I agree that raising SS tax is the best way to keep SS solvent without cutting benefits. My only question is, why the arbitrary number of $170,000? Why not more that that, why not go up to the first $1 million of income, or even $500,000? I can't figure out why they are choosing such a low ball number...

Go big or go home right?

Aww, look Feisty calling for increases on other people. Not surprise, but gosh the whole shared sacrifice thing-y kinda left the building.

So we're going to means test it, yet charge me more. The chancse of getting SS is remote if not a pipe dream, yet I'm supposed to "contribute" a bunch more. Yep, seems fair.

So is this now just stealing, or a Madoff ponzi scheme?

See folks people with means have a large amount of control over their income. Not just the amount, but the manner in which it is received. So now there will be a big shift in the manner of reporting and payments of the income. Looks like a full employment act for lawyers and accountants.

Fools!

Whe you reach the age that you can draw your Social Security, there is a maximum amount of pay-out that the government will make to you. That is based upon the amount you paid in.

If you want to force the 'rich' to pay on larger amounts or even everything they earn... are you willing to increase the amount they are paid-out when they start drawing that benefit?

Likely not... so what you REALLY want to do is get them to fund everyone else's benefit... that is no different than imposing an earnings TAX that is in no way related to the Social Security benefit as it was intended. You're just trying to hide it in SS. (wolves in sheep's clothing)

You can try to hide your attempts to redistribute the wealth but we can see right through you.

Hey Matthew,

Wasn't GE a big Obama contibutor, owner of MSNBC, and now has its ex-CEO as Obama's Chief of Staff?

I am with Brutus on this one, the mantra should be "tax the rich the same as the poor" most people pay the tax on every dime they make, rich people should be taxed on their entire income, why cut it off at 170k.

Taxing 13% of ones income up to $106,000 just isn't enough anymore! Now because the government has mismanaged yet another Ponzi scheme of theirs, the only Liberal solution is, as usual, to raise taxes.

Redistribute wealth - it's what the Liberals do best. Well, at least until they run out of money and have to go out and steal, uh, tax some more of it.

Forrest - its a progressive tax scheme. The rates change. Nobody pays taxes on every dime.

And good golly but isn't AMT just a peach? Yeah that's always my favorite part - yet calculate what you owe, then get smacked with AMT.

So Forrest shall we re-draft AMT to be super inclusive? You know, so everyone gets to participate?

BTW Feisty,

About those nasty hedge fund guys ......... 80% of their money was donated to the Dems in the 2008 elections.

One of the biggest, nastiest, most evil of the hedge fund players was a guy named George Soros.

Ring any mediamatters / thinkprogress bells? You think he supported McCain / Palin?

Matthew,

I didn't say SS was part of the deficit - I said what a great amount of money it was and compared it to Obama's spending.

How's Michelle your blow-up doing - say hi to her for me.

And hey JAS1 - it's super-duper fun to pay self employment tax- you know the "full kitty.". Cause more is better right gang?

[pssst. No, it really isn't].

Naw, naw. Can't do it. Naw. Wouldn't be prudent to have high earning billionaire hedge fund managers paying more than 15%. That's already too high! Hyaw-hyaw-hyaw.

Quick libby thieves. Remind us all of what the initial % of SS tax was/and what it was going to be capped at, when it was instituted under FDR? Tell us about how it was racist because it hit minorities the hardest, and intentionally had the benefit age set just beyond the average life expectancy of the black American male?

If you can give us the honest dope on that we might want to hear more of the "risky tax scheme," er, I mean, 'wonderful Progressive Fairy Tale.'

Bob, Obama inherited a lot of that deficit thanks to past Republican Presidents.

Spanky: And hey JAS1 - it's super-duper fun to pay self employment tax- you know the "full kitty.".

Those quarterly checks with the I.R.S. written into the "Pay to the order of" field along with all those zeros at the end in the amount field gets a bit staggering. You wonder who you're really working for.

And as for those nasty greedy hedge fund managers. 98% of their money for the 10 highest paid managers went to the Democrats.

Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/95763-hedge-funds-donate-big-to-democrats

Here's a totally better idea for Obumbler and the rest of you class warfare fools. Eliminate SS completely. Then the 'porest among us'...and everybody else too, can keep that 15.3% of THEIR EARNINGS in THEIR POCKETS and do whatever the heck they want to with it. Then the Marxist-in-Chief, and the rest of the crooks in DC can learn to tighten teir own belts.

Eric,

Another liberal that doesn't know the difference between debt and deficit? No wonder you guys have no clue.

Obama's overspending for this year (deficit) alone is $1.65 trillon. Has nothing to do with Bush, or the current $14 trillion debt, except to add to it.

Eric,

No POTUS inherits anothers annual deficits. They inherit the national debt. Obama inherited one of 10.6 Trillion from Bush.

Bush was a drunken sailor who grew the debt by over $5 Trillion in his 8 years.

Obama has already ballooned it by $4 Trillion in just 2 1/4 years!!!

Nickel and dime the rich and continue to watch the jobs leave this country.

For example, take a business owner/executive that makes $10 million/year. If you increase their taxes by 10%, what do you think they will do? Do you think they will just pay it? My guess is the first thing they will do is hire tax lawyers to find loopholes (such as moving investments out of the US). If that doesn't work they face a decision...reduce their lifestyle or find more money. I bet they find more money for themselves by firing people lower on the food chain than they are...the net result is, the poor and middle class take a hit (like always).

Hence the problem with the "just increase taxes the rich" strategy.

President Obama doesn't even pay 30% taxes on his 1.7 million. Now he wants to screw the "rich' some more? The Republicans want to make changes to most of our programs. One change is "means testing". So the rich would contribute thousands more to their own SS and then be told that they earn too much so they won't be receiving SS? I am sick of this redistribution attitude of the left. Get off your asses and make your own living.

bob: Obama's overspending for this year (deficit) alone is $1.65 trillon. Has nothing to do with the current $14 trillion debt, except to add to it.

The debt when Obama took over in 2008 was about $9 trillion. Given that the first budget was a carry over from Bush, the deficit for FY 2008 took the debt to about $10.3 trillion. Since that time, Obama has added $4 trillion to the debt in 27 months. Obama will add another $1.65 trillion to the debt for his projected budget for FY 2012.

China lends it, Obama spends it.

Ron,

It's not "fair" to hit the libtards with economic facts when they are trying to make themselves feel good with another idiotic 'soak the rich' proposal.

You are obviously a heartless, greedy bastard. Welcome to the club. LOL

JoAnnaSmith1

Taxing 13% of ones income up to $106,000 just isn't enough anymore! Now because the government has mismanaged yet another Ponzi scheme of theirs, the only Liberal solution is, as usual, to raise taxes.

Redistribute wealth - it's what the Liberals do best. Well, at least until they run out of money and have to go out and steal, uh, tax some more of it.

No Joanna what you must realise is that those caps are out dated, those caps were put in back when no many were making 106k a year, also Redistribute wealth because of republican policys the middle is getting further from middle and the wealthy is getting more wealthy. once we have cut our selves to death and we still have deficts problems what will you say them joanna, NO New tax again, thats getting real old.

JoAnnaSmith1

And as for those nasty greedy hedge fund managers. 98% of their money for the 10 highest paid managers went to the Democrats.

Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/95763-hedge-funds-donate-big-to-democrats

Nicely done JoAnnaSmith1...

Anyone here notice how conspicuously silent the nasty one is after JAS1's post?

I LOVE IT!

Fiesty FOOL,

JoAnnaSmith1 answered you question in 1.18. Any comment?

Hedge fund managers love democrats. You lefties keep saying the republicans are the party of the rich but it is just another lie. You repeat your lies so often that you believe them.

Brutus,

"go big or go home right"

Well then let's go all the way. Raise their taxes, charge them $20 a gallon for gas, and mandate they tithe at least 10%, right?

Only one other question left for ya Einstein. What'll we do when they all move to Costa Rica?

JoAnnaSmith,

Yep.

Thanks for the back-up on the hedge fund guys - your number was even better.

Think Feisty and the libs will ever figure out why Wall Street supported Obama by a 4-1 margin, especially after how well Wall Street has been taken care of by Obama? Think Feisty and the libs will ever figure out who the truly wealthy really are?

I know ........ stupid question ....... she / they will never get it.

Ron,

"Nickel and dime the rich..." that's exactly right - just nickels and dimes and not a lot of consequence to the very wealthy. You assume that if the rich are taxed more, they'll automatically retaliate by firing people. A 'going concern' can only reduce expenses to a point - or they'll go out of business.

Isn't it possible that a wealthy entrepreneur - faced with a smaller bottom line - might actually look for ways to GROW his business?

how about the 47% of Americans that pay NO taxes...... any ideas or is it the same old "keep your hands off my stash..."?

Too many are looking for handouts from the rich, no one seem to be bothered by the comment that taking out ss tax on higher income but allowing the ss benefit to increase with that- greed revealed again....

I think everybody should pay a flat tax on ALL income (capital gains included) and NO deductions for ALL (rich, middle class and poor)(I can hear the whinning from start.....)

JH: Hedge fund managers love democrats.

Do'ya ever notice that Obama and the Democrats endlessly rant about the "Evils of Wall Street, of Banks, of Hedge Fund Managers". But, who made out like bandits after TARP? Wall Street. Banks. Hedge Fund Managers. All paid for with the common taxpayers dime. GM is doing the same. Obama "invested" in them, and now the taxpayer will take a $10+ billion dollar bath in red ink when the government sells their stocks this summer.

The taxpayer is an endless source of wealth to a liberal.

Feisty.... where are you?

Hehehehehehe

BTW JAS1... Obama and the Wall Street guys is like watching the WWF... scripted to the nth degree...

"alright I will toss you over the top rope... then you jump in and kick me in the chest.... But it's just a show cuz you're my bud."

:-)

The same old conservative drone. Everything liberal is bad/socialist/idiotic, everything Obama does or proposes is bad, give the rich more money so it will trickle down...

About those nasty hedge fund guys ......... 80% of their money was donated to the Dems in the 2008 elections.

WOW! Imagine my surprise when I read the link JS1 posted and didn't find anything to substantiate your claims there bobby..

For those interested, below is the full text of her link and maybe someone can point out where it references the 2008 elections or 80% for that matter!

The world's top-earning hedge fund managers have bankrolled almost exclusively Democratic campaigns.

The top 10 highest-paid hedge fund managers in 2009 have dished out campaign contributions almost only to Democrats.

Over their lifetimes, those managers have given almost $33 million in campaign contributions to Democrats, according to research by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and that is based on data maintained by the nonpartisan CQMoneyline.

The same managers gave roughly $600,000 to Republicans, according to the research. The contributions went 98 percent to Democrats and two percent to Republicans.

The money went to Democratic campaign committees, individual lawmaker's election bids and other political action committees.

The data looks at the 10 highest-paid hedge fund managers in 2009, as identified by AR: Absolute Return+Alpha magazine. The New York Times published a story in March identifying the hedge fund managers, including John Paulson and George Soros.

As the Senate prepares to debate possibly hundreds of amendments to a Wall Street overhaul bill, labor unions and others have criticized the bill for not having tough restrictions on hedge funds.

"It's very disconcerting to see this legislation moving forward that gives them a complete pass," said Heather Slavkin, of AFL-CIO.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) is planning an amendment that would require tougher disclosure requirements for hedge funds and private equity firms.

A request for comment at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) was not returned by press time.

Last week, Republicans prevented Democrats for three days from opening debate on the Wall Street overhaul bill. Democrats repeatedly criticized the GOP for standing up for Wall Street.

Since 1990, finance, insurance and real estate interest have given nearly $2.4 billion to Democrats and Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The contributions went 45 percent to Democrats and 55 percent to Republicans.

In the 2010 campaign cycle, 54 percent of the contributions have gone to Democrats and 45 percent to Republicans, according to the center.

Nice try kids... lol

PS: Anyone else shocked that SOB is a FAN of the WWF? LMFAO!

I though Social Security was established as a retirement program for nongovernment workers rather than an income redistribution program. Most government workers did not pay in to it . The wealthy get back a much smaller percentage compared to what they pay in compared to lower income folks. The benefits are maxed, so their contributions have a max also. If we want to set up Social security as "welfare", that should come from the general fund.

fielden

Same old crap from the liberals. TAX THE RICH.

And you're right about everything liberal is bad. Redistribution is bad/socialistic/idiotic.

JoAnna - Keep up the good work. You'll never convince Fiesty and the gang but keep it up anyway. More people than you think are waking up to the liberal/progressive agenda and it doesn't look good for them. There is hope.

Ursula,

We business people are always looking to 'grow' our businesses. But the bottom line is that we get zip before ALL costs are covered, and expenses ALWAYS precede receipts. Thus, whenever we are faced with added 'arbitrary' costs from the government, our first line of attack must be to see where we can trim somewhere else in order to compensate for the new hit.

Higher taxes ALWAYS lead to 3 bad things: 1) higher costs 2) lower employment 3) less profit

One of the things FR references is that Obama is leveraging off of Simpson-Bowles who was in favor for raising the cap on SS payments. But FR neglects to also reference Simpson-Bowles when talking about the other side of the equation where Simpson-Bowls also talks about limiting the payments by pushing out the benefit schedule. It is the combination of those two procedures that brings SS back intoeconomic solvency.

So once again, Obama is picking and choosing what he claims is a "solution" without telling the entire story. This is typical Obama behavior in his quest to get out his populist message.

Feisty.... where are you?

Fact checking!

After reading your nonsense, there's NO doubt it's a foreign concept to you!

Citizens will never understand that business get the money from people not the sky. THey can raise prices, lower wages, or lower profits that affect individual with 401'ks. All the money comes from people anyway.

Why don't you just confiscate everyones wages then redistribute them out equally to everyone. That seems to be what a lot of people want these days. It also seems a lot think no one is entitled to more than they have no matter even if the others work harder, are better managers or are a lot smarter.

What a lot of people don't realize is when you start the concept of redistributing income, it will eventually filter down to those that consider themselves lower income. They will get hit also. Most people don't even realize this has started already by taxing more of social security income that retired folks receive,

Hey!

Where did everyone go?

I brought some napkins for you all to wipe the egg off your faces!

What a bunch of blatent liars! Typical when caught they can't cut and run fast enough!

Absolutely the cap on income that is subject to social security tax should be raised...and there really should not be a cap at all. If you make $500,000, then that full amount should be subject to FICA withholdings. The argument that the return a person will recieve some day is capped is not a reason to maintain a cap on income subject to the SS tax. Social Security is there to make sure our elderly and disabled are able to afford shelter and food...and a modest cap in benefits that allows for that, without extreme excess, makes sense. Social security was never intended to pay for the extravagant lifestyle a person may be able to afford on their lifetime income and investments...it is a safety net that we all contribute to because we care about our sick and elderly in this country. Just as we value education and all pay taxes to support that...even though some do not have any children, and some have ten or more that utilize the public schools. It is based on the wisdom and knowledge that we all benefit from a society that values education for our youth...who are our future...and will some day be our elderly. We also all benefit from a society that cares for our most vulnerable elderly and disabled citizens...none of us know what the future may bring, and we could be the person who is no longer able to work and without the means to support ourselves.

Just as we pay car insurance so that in the event we may need it, we are covered, but some of us never actually need to use it and our premiums do help pay for the expenses incurred by other beneficiaries who do find themselves in a position to need the coverage. Our future ability to support our basic needs is no different. Do we want to teach our youth that our elderly (who did their part in paying their taxes to care for others) do not matter, and many can be left poor and unable to afford necessities because we no longer have a use for them? I thought we are a compassionate nation. Certainly for the more affluent, a small percent (it could even be a lower percentage on income over $110,00, but without a maximum income cap) is not going to be unreasonable, as they also benefit in many ways from a society that cares for one another, and helps our most vulnerable.

Ok, so Fiesty while it wasn't the 2008 campaign only, the article that you cited did state...

The world's top-earning hedge fund managers have bankrolled almost exclusively Democratic campaigns.

The top 10 highest-paid hedge fund managers in 2009 have dished out campaign contributions almost only to Democrats.

Over their lifetimes, those managers have given almost $33 million in campaign contributions to Democrats, according to research by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and that is based on data maintained by the nonpartisan CQMoneyline.

The same managers gave roughly $600,000 to Republicans, according to the research. The contributions went 98 percent to Democrats and two percent to Republicans.

You want to demonize these hedge fund managers for not paying their fair share but then it appears they all suppor the Dems, regardless of what election cycle it is for? So, since they all support the Dems, why don't you go aske them why they haven't voluntarily signed bigger checks to the IRS. Surely, Warrent Buffet says he can afford to pay more in taxes. Good for him, go let him pay more. No one is stopping him! Those billilonaire hedge fund managers pay more in taxes @ 15% in one year than you will pay in taxes in your entire life!

The contributions of conservatives is gererally limited to juvenile sniping at Obama and accusing anyone who disagrees with them of wanting to spend other peoples' money. Other than ridiculous manifestos like Malthus, they don't offer any better plan than the one at which they're taking cheap pot shots. Conservatives seem to think that we can balance a budget that's 25% overdrawn by elilminating 12% of it. What they don't realize is that the economy and our government are intertwined and that a reckless attack on the government will slow down the economy, negating any deficit-reducing effects.

That said, it's not helpful for Obama to dole out his plan bit by bit. He should have started by endorsing the deficit committee's recommendations and making them the foundation of his plan. Where's that gang of 6 report? Maybe Obama and Boehner can both redeem themselves by endorsing it.

Yes, the 'rich' can and should pay more in taxes, but let's not use that as an excuse for not cutting spending from current levels (not a phony 'cut' in projected spending increases).

It will take both tax increases AND real spending cuts to get control of our deficits.

"About those nasty hedge fund guys ......... 80% of their money was donated to the Dems in the 2008 elections."

If this unfounded claim, at this point, is eventually proven to be true, does that make it ok that the hedge fund managers only pay 15%? How we got here is mentioned nowhere in Feisty's post. Just a statement that this inequity should be addressed.

It is very curious that you guys feel there is a defense for them paying less while constantly blathering about those who do not pay there fair share being the cause for our economic problems. One or the other folks.

This shows that the "redistribution" of wealth started well before President Obama came into office.

Very good info here-http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

JoAnnaSmith1

The debt when Obama took over in 2008 was about $9 trillion. Given that the first budget for Obama was a carry over from Bush, the deficit for FY 2008 took the debt to about $10.3 trillion, so Bush added a bout $5 trillion to the debt total, in 96 months. Since that time, Obama has added $4 trillion additional dollars to the debt in 27 months. Obama will add another $1.65 trillion to the debt for his projected budget for FY 2012.

First of all Obama took over in 2009. the deficts you mention for 2008 were all on Bush, you said that the debt went to 10.3 trillion and that included TARP. your math is not adding up, NO Jo has said that Bush left office with 500 billion in deficts, Now your saying it was 10.3 trillion. so i went on line and here is our national debt from 2000 to 2010

Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc.

The first fiscal year for the U.S. Government started Jan. 1, 1789. Congress changed the beginning of the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Jul. 1 in 1842, and finally from Jul. 1 to Oct. 1 in 1977 where it remains today.

To find more historical information, visit The Public Debt Historical Information archives.

Date

Dollar Amount

09/30/2010

13,561,623,030,891.79

09/30/2009

11,909,829,003,511.75

09/30/2008

10,024,724,896,912.49

09/30/2007

9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006

8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005

7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004

7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003

6,783,231,062,743.62

09/30/2002

6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001

5,807,463,412,200.06

09/30/2000

5,674,178,209,886.86

according to this the debt went from 5 trillion to just over 10 trillion while Bush was President. Since Obama spend money on stumilus, Jobs bill, and what ever else it went from 10 trillion to 13 trillion. you were right Bush increased the debt by 5 trillion but acording to this Obama only raised it by 3 trillion less 1 trillion for stimulas.

Now Joanna this will be hard for you to understand but the debt is still rising from bush, Medicade part D is still adding to the debt, a unfunded mandate Obama had nothing to do with but is left with the bills, Obama also put the wars on the books, along with all the cash Bush GAVE to iraq because we destroyed his country. we are over 14 trillion now because of that DEAL he made with Bohnor that added 800 billion.

Joanna can you notice that the deficts went up at a steady rate, at no time during his presidency did the deficts not go up or we broke even?

I'm conservative, and I like this idea. Start hitting up all those pro athletes and Hollywood stars who backed Obama in "08 and now, and see how many stay on the band wagon. Unless he gives them some special dispensation like the unions they'll jump off the Obama train.

How much tax does George Soros pay?

It would be prudent for the administration to go back and evaluate the original intent of SS, and how FDR promised it would never exceed more than 1-2% of withholding, and that pesky little fact that almost no person was ever intended to obtain it. The redemption age was set beyond the life expectancy at the time.

So let's be really simple here. Go ahead and raise the contribution cap, and at the same time reset the benefit pay out to supersede the current redemption age adjusted for life expectancy. Watch the recipients scream how life is not fair and how this is a "shared sacrifice." I know I will likely never obtain a dime of SS just like the majority of my generation. The sooner it goes bankrupt the better. Get it over-with before my young children go to work and have to start paying into the great ponzi scheme.

The Independent...

And when your young children ask why you are doing nothing as they watch your elderly next door neighbor (who worked forty years making a meager salary that paid the bills and taxes but left little extra for savings or retirement accounts) go hungry and freeze in a home she is unable to heat, what are you going to tell them? Are you going to give your neighbor money to help her yourself?...or are you just going to look away and tell your children it's not your problem? If the latter is your solution, are you prepared for your old age, when your children practice what you taught them?

Fiesty:

Here are the charts......study them.....and then shut up.......you make a damn fool out of yourself daily on here. You never fail to show everyone just how trashy and triflin' you are.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=f2700

BTW: Jenny Craig is not going to do it. They are going to employ Richard Simmons to come get you out of that bed you have ruined. They will need to cut the side of the house out, remove you with a crane and throw you up on a flat bed truck not to mention fly you to Weight Watcher's by a military C5 cargo plane.

@ KJR .. how sanctimonious of you. My children believe as I do that no government agency can be relied upon to fund retirement or any other need you may have including health care. And I contribute plenty to charities and volunteer my time to help those less fortunate than I. My children help me stock the local pantry with goods, especially around holidays as that is when it matters the most.

Perhaps that is the difference between us KJR. I will care for my family and friends as best I know how and help my community with what I can spare in dollars and time. You believe the government can do a better job than local people such as I can. And that is a philosophical difference. I respect your opinion that the government can do it better, but I have seen for myself too many free loaders and cheaters and differ in the effectiveness of the fed. As history is proving, politicians and by extension the federal government cannot be trusted to be responsible with money. They are always wrong and their promises are never as they would like you to believe. See SS, Medicare and Medicaid as cases in point.

Ron-186.... Some do even more thn that...They just move to a more friendly locale.

Past msn articles have stated that when states changed the tax codes to tax the wealthy, more they just move to a more tax friendly state.

Speaking about taxes....

(3) The only tax analyzed here is the federal individual income tax, which is responsible for about 25 percent of the nation's taxes paid (at all levels of government). Federal income taxes are much more progressive than payroll taxes, which are responsible for about 20 percent of all taxes paid (at all levels of government), and are more progressive than most state and local taxes (depending upon the economic assumption made about property taxes and corporate income taxes).

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Seems that only 25% of individual income taxes makes up what goes to the federal governments revenue. Interesting on how so many libs think that taxing the rich will will effectively cut our debt.

Hmmmm? with the politicians and many federal workers having their own pension plans do they even contribute to SS? If not let's hit them up as well, then they can have a choice of taking SS or taking their pension at age, 65, 66, 67, 68.

JAS1 and Bob, Never mind tossing facts out there! They dont care they cant get away from the genetic defects that cause them to be the way they are. I attribute it to all the buttery popcorn and the huge increase in BMI of those liberals. wocka wocka wocka!!!!!

Jeff - you wrote:

No Joanna what you must realise is that those caps are out dated, those caps were put in back when no many were making 106k a year, also Redistribute wealth because of republican policys the middle is getting further from middle and the wealthy is getting more wealthy. once we have cut our selves to death and we still have deficts problems what will you say them joanna, NO New tax again, thats getting real old.

Sir,

The article pointed out that SS was originally capped at $3000 back in the day. AND a dollar then is worth 16 dollars now. $3000 X 16 = $48,000 which is far less than $106,000. Sorry to ruin your diatribe but the cap is far more than it was then. Outdated? Nope...the liberals have spent more and more....

And jollyoldsoul1 just proved he is as much of an ignorant fool as JAS1 and booby.

You righties are really stupid!

The Independent...

"And I contribute plenty to charities and volunteer my time to help those less fortunate than I. My children help me stock the local pantry with goods, especially around holidays as that is when it matters the most."

And I really do respect that, and thank you for caring, and teaching your children to care about others who are less fortunate.......but no, around the holidays is not the only time people need basic necessities, food and shelter. They need a monthly income. Charities and volunteers do much great work to help people...but it is not the same as knowing you will have a check every month to budget accordingly, so as to have the ability to keep warm and sheltered and nourished. Would you want to spend each day wondering if someone was going to help you pay your heating bill, or have food to give you? Ask any local food pantry or church and they will tell you the donations are way down due to so many people out of work, and the need is way up.

"Perhaps that is the difference between us KJR. I will care for my family and friends as best I know how and help my community with what I can spare in dollars and time."

Some people do not have any family or friends who have the ability or financial means to help support them. Do you really have an extra $1000 a month to pay for heat and food for a family member without any income or savings?...or room to take them into your warm home and feed them for as long as they live?...how much do you have to spare, as maybe several members will be seriously hurt in a disaster/accident and unable to ever work again? Maybe you could be tragically hurt in an accident tomorrow and unable to ever work again...do you want to have to send your children to live with others, and be dependent on a family member to take you in, because you can no longer work to provide for them, and there is no SS disability to assist you in meeting basic needs? Should an elderly, childless couple be left to suffer in poverty because they have no family left to assist them? Maybe they spent their entire life working and paying taxes, and now that they can no longer work should they be abandoned by society because there is no one to help them?

"And that is a philosophical difference. I respect your opinion that the government can do it better, but I have seen for myself too many free loaders and cheaters and differ in the effectiveness of the fed."

And I agree that one of the most important steps we need to take (and I believe our government is taking some steps in this direction) is to adress and eliminate fraud and abuse of the public assistance programs. Some of the worst fraud and abuse comes from medical providers/clinics who are set up to abuse the system...and we have seen quite a few caught in these schemes lately. We need to enforce stiff penalties and prison time for these types of fraudulent billing, to prevent others from taking part in these schemes. There are also guidelines that could be looked at and changed, and better oversight, as well, to help prevent fraud/abuse by individuals. However, social security as assistance to the elderly, disabled, and those who truly need help and assistance is good...and priceless security for all of us, who never know what tomorrow might look like for us. Do unto others...

But he promised he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone earning under $250,000 a year.

Folks,

MSN.com's own Tom Curry says it best.

Raising taxes on higher earners would make Social Security more of an income transfer program: taking money from those who earn more, and giving it to those who earned less while they were working.

To some degree, Social Security already does this redistribution in the way its benefit formula is designed, but Obama’s proposal would nudge the system further in that direction.



xx

I don't think any rich person with wealth over $x should be allowed to collect any benefits. The whole program was designed as welfare for the elderly. If you already have money, why do you need the SS check? I figure rich people should enjoy the poor getting a little more in SS payouts and welfare, because that would mean fewer homeless hanging around the entrances to their gated communities and pan-handling at their near-by intersections.

cygnus...i pray you are joking and that you aren't that big if an idiot.

fiesty has there ever been a plan to spend other peoples money you do not like?

so little matti from houston - so what proof have you given (other than babbling rhetoric) on jollyoldsoul, joanna, and bob? When you say booby that is only your reflection in the mirror right?

The Social Security tax is imposed only on the first $106,800 of annual earned income. The Congressional Budget Office said increasing the maximum amount of taxable wages to $170,000 in 2012 and beyond would raise $468 billion in revenue over ten years.

The wealthy need to pay more in Social Security Tax Period.... smile :-)

KJR, is social security an entitlement or an insurance program? Because removing any cap from the amount paid in while continuing the cap on what you can draw out sure makes it seem more like the usual entitlement programs than it does the insurance program I see many try to claim that it is. I don't see how you can cut this one both ways. It isn't the fault of the high income earners that Congress raided the Social Security funds for decades because they just can't keep their hands off a pile of money that's within their grasp whether it is theirs to take or not, why should those high earners have to be the ones to bail out the system? There is an problem with the amount of the tax being stagnant despite increasing cost of living but that should be something that we all pay an increase for. There is abject stupidity in reducing the employee contribution by 2% this year when we already know that SS is unstable. But to demand more from one group is another attack of class warfare. It would make more sense to garnish the wages and pension payments of every senator and congressman who ever voted to raid SS funds and every president who ever signed the bills that allowed it to happen. At least then the people paying the bill are the ones actually responsible for creating it.

KJR - people who work do get a monthly income. What people are you talking about that don't? SS recipients get a monthly check as well, so who are you talking about?

Since you seem to care so much, when did the government ever proclaim to anyone that SS was meant to be anything other than a supplement to retirement/old age?

My hat goes off to 'the independent" for contributing both his time, his families time and cash as he is able. I am sure that his contributions are far more generous and effective than any government plan.

Ever imagine what a $1 in aid from a government agency really costs? Have fun figuring that out as you calculate thru the labor costs and overhead.

Your comments remind me of the moneylenders at the temple laughing at the poor widow woman who could only contribute two mites. It is no wonder that Christ got mad!

As you celibrate your time off for easter, maybe you can reflect on what you yourself brings to the table, rather than how you can get someone else to do what your own greed and selfishness won't do.

Suzy...

I agree on the 2% reduction in employee contribution this year...I do not understand the reasoning for that...and I do not see any sense in it. I also agree that it is very wrong that "Congress raided the social security fund for decades", and that should never have been, nor should it now be allowed. And I believe that Congress members and all government representatives should have to participate in the exact same social security program as all other citizens.

In answer to your other questions, I believe social security is a type of insurance policy...a safety net. As a safety net, it would make little sense to set benefits directly proportional to what an indvidual puts into the fund through taxed income. Obviously, the people most in need and reliant on SS benefits to meet their basic needs when they are no longer employed, are the lower wage earners. The more affluent have greater ability to purchase large life insurance policies to help support a spouse and dependent children if they should die, generous disability policies, and savings and investments that could support them through retirement age or an unexpected health condition that prevents their ability to continue working. And I understand your statement that it appears unfair that the "high earners have to bail out the system". However, generally taxes are SUPPOSED to be set on a percentage of income type of model. You do not stop paying income tax after the first $106,000 you earn, do you?

My property taxes are directly based on the value of my house. If I live in a $25,000 house, I will pay less in yearly property taxes than if I live in a million dollar home in the same community (city). However, my children will attend the same public schools, I will have the same police protection, and my city services will be the same as the resident who lives in a million dollar home...and thus pays much more in property taxes than I do to our city. I may have ten children who attend the schools and utilize those buildings and services, and the guy in the million dollar home may have one child who he sends to private school, and yet he is paying more in city (school) taxes than I am. That is because we value education and believe every child deserves an education, regardless of the financial means of the parents...a type of safety net that no child will be without access to an education is our intent. It is based on the wisdom and knowledge that we all benefit from a society that values education for our youth...who are our future. I compare social security benefits to this...a statement that we as a nation, value our elderly and disabled citizens and all workers contribute a percentage of their income to insure that these citizens (who may/will be most workers at some future time) will have the means to afford shelter and food for themselves. The affluent can suddenly find themselves unemployed, sick or injured, lost investments, in debt, filing bankruptcy, etc., and thus may also find themselves depending on the assistance of social security for basic needs someday...we don't know what tomorrow may bring. Social Security is a safety net and "insurance policy" that should be there for all citizens/workers when they are at a more vulnerable place in life, in my opinion. With the situation of the economy, stock markets/investments, and greed etc., we cannot depend on privatizing the fund or private savings/retirement plans to insure adequate provision for basic needs of the elderly. Just my humble opinion.

American...

Read my answer to Suzy above...and yes we are talking about social security for seniors...that will not be there if we do not do something to rescue the fund. Also, maybe you are unaware that there are people who do not get a monthly retirement check from their previous employment...and in fact, business trends are moving away from monthly retirement payouts in many instances. Also, companies that file bankruptcy avoid paying retirees. There are many situations...and many loop holes for business these days.

American...

I just finished reading your bizarre comment and obviosly you do not have any idea what you are talking about. Learn to read before you start chopping at the keyboard.

I am one of those people who reach the cap and stop paying Social Security taxes each year, it makes for a nice little mid year raise. But most Americas pay the full 6% (most years) on their whole income, I am fine with raising the deductible cap on my income. Do it.

In fact lower the Percentage permanantly to 4% and raise the cap so those of us better off support more of the load

Testing.

American, two thumbs up!!!

Sure, let's talk about redistribution:

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3220

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/the_state_of_working_americas_wealth_2011

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/income_inequality_it_wasnt_always_this_way/

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20070328/

Well, that should do it for now.

american, you trying to call me out or insult me is laughable. First, there is the hypocrisy of you trying to take the high road and then there is the fact that you are very bad at it. You are worse than booby, and that's a pretty impressive feat.

Okay conservatives, for the billionth time, we'll 'splain this again:

1) Bush's income tax cuts for the richest 2% are different from FICA with-holdings for entitlements (Social Security/Medicare). Furthermore, tax breaks on dividends, capital gains, and estate taxes only paid by the richest 1% is another topic as well.

2) As stated in the article (we know you conservatives don't bother to read), but you might note the cut-off of FICA withholdings is around $100,00 -- approximately the division for the richest 5%. And as stated above, this is not about the Bush tax cuts that the President wants to let expire, but rather with-holdings for entitlements.

If anyone of you conservatives think people earning between $100,00 to $250,000 don't or won't use entitlements just like you poor slobs, how crazy-arse can you be? In fact, probably people up to millionaires, or at least earning $500,000 would use entitlements, so why not expect them to pay into it like everyone else?

Now, in all fairness there are these factors to consider:

1) Billionaires like Warren Buffet probably won't or don't use entitlements--unless he lost all of his money. So some kind of cut-off based on statistics of who collects should be applied.

2) Social Security, like unemployment insurance is paid out in a range, with a cap at the bottom and a cap at the top regardless of what people earn or pay into the program. So, this also needs to be taken into account.

Just like when homes became more expensive, jumbo loan amounts had to be increased. The rich have been getting richer, so the $106,000 cap obviously needs to be raised. And expecting people to contribute in proportion to what they collect is not redistribution of wealth. Times change, things aren't carved in stone.

And if 47% of people in the bottom tier of earnings aren't paying taxes, it could only be because of tax credits, which President Obama also wants to eliminate. But, when I was in college earning minimum wage (around $6/hour), I paid taxes. So I don't know where this claim comes from.

Come on, stop parroting talking points and use your friggin' brains.

The problem with raising the limit on SS is that it wasn't intended to be a tax but a retirement plan. Why should the rich be overly burdened into a plan that the dems turned into a welfare plan? STOP THE WELFARE!!!!!

To my stealing liberal friends I offer this.

If I put the maximum amount into social security every year from age 22 to 65 (that's $6200 each year) and earn 3% interest every year, the value of the investment is $552,100. If I then take the maximum benefit allowed, $28392 every year until I die at the average age of 82 then the investment is still worth $294,841.12. Your government keeps that and pays it out to others. Now please realize that there are very few people who would be able to max their contribution and be entitled to this max benefit but it was the easiest calculation - keep in mind it would be linear. This illustrates how the payers into the system are getting shafted by paying $2 in for $1 out. That sounds fair, right? Maybe even patriotic. BTW - that is the principle for the 401K account.

The truth is for every person that puts that much in there are 3-8 people taking it out. The problem is that the government is pulling out the money faster than it goes in so that it NEVER accrues interest. Social Security payments do not go into the trust fund, they go into the general fund. This is the problem.

That's true RA. That is also why the dems are against privatizing SS. They can't get their greedy little hands on the money to give to their non-producing constituencies for vote buying!

Why doesnt feisty pay any social security taxes ?

TruePatriot,

First, I'm a Conservative and don't fit the fine looking mold you are presenting. Second, the fact that 47% of Americans didn't pay income tax (or profited from tax credits) last year (and are expected to do so again this year) is...well, a fact. Unfortunately, you (as I) did not go to college last year while married with two children. The combination of Bush Tax Cuts, Obama Make Working Pay, and stimulus incentives have raised the number of Americans not paying income tax from the mid 30's to near 50%. I'm not fine with that. However, they (and their employers) are paying Social Security and Medicare/Medicade (the so called Employment taxes). Which brings us to the topic of this thread.

I agree that the rich are getting richer and that needs to change. However, raising the amount of money elligible for Employment Taxes is wrong. Those are a flat tax based on expected benefits (which this article states but many seemed to have missed or not read). Even though I paid Employment Tax on $106,800 last year, I will not see a proportionate amount of Social Security Benefits when I retire (actually, I probably won't see any). What was clearly laid out in this article is that the rich are getting richer off capital gains. That's were things need to be adjusted (as well as reducing loopholes and deductions that allow a guy making $290,000 more than me to pay $22,000 less in taxes. Or, a family of 4 making $50,000 to pay nothing). Politicians are all worried that it will drive down investment, but, this is not the case. The S&P has historically returned around 12%. Even if the taxes on capital gains were doubled to 30%, people would have a hard time finding a different investment to put their money in that would return more. So, they will continue to invest. I'm all about making the Rich pay their fair share. However, only if the lower middle class that keeps complaining about the rich decides to buck up also.

FLAT TAX!

KEEP SS the same

TAXPAYOR REVOLUTION!!!!!

Kjr - so you are telling us all that you didn't write post 1.47, 1.56 & 1.63?

You are telling us that you didn't try to diminish 'Independents' support of his family, friends and local community by saying...

..but no, around the holidays is not the only time people need basic necessities, food and shelter.

Interesting how you like to frame your comments as to "shame on you for not doing enough for the elderly" and then say that ...

Social security was never intended to pay for the extravagant lifestyle a person may be able to afford on their lifetime income and investments...it is a safety net that we all contribute to because we care about our sick and elderly in this country.

Yes, SS is a safety net for the retired who have contributed to it, and NO ONE has ever said it was anything more than a supplement. For whatever reason you think, it was never meant to provide any type of basic creature comforts for anyone.

What is bizarre is that you think SS should provide a minimum standard of living for the elderly. It wasn't written that way, it wasn't funded in that manner and funds sure haven't been given to the eligible seniors in that manner. It is based on a "snapshot" of your earnings over a set period of time and after achieving a set amount of time contributing.

Sorry that you didn't have time to read about the moneylenders in Jerusalem.

Good luck with believing that the goverrnment will provide you with a "living wage" when you choose to retire. Of course perhaps you are a government employee and don't need to contribute your fair share into the SS trust fund. If that is the case, will you personally contribute to your communities elderly so that they have "adequate" food and shelter?

little matti - please try to keep up. Lmao!

American...

You are delusional...and have comprehension problems. The holidays comment was in answer to a posters comment that volunteering around the holidays was the most important...and after thanking him for volunteering and caring and teaching his children to care about others, I said many of our elderly need financial help (in the way of their social security check...as we are discussing social security and the merits/ways of saving the fund) all year...not just at the holidays. In the discussion you keep going back to, MY POINT was that it helps ALL of us to have social security assisting our elderly family members, neighbors, etc., as unless you are cold hearted and uncaring, you would not want to see people who could no longer work to earn income, suffering around you, but many of us would not have the financial means to be able to adequately assist them financially. The poster I was having a discussion with obviously understood what I was saying...too bad you didn't , but incredibly ignorant of you to jump in with bizarre accusations that are nonsense. And again (since you didn't seem to understand the first time around) IT IS A FACT THAT SOME PEOPLE (ELDERLY, AS WELL AS DISABLED) TOTALLY RELY ON SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS AS THEIR ONLY (SOLE) SOURCE OF INCOME. Not everyone receives a retirement check. Let me say that again...NOT EVERYONE receives a retirement or pension...that means some people DO NOT receive a retirement or pension at all.

American says..."Sorry that you didn't have time to read about the moneylenders in Jerusalem"

By the way, did you mean to say money CHANGERS in the Temple in Jerusalem? What exactly is your point...what are you trying to say? You do not make sense.

KJR, ignore american-2051576, he is a paid troll who has been banned for a day because of his nasty, ignorant, lying comments. Besides not being very good at insults, american-2051576 is a hypocrite, a liar (and not a particularly good liar, at that), and an ignorant fool with a 'holier than thou' attitude. Basically, he is scum and deserves our pity, but not our sympathy because american-2051576 chooses to be the lying, ignorant fool that he shows himself to be every single day on this blog . . . when he hasn't been banned for a day.

KJR - Do you even know how SS is derived, calculated and paid out?

Your arquments showed that you believe SS was meant to provide a minimum standard of living for the elderly, which the government never meant it to be.

The point of the widow woman/money changers was that even thou she may have been monetarily poor she was not above giving what she could to the poor. The rich mockered her for the size of here donation. Your attitude came across much in the same way as the lenders/changers at the temple thru your posts that 'independent' and others contributions wouldn't adequately change the elderly or the poor.

little matti - Do try to keep up. If you think I have ever been"banned" it should be extremely interesting to see the date and blog that did me in. Or are you really the one playing liar?

You do know how to post links, don't you?

I will be looking forward to your method of rebuttal to my future comments. If anything like your empty headed post above (1.90) I will have no concerns

Raising taxes on higher earners would make Social Security more of an income transfer program: taking money from those who earn more, and giving it to those who earned less while they were working.

To some degree, Social Security already does this redistribution in the way its benefit formula is designed, but Obama’s proposal would nudge the system further in that direction.

Typical for the democratic party - take what others have earned and give it to those who refuse to earn.

Don't you people find it curious that The Bummer would want this program to go into effect in '12? By then he will either have secured a second term or dumped it onto his replacement. If he is in a second term, he knows he is done anyway so it won't affect his political future. If he is replaced, without a second term, he has dumped it onto another political party and that party takes the heat for it.

The SS program was initiated as a program to provide some retirement to people but wasn't intended to be their only retirement program. Individuals were expected to contribute to their own financial future, not rely totally on the government.

American says...

"The point of the widow woman/money changers was that even thou she may have been monetarily poor she was not above giving what she could to the poor. The rich mockered her for the size of here donation. Your attitude came across much in the same way as the lenders/changers at the temple thru your posts that 'independent' and others contributions wouldn't adequately change the elderly or the poor."

The scripture about the widow's offering that you seem to be referring to is recorded in Luke 21: 1-4...

As He looked up, Jesus saw the rich puttting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. "I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all of the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."

So WHO is mocking the widow? There are no money changers involved in the widow's offering scripture...there are money changers involved in provoking Jesus to anger over the misuse of the Temple...and that is an entirely different scripture (Cleansing of the Temple, in Matthew 21, Mark 11, Luke 19, John 2), and those scriptures do not mention any widows in the accounts of the defiling of the House of Worship. So WHO do I remind you of?...and WHY? As I said, you do not have any idea what you are talking about, and concerning your accusations, in FACT, I was not mocking anyone.

American says..."Your arquments showed that you believe SS was meant to provide a minimum standard of living for the elderly, which the government never meant it to be."

Actually, in fact, I never said, nor do I believe that SS was MEANT to provide a minimum standard of living for the elderly. I said it was meant to be a safety net, however it is a fact that for some, IT IS THEIR ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME...not all people recieve a pension/retirement income from their employer.

KJR - I will stand corrected on the "mocking of the poor widow woman by the rich" as far as the literal interpretation of the text goes. For the scriptures do not fully define the time constraints and precisely who Christ was talking to except....Luke 20..."as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel"

Want to try and rake me over the coals for my interpretation of what the rich were doing as the widow woman made her donation and why Christ chose to point it out, fine, I can live with that

Do you really have an extra $1000 a month to pay for heat and food for a family member without any income or savings?...or room to take them into your warm home and feed them for as long as they live?...how much do you have to spare, as maybe several members will be seriously hurt in a disaster/accident and unable to ever work again? Maybe you could be tragically hurt in an accident tomorrow and unable to ever work again...

Gee KSR I wonder why I compared you to the rich when you asked "independent" why he didn't give more. That is what you are saying within the block quote above, right? Perhaps you have a different meaning for the word "you".

With regards to your interpretation of what you consider SS to be (you may wish it so, but it is not so)... I think not

but no, around the holidays is not the only time people need basic necessities, food and shelter. They need a monthly income. Charities and volunteers do much great work to help people...but it is not the same as knowing you will have a check every month to budget accordingly, so as to have the ability to keep warm and sheltered and nourished.

Social security was never intended to pay for the extravagant lifestyle a person may be able to afford on their lifetime income and investments...it is a safety net that we all contribute to because we care about our sick and elderly in this country.

These are your words, not mine and taken within the context of your posts above implies that you think that SS should provide a minimum level of support. I believe you even mentioned that the subject being discussed was about SS, but yet you want to extend the discussion beyond what SS was meant to be.

BTW- the following...

have the ability to keep warm and sheltered and nourished

Implies a minimum level of support.

American..."That is what you are saying within the block quote above, right?"

WRONG

Sweeeet! - Obama has once again shown us the moth that is within him as he stays in the dark and only flits from one lighted issue to the next with no thought of any type of consistant agenda.

Wonder what the next liight source will be as he carries on his campaign for re-election.

True, and raising the eligibility age to more closely resemble the original intent that most persons would never obtain any benefit as the age was set at the average mortality of the 1930's era is also one of those proposals. But no one really likes to talk about that as SS has become synonymous with a "retirement program."

Because, of course, it worked so well when the income cap was lifted from Medicare?

Oh. Wait. It did NOT work. Medicare is bankrupt.

Well, anyway, Obama can use the money. Maybe buy some more windmills with it- or, better yet, some shiny new choo choo trains that go really, really fast!

Hire some more bureaucrats, take a couple more rides on AF 1, maybe raise a few salaries. . .

no jo no bo....you think many doctors would accept medicare pts when they are being taxed their whole income for that program already? ( Hint...as a doctor, the answer is no).

Marc D - how are you doing? As a doctor (practising within the medical field, I assume) Obama last week said he wanted to address medicare benefits/funding by controlling medical costs. Got any comments/thoughts on this?

KJR, so based on your disection of taxes. if I have to pay more, and my house and the house of someone that makes half what I make, who gets the fire trucks first?

There is no guarantee that you will collect what you pay into the fund NOW. You could um, die before you get all the money you "put in:" Would you like your heirs to be able to sue the government for the remainder? What if you live to be 115 and what YOU paid in was exhausted when you hit 100?

Everyone who pays into the fund is actually paying for the next generation of Americans. You might not get every penny you put in, but you might get more. To say that you'd get "nothing" is totally wrong. Taxes, SS and otherwise are NOT based on you getting 100% return for your dollar, not now or in the history of taxation.

"Ask not what your country can do for YOU..." Used to mean something...

Is this the same Obama that just reduced Social Security taxes by 2% for 2011?

Obama has this very nasty habit of saying one thing, and doing another. He talks about raising SS taxes, but lowers them instead. He talks about letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire, but extends them instead, He talks about closing Gitmo, but schedules trials there instead. He talks about ending the US wars, but starts more instead. He talks of cutting Defense, but does nothing (And why would he, lots of Defense jobs are union jobs and much of that money goes to benefit his corporate non-tax paying friends like at GE).

So now Obama is proposing yet another raise in taxes. What do you want to bet that it again is just nothing but talk? He needs to keep his wealthy donors to his campaign happy.

Oh, and no John, you will not get higher SS payments when you retire when you are forced to pay higher taxes. In fact, SS will be means tested, and you, being the fortunate rich person you are, will get nothing.

How refreshing. JoAnna is back, and look- it's that same old song!

Do you EVER Get tired of all the same old same old same old?

Buzz - do ever get tired of having your lips firmly attached to Obama's hind-side? They're leaving a nasty mark by the way, and Michelle is starting to ask questions.

DBO-JS1

get a room...you obviously want to...:)

If they did, who'd be on top?

AlthoughI could totally see JAS1 tea-bagging poor Drive By.

Nice try, JoAnna. But you're ony reporting one side of the conversation. You have to put in the Republican/Tea Party/conservative part of the discourse to get the true picture.

JoAnna.. there are two times when it's appropriate for a goverment to deficit spend. First, in recessionary times when the inflow of government money stimulates the economy and helps it recover. The second, obviously, is in times of war. A big part of stimulous is indeed some tax reductions. However, once these crisis periods are over, it's logical for the tax rates to return to the values they were prior to any cuts to rpovide the revenues needed for government services.

Now, I see complaints of "transferring money" from the rich to the poor... where are the complaints of the Ryan "reverse-Robin Hood scheme" to transfer a trillion dollars from the poor to the rich? A wee bit hypocritical, don'tcha think?

dangerfield

Raising the ceiling on SS taxes is one of the components that WILL be enacted at some point and has been part of most plans to "save" SS...

You are correct! St Reagan did that with the Tip O'Neil and Dems in 1983 when they were saving SS insolvency. I guess Reagan was a socialist or maybe just a liar or both......LMAO

You ALMOST make a good point, sans the partisan snark...

...Or maybe Reagan (not a saint, not a demon, just a President) was just being pragmatic, acting for the general good, and the two parties worked together for the people who elected them unlike today...

dangerfield

You ALMOST make a good point, sans the partisan snark...

Awwwww....Well it was a good point not almost. The same could be said for Obama i.e. acting for the general good but to the Repugs on here he has done nothing right. The black helicopters have landed, the stock market hasn't gone back up, we are all being sent to gulags ....oh wait its the repug/tp delusional thinking.

Yes Rick-THX1138, you see so clearly the faults in the other guys...and your nomenclature is certain to make them open to your contentions...:)

Try reading what I wrote about how republicans and democrats worked TOGETHER to reform Social Security in the 1980's again and this time hopefully you will see why your reply is exactly what is wrong with the political landscape and most of the attitudes expressed here...

Ideologues: You can't both be right, but you can both be wrong...

dangerfield

Yes Rick-THX1138, you see so clearly the faults in the other guys...and your nomenclature is certain to make them open to your contentions...:)

Yes Rodney Dangerfield surely you jest! That's my point exactly and I do see clearly. Republicans are holding this country hostage with their off the wall demands. I am not saying that the Dems are perfect but repugs can't even admit to doing anything wrong and they never will. When one side continually lambastes the other side and say the leader of our country hasn't or isn't qualified to do things correctly then we do have a problem. There is no amount of negotiating with the right because ever since the president was elected they know better and can do better when in fact they screwed up the economy.

The right campaigned in 2010 on jobs, jobs jobs but have done the exact opposite and are revisiting settled law i.e. abortion, woman's rights, healthcare etc. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. Maybe it is you that needs to refocus and sharpen the lens at which you look at life and things in this country.

PS.. that was a good movie for its time and I caught the inference but I think it's you that needs to stop taking your pills from the repubs....

Johanna - obama gave the cut in SS witholding to the taxpayers as you say, however he also commented at the time that the federal government would still contribute that 2% into the SS fund.

We get a little extra take home, but the SS fund still gets what it would have.

Fieldon - step up to the plate and tell us the other side.

American, also employers didn't get the 2% cut in their tax portion. Could this be the 2% Obama is still contributing?

Ok American, I did some research and you are correct, the government is still putting in 2%... The kicker is that Obama had to BORROW $112 billion to keep that end of his bargain....

ellie mae - it had to come from somewhere. think of it as just another $112 billion going into our debt. Hope us taxpayers spend wisely!

For the Social Security issue, I say take away the max rule of incomes 107,000-116,000 amounts that have the Social Security tax. If you make 5 Million a year, you should have the 6.2 Percent of the 5 Million paid into social security. However, I would not require the business to pay the matching past the 116,000. Problem solved.

How about reminding everyone that SS is not a sole source retirement income, just a supplement.

It is always easy for those willing to play with other peoples money than their own. Since you think that the rich can afford to give a "little more", why not give them a deduction for their "little more" contribution?

Alan, this is just Obama being Obama. Just another set of populist rhetoric to keep his low-information voter base in-line. Make the promises to them in public, forget about them in private. It's not about them, well, except for their votes. To Obama, it's all about him!

No way he's a deep thinker.

Hey, I wonder if he'll "revive" his position on the debt ceiling and leadership from 2008?

Yep Pat - they are all just stupid.

But not you, you are very smart, right Pat?

Say Pat, are you self made? Are you saying Trump is not successful? Would you consider Obama to be self made? Did he get any help coming up?

IF

you fraudulently bill your clients for time you DON'T spend representing them.

Here's a great article on Donald Trump: http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/trump.html

A few snippets:

"Donald Trump's father, Fred Trump, was a bona fide self-made man and real estate tycoon who brought his son into the business. Many of Trump's web biographies talk of him "sharing an office with his father" like theirs was a tiny struggling two-man shop up a couple flights of stairs in an old warehouse. Nothing could be farther from the case. The younger Trump showed an aptitude for real estate wheeling and dealing (and an even greater talent for self-promotion) that allowed him to parlay his share of his father's already successful business into a fortune of several hundred million by the 1980s, but as detailed in a 2005 profile by Timothy O'Brien in the New York Times, Trump had blown through it all by the mid-nineties and was in serious debt. Only 20 million dollars in loans from his rich siblings (each had inherited 35 million from father Fred, who was by then deceased) kept Trump afloat and allowed him to stage a comeback.

There are thousands upon thousands of Americans who started with meager resources and made themselves rich through talent, hard work, creativity, inventiveness, and some luck. They include such diverse individuals as Paul Newman, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Oprah Winfrey, Mark Cuban, Steven Spielberg, Rich DeVos (who was the co-creator of Amway), Joe Jamail (the personal injury lawyer), H. Ross Perot, Ted Turner, Ollen Bruton Smith (who helped build NASCAR into an obsession) and even Trump's detested nemesis, Rosie O'Donnell. In Trump's own field, real estate, there are genuine rags-to-riches stories, like Donald L. Bren, the 27^th richest man in America (Trump is listed by Forbes as #94), who built his first house with a $10,000 loan. He can legitimately tell a personal story about how someone who isn't rich and doesn't have family members with money to burn can become successful and wealthy."

The fact that Trump doesn't lie outright about his background but simply allows his marks to jump to the wrong conclusions puts his "get rich like me" marketing efforts in the category of deceit…but deceit is still dishonesty. Trump undoubtedly has useful wisdom to impart about building a successful career; it's not as easy to stay rich as some people think. Ask most state lottery winners. Still, the most vivid lesson of Donald Trump's successful campaign to sell himself as a self-made billionaire is the lesson that 19^th Century con-man Joe Bessimer pronounced more than a century ago:

There's a sucker born every minute.

Spanky:

Yep Pat - they are all just stupid.

They ARE all just stupid if they fall for the line that the ignorant, arrogant, snake-oil-selling, flip-flopping bully Donald Trump -- who doesn't know, for example, how privacy relates to the abortion issue, just as one small example, and actually fell into a trap neatly set for him by Savannah Guthrie, of all people -- is trying to sell them. His most recent performances rank him right up there with Sarah Palin on the ignorant meter, not to mention the condescension meter.

Never was so much condescension less justified.

He thinks Barack Obama will be afraid of him? Hello, even I'M not afraid of him. Bring him on. President Obama will cut him up into little pieces and feed him to the fishes.

But if you fall for it, then I'll know exactly what to think of you, for all you think you're so smart.

Ah, Drive By, so simple, yet so much fun.

Say DBO, what do you know or understand about billing?

And goodness, DBO how about the clients on monthly retainer - you know the ones that pay me a certain sum on money, every month, just so I am available to them? See my man, I earn that money regardless. Cool, right? But thanks for the tip about fraudulent billing, I know you mean well and are only looking out for my well being.

You are, after all a clock puncher, no?

So how'bout you DBO, get hit with AMT this year? :)

Rev. Jesse Jackson wrote a very important article yesterday. I hope he was interviewed on what he wrote. I know Pat Buchanan was on tv re: his issues on the Birther Issue. Pat Buchanan.

Chicago Sun Times: Trump Wins Support Spreading Ignorance by Rev. Jackson:

Snippet:

This nonsense about Obama's birth is one of various efforts to label him as un-American, as alien. Some say he's not a Christian, but a Muslim. Mike Huckabee muses on the Kenyan socialism Obama must have imbibed while growing up in Kenya, where he never lived.

This is an old and tawdry game. When Dr. King was challenging segregation, Southerners knew they couldn't win the argument with him on equal rights or the right to vote. So they labeled him a communist. They said he was an outside agitator, even though his church was in Georgia. When he spoke out against Vietnam, they debated not his views, but his qualification even to have an opinion. He was a preacher, they scorned, not a foreign-policy expert, even though the experts got us into the debacle. For King, as for Obama, all this was simply a diversion, a way not to debate his ideas or his positions, but to dismiss them from consideration by slurring the messenger.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/jackson/4902165-452/trump-wins-support-spreading-ignorance.html

AM - it's only April 2011. Trump has done anything, other than rile the hell out of you libbies.

But hey, speaking of getting all riled up but going nowhere, how is the "sleeping giant" doing in Wisconsin? You know the one the Walker and the Kochs supposedly woke up last month?

Other than Prosser declaring victory I have not heard anything abou the goings on in Wisc. Has it all really jut died off?

Spanky:

Has it all really jut died off?

No. If you weren't so busy fauning over Donald Trump, you might take the time to look it up. But for our purposes, I will tell you that there are now at least 4 recalls of republican state senators in play, and there will very likely be more. Only 3 need to be successful. And the lawsuits challenging the collective bargaining law are also still in play. Walker has, at least for the timebeing, backed off on what might have been a plan to do the same sort of thing here that Snyder has done in Michigan.

Meanwhile, when Sarah Palin showed up in Madison last weekend, it was a couple of hundred bussed-in Tea Partiers drowned out by several thousand anti-Palin protesters wielding cow bells.

And that's just about par for the Tea Party course these days, as I understand it.

As for the election, if you want to be on the side that has to support a pretty-much proven incompetent and/or corrupt election official, who is known to have gummed up several previous elections, you just go right ahead.

As I've said before, it's easy to know people by what -- and who -- they're for and what -- and who -- they're against.

By the way, as to the billables -- I thought you were a litigator. What do retainers have to do with that? Or are your clients the kind that NEED to have litigators on retainer because they expect to have problems with the law at all hours of the day and night?

Its just too bad that us Independents are siding with the "stupid" people! That goes to show you how bad the liberals on this blog are. Id rather be grouped in with the so called "stupid" people than the liberals/progressives.

AM? What do retainers have to do with litigation? You have totally lost me. You don't get a retainer for litigation? That's just crazy.

But the comment was directed at my pal Drive By. He seems to think he has something relevant to say. And really, on billing. We both know that is an art, not a science.

And I just saw the cost to Wisc. of all that protesting. Ouch!

So you think the recalls will be successful? Given the near even split in the Prosser victory, I'd guess it's fairly unlikely. Entertaining, yes, but the cause of any real change? Doubtful.

Oh and we all saw the Palin protestors. Wow, them there are some crazy mofo's.

Sort of reminds me how many people were snookered by Ross Perot.

Here we go again.

No. Except for the first sentence in #1, and maybe ## 3, 8 and 9, depending on who profits. ## 8 and 9 in particular sound suspiciously like T. Boone Pickens.

And don't forget to say hello to the Koch brothers from me, will you?

Malthus, your manifesto sucks as bad as Karl Marx's.

Anna and joe, exactly. The Manifesto again, and nothing but.

Rob, if it had been, it may have been "caviar" for the Wall Street types who have been trying to get there hands on that big pile of money, but seniors wouldn't be able to afford even cat food today.

Have you not paid any attention at all to the "privatized" funds? Have any idea where all the money went in 2007-2008?

I know where the money went after 2007. Since the Dems took over Congress that year, they made a moderate situation turn into a full-fledged disaster.

Oh - and those "Wall Street types"? Previous posts have shown those are mostly Democratic supporters.

Privatization - or at least the option to give people a choice of how to handle money supposedly put away for retirement would have been MUCH, MUCH better than continuing to pour it down this "redistribution" rathole. The money I put in my IRA and 401K 30 years ago (and since) has grown significantly. The money that went into SS has disappeared - mostly going to people that did not pay in, or did not pay in near as much as they were taking out. My ROI for SS will probably be less than 0%.

Liberals don't seem to get the fact that the so-called "rich", don't count on, nor draw much from SS benefits (or any other kind of government entitlements). And the definition of "rich" by liberals keeps getting lower and lower.

Unless SS raises benefits to those that pay in more, they should not increase "premiums".

Most of the federal government is funded by higher-income businesses and people - very disproportionately so. And then the ones that take the benefits (redistribution of income and wealth) complain that the "rich" don't pay enough! And then they complain louder when businesses move to where taxes are lower!

They are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs - and then complaining!

Oops. I meant Bush's deficits, and the deficits we have now. Mea culpa.

Well stated

Start up a whistleblower program for any company that defrauds the government (and thus taxpayers) - whistleblower gets 10% of the savings and the company loses any chance for a government contract for 5 years.

There are already laws in place for this, including Sarbanes-Oxley. Start demanding that they be enforced.

By pretending that the "Rich" are contributing to the current deficit, he's made this a class warfare issue, when it is not.

This is not tecnically correct. The "rich" ARE contributing to the current deficit to the extent that, for example, money from the Social Security surplus has been used to make up for the revenue lost through the Bush tax cuts. The rich DO contribute to the deficit via every infrastructure improvement that the government pays for that benefits their businesses; via the technical colleges and universities run by the government that crank out the skilled workforce business requires; via the law enforcement and other emergency services that government provides (like firefighting and disaster resources whenever there is a big oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico or some other business screw-up that makes a big mess); via the tax incremental financing breaks that businesses get; and via and every other subsidy and business loan they receive from the government.

Think about it sometime. A lot of business people seem to be suffering from this same disconnect. And it's not at all helpful.

That's a real good idea, except who is going to hire a 55 and up worker these days? We're too expensive, medically speaking (after all, we all know that decent medical care for anyone who isn't rich is bad), and there are some jobs old people aren't going to do, not and live to retirement age.

Have you checked the long term unemployment stats for 50 and older? Can you say 'age discrimination' (though of course nobody can actually prove it, not with the Supreme Court we have these days).

SPending needs to be cut.

Taxes need to be raised.

cinch.

Correct - this is a cheap re-election strategy - nothing more. "Let's all band together against those evil, greedy, rich people - they're the problem." Messiah Obama has your back......

Sick, it's actually the Obama/Boehner tax cuts because Obama's version was limited to the wealthy. I personally think the Bush cuts should have expired for all. I'd rather see Obama turn a blind eye to politics and the election and just do what's right for the country. Even GW Bush in his final 3 months did what was right for the country and wrong for his party's politics.

The Extension of Bush Tax cuts was a mistake they should have allowed them to expire on the top 10 percent to pay for the Revenue issue it created the last 11 years it has been in effect. They also need to end Tax loopholes for the rich and Big Business and that will restore us to a nation that has it debt paid off and a surplus like back when Clinton was in office and Bush and republicans wrecked the economy.