A while back I had a guy out of Columbus offer me 40k a year in salary, and 100k in per diem none of which is taxable. I told him he was going to get busted. He told me he already had 20 people working under those terms. So what the F do you want?

Well we will just have to make capital gains, stocks, dividends, subject to the tax and we will just have to tax the businesses an accounting tax to pay for extra accountants to make sure their expenses are legitimate.

[OCinBuffalo]

Well we will just have to make capital gains, stocks, dividends, subject to the tax and we will just have to tax the businesses an accounting tax to pay for extra accountants to make sure their expenses are legitimate.

 

That's what I was saying. You can't just do one thing. Now if you did all of that, but, you also lowered the rates of everything, "the rich" would probably be less likely to engage people who are smarter than you to defeat your plan.

 

Good luck with taxing the accountants. They know where every body is buried. If you were Harry Reid, and you put forward this plan with the accountant tax in it, about half an hour later you'd have 50 phone calls from people in your own party demanding that you take it out.

 

In what world do accountants that work for me determine that something I say is an expense, in fact isn't an expense? Not this one. If it "isn't an expense" then I tell them, "find a way to make it one", and that's the end of it, or, they don't work for me anymore. Get it? Moreover, do you honestly believe that every receipt for every expense we incur, and every other firm, could be reviewed by the IRS? No. Ridiculous.

 

There's no point in taxing for something that can't be done. Kind of like "never give an order you know won't be followed".

[....lybob]

That's what I was saying. You can't just do one thing. Now if you did all of that, but, you also lowered the rates of everything, "the rich" would probably be less likely to engage people who are smarter than you to defeat your plan.

 

Good luck with taxing the accountants. They know where every body is buried. If you were Harry Reid, and you put forward this plan with the accountant tax in it, about half an hour later you'd have 50 phone calls from people in your own party demanding that you take it out.

 

In what world do accountants that work for me determine that something I say is an expense, in fact isn't an expense? Not this one. If it "isn't an expense" then I tell them, "find a way to make it one", and that's the end of it, or, they don't work for me anymore. Get it? Moreover, do you honestly believe that every receipt for every expense we incur, and every other firm, could be reviewed by the IRS? No. Ridiculous.

 

There's no point in taxing for something that can't be done. Kind of like "never give an order you know won't be followed".

well then businesses will have be assigned accountants who work for the government- either businesses are going to start behaving in an ethical and honest manner or there is going to be a huge reset which no one is going like- the bottom line is either capitalism is going to work for the masses as well as the elites or it's going bye bye and that won't make anybody happy.