Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Uh-huh. And what happened to the good influences of your Republican Congresses after January 20, 2001? Overnight, they went from being conscientious, penny-pinching budget-balancers to being a bunch of crazy wasters and spenders? How could that have happened...
It appears they used Democrat reasoning and said, "You guys did it for 40 years so now it is our turn". Haven't you seen the lefty say that very thing in this thread? Yep, the OP did say that
I think most children take the surname of their father, maybe in your family that is different?
I must tell you, I didn't like President Bush one bit, but I never lowered my dignity by purposely mangling his name. It's just childish to do so.
Purposely mangling his name? Wow....do you even know anything about the man you voted for?
It appears they used Democrat reasoning and said, "You guys did it for 40 years so now it is our turn". Haven't you seen the lefty say that very thing in this thread? Yep, the OP did say that
That is too true, but that year the SS "surplus" was about $250 billion so they could call that applied to the 19 billion a surplus since the Congress spent that "surplus".
No, the surplus on Social Security that year was $150 billion, and the surplus on the rest of the budget was $86 billion, meaning there was a total budget surplus of $236 billion. Just as you'll find in every reference book you want to consult. You can't just make stuff up, you know...leave that for Beck...
Repeated failure is no deterrent to you, is it. So who imagined your $2 trillion health care deficit number for you? Was it the Beckster? It's as unrealistic as the 1000-fold deficit increase...made up hobgoblin stuff...
The number that was put out by CBO was very near $2 trillion and the Obamas tried to make those numbers smaller. I think that that number is too small for when it all takes place.
Now do you want to discuss the new taxes that will be inserted by Obamacare to help pay for it? I bet you won't admit the number of taxes that will be levied from that "law".
RoySoldBoy - what he is implying is that the people in the 1% (the wealthiest among us) are not paying their FAIR share of taxes compared to those in the middle class category. There are multiple tax breaks for those in that "golden" category which make their % LESS than the typical tax rate paid for by the middle class. Do they still pay MORE in taxes than your typical middle-class tax-payer - I would be petty comfortable in saying "yes" - but the percentage of taxes they pay on their total income is FAR less (in a great number of the cases) than your Typical Joe.
I am not close to being one of those 1% people but I really wonder what their FAIR share is. If you want only wealth redistribution it is more than a fair share since the distribution is going to that 47% or non-tax payers.
When I questioned our tax lady about the amount that would be refunded to my son she only could say that I need to get a small farm operation. My son raises some cattle as a sideline to make some money if he can but as a tax write off because he can.
We need to either insert the FAIR Tax as our only federal tax or throw out the tax code and rewrite the whole thing. Then we could take care of all those wealthy people and by damn make them pay a fair share. Now how much money it that going to be? You tell me.
I will suggest that your words about surpluses and near balances have to include the money that was not paid to SS recipients and considered surplus and just thrown into the Treasury and tell you that SS wouldn't be so broke now if that had not been done from about 1950 to the present. All that fancy bookkeeping can't hide the real facts from me.
You can't tell fact from fiction. Social Security surpluses have basically been accruing since 1983 when we started saving up to fund the baby boomer retirements. Those unneeded balances are of course invested rather than being stuck in some coffee can somewhere. They happen to be invested in US Treasury securities, in part because of the safety of those instruments, and in part because there aren't other markets that can efficiently absorb what is currently better than $2.5 trillion. Those surpluses by the way were designed to be used and exhausted at about the time the last baby boomer dies -- roughly 2050. That is what is SUPPOSED to happen...
No, the surplus on Social Security that year was $150 billion, and the surplus on the rest of the budget was $86 billion, meaning there was a total budget surplus of $236 billion. Just as you'll find in every reference book you want to consult. You can't just make stuff up, you know...leave that for Beck...
The GD social security surplus should never have been inserted in the general fund because the Congress knew that they could never repay it to the taxpayers who paid it, like it or not. SS was never intended to be just another tax to go with income taxes. It had a purpose before the 1950s but things got changed a bit by Eisenhower and his Democrat Congress.
You can't tell fact from fiction. Social Security surpluses have basically been accruing since 1983 when we started saving up to fund the baby boomer retirements. Those unneeded balances are of course invested rather than being stuck in some coffee can somewhere. They happen to be invested in US Treasury securities, in part because of the safety of those instruments, and in part because there aren't other markets that can efficiently absorb what is currently better than $2.5 trillion. Those surpluses by the way were designed to be used and exhausted at about the time the last baby boomer dies -- roughly 2050. That is what is SUPPOSED to happen...
What happened to the surpluses before 1983? Mostly they went into foreign aid just as should have been done from the general fund. Can you prove that FDR and his Brain Trust intended that SS should be what it became? Succeeding Congresses often don't see or ignore what previous ones meant to happen and we the sheep just allow ourselves to be crapped on.
Why is SS broke now and the baby boomers are just starting to retire if what you suggest is true? Somehow I don't think it is working. Maybe it is or isn't working because of shadowy bookkeeping.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
