social security

This thread is pretty useless in the grand scheme of things.

Obama better get ready because everything is coming to a head in the next few weeks.

The Saudi Day of Rage is nearly upon us.

[clyde]

So simple even the government will wake up to the answer.




Kill everyone receiving ss.

God,...it's them---right?

Kill everyone who owns a Hall & Oates record.

[clyde]

Why not kill both groups?

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Kill everyone who owns a Hall & Oates record.

No. I refuse to kill members of my family no matter how many times they've pissed on my toilet seat. I am not an animal.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

No. I refuse to kill members of my family no matter how many times they've pissed on my toilet seat. I am not an animal.

[clyde]

Well fine, but someone has to go.300 million plus people are just too many.Kill everyone in the retirement states...that's it.



You won't get all of them and some innocent will have to go,but it beats any other idea.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Instead of quoting statistics how about forgetting the political sound bites for a second and looking at the effects on real folks, if you depend on SS for your entire income, not having a cost of living raise for two years coupled with rising Medicare costs has already effected you, making it hard to just exist. The last thing you need is further cuts/cost increases. On the other hand, if you have hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars in yearly income, you can survive and prosper without social security. If you are rich, I get your opposition...it's called greed and I understand that but if not, why continue to drink the political kool-ade. Folks are so afraid that someone will "get something for nothing" that they are blinded to real need.

How about addressing the real problem. That the unfunded commitment we have for future SS and Medicare obligations is in the $90 trillion dollar range. And why in the world did Obama cut the SS tax this year if the program is in trouble? Is it that spending our way out of bankruptcy theory again?

I can't do it. I have family in a retirement state.

Kill all people who own a Hall & Oates record and actually paid for a Kid Rock song on iTunes.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

I can't do it. I have family in a retirement state.

Kill all people who own a Hall & Oates record and actually paid for a Kid Rock song on iTunes.

Oh Jesus!

[clyde]

You're tough to please.



Nuke Chicago.....how's that one?

[clyde]

I'll throw in the music people you mentioned.

Ok that's a deal. Any city that has a company/organization that pays Lovie Smith millions deserves to be wiped off the map.

[clyde]

Good.




Bye.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

When the top 5% 'the rich' pay for 54% over half of income tax collected I'd argue they are paying their fair share and then some.

When the top 5% "the rich" pay a far lower end tax rate than 95% of the rest of the population, pay a lesser percentage of their income than the rest of the country, then "fair share" needs to be discussed.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

wow
So if I read this correctly, not only should the wealthy pay more into social security, (their "fair share"), but they should also get zero benefits?
your sense of fairness doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
this type of argument is always used to derail legitimate refrom of the program. its not going to be fixed simply by taking more from the wealthy. the big problem is the the declining number of workers supporting a larger population of retirees.

Never said the rich should pay more only if cuts must be made, the wealthy should be first and yes that is a socialist idea...so what?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Never said the rich should pay more only if cuts must be made, the wealthy should be first and yes that is a socialist idea...so what?

This is the United States, and socialism sucks. We don't want it. You want socialism? Go to Cuba, or China, or anywhere "red" enough.

Socialism is akin to a bunch of bums saying that they want more of someone else's money -- somebody who worked for it. Just like that mugger waiting around the next dark alley.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

When an argument is put forward that first highlights how much more should go to the poor, and then asserts that the rich don't "need" as much because they have so much left over, you can be sure that the principle espoused is a socialist one.

Joey, go read up on the definition of "socialism". It's not what you apparently think it is at all.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

This is the United States, and socialism sucks. We don't want it. You want socialism? Go to Cuba, or China, or anywhere "red" enough.

Socialism is akin to a bunch of bums saying that they want more of someone else's money -- somebody who worked for it. Just like that mugger waiting around the next dark alley.

Good lord, you don't have a clue what Socialism is. Or Communism. You're just spitting out words you've heard.