• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

Have you somehow missed all the Republican proposals to cut benefits to seniors through SS and Medicare in order to continue the tax breaks for the wealthy???

I think it's a good idea to stop giving bennies to people who have never paid a nickel into SS, or Medicare. Maybe that's the reason that they're going belly up. Whatcha think? Brings us back around to the whole, "spending more than you bring in", thing.
 
One of the big disconnects I see is conservatives arguing about high corporate and personal tax rates, while liberals point to low effective tax rates, especially for the wealthy and corporations. Here's an idea: why don't we stop using the tax code as a way to incentivize or reward certain behaviors and start using it as a tool to equitably collect revenue for appropriate government functions? Yes, we'll all fight about what's "appropriate," but let's agree that we need a tax code overhaul that simplifies everything. I hate having to play games with FSAs, IRAs, and whatever other alphabet soup I can to avoid taxes. Let's just let people spend their money how they want, without massive tax implications.

I would agree. Stop taxing earned income differently than investment income. Stop giving people a tax credit for buying a go cart rated for highway speeds. Just stop the stupid. I happen to see a lot of tax returns, and I also see a lot of tax fraud. The best thing we can do is to simplify the system significantly. Make it a simple graduated income tax based on income. Don't tax different types of income differently. Don't put extra taxes on some kinds of income. Basically, let's copy the Japan tax system?
 
that is not true. the special notes issued to the Trust Fund are guaranteed only by the Word of Congress (you are free to decide for yourself how much that is worth), not the Full Faith and Credit of the United States.

Thanks for you opinion internet guy.

"Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government."
Trust Fund FAQs



even the AARP now agrees that popping the cap won't get you enough to fund SS. benefits will have to be reduced :shrug:

because a surplus isn't coming.

You are behind in catching up with the news. This clarifies their position: "the June 17 article stated that AARP was ready to drop its opposition to cutting Social Security benefits. So much for a slow summer Friday news cycle. Before you could utter the phrases “raise the retirement age” or “cut the cost of living adjustment,” a coalition of advocacy groups against entitlement cuts had lodged its displeasure with AARP. And that’s when AARP shot back with a press release titled “AARP Has Not Changed Its Position on Social Security.” Confused? Here’s a cheat sheet for what’s really going on:

* AARP is adamant that Social Security not be part of any discussion of deficit reduction.

* But AARP is open to discussing ways to shore up Social Security so it will not be a drain on federal coffers come 2036. "



Read more: Did AARP Really Sell Out Seniors on Social Security? - CBS MoneyWatch.com
 
I think it's a good idea to stop giving bennies to people who have never paid a nickel into SS, or Medicare. Maybe that's the reason that they're going belly up. Whatcha think? Brings us back around to the whole, "spending more than you bring in", thing.

What are talking about? SS takes in much more than it pays out in benefits. It helped finance the GOP war in Iraq so the wealthy could get tax cuts. Time to pay it back.
 
I found this article in The Globe and Mail and had to share. I admit I smirk when I hear Americans complain about tax rates as I knew they pay less than most developed countries. In fact, tax rates in the US today are comparable to those of 1965! Having said that, there's no graph that shows which country gets more bang for their taxed bucks, but that is another point altogether.

I'm interested in hearing feedback and whether this surprises you or not.

U.S.: In state of denial over taxes? - The Globe and Mail

infographic1_1303387a.JPG

It would be wonderful to have posts based on something a little less than coming from a socialist nation and an extremely liberal News Org.
 
It would be wonderful to have posts based on something a little less than coming from a socialist nation and an extremely liberal News Org.

Feel free to post data from other sources....
 
Those who are able to read and comprehend what they read and are past the 35th grade now how interpret what they read.

Thanks for your completely unsourced rebuttal opinion there internet guy. We will consider it with all the weight it merits. :sun
 
Last edited:
Have you somehow missed all the Republican proposals to cut benefits to seniors through SS and Medicare in order to continue the tax breaks for the wealthy???

these would be the tax breaks that resulted in the wealthy paying more taxes, yes?
 
It would be wonderful to have posts based on something a little less than coming from a socialist nation and an extremely liberal News Org.

well you gotta like how they throw in state and local taxes in there, too.
 
No cuts to benefits for seniors. Just cuts to insurance companies.

No wonder the right hates it

no. it was cuts to providers, which mean that seniors wouldn't get healthcare. according to the Medicare Actuaries; were Obamacare to fully go into effect, huge percentages of providers would simply stop seeing Medicare patients all-together, or go bankrupt.
 
It would be wonderful to have posts based on something a little less than coming from a socialist nation and an extremely liberal News Org.

You calling OECD "a socialist nation" now?
 
these would be the tax breaks that resulted in the wealthy paying more taxes, yes?

I'm very surprised but happy both you and Turtledude are of the opinion that elimination the Bush tax cuts will lower taxes for the wealthy.

Sure does seem strange, if that is the case, that the GOP has been fighting so hard to protect them. :sun
 
Last edited:
You calling OECD "a socialist nation" now?

Many far right conservatives in this country today feel the US was a socialist nation for the half century period when our tax system was more progressive.
 
Many far right conservatives in this country today feel the US was a socialist nation for the half century period when our tax system was more progressive.

So now you speak for so called "far right conservatives"?

j-mac
 
Originally Posted by apdst
The jobs left when the Libbos took over the government. Remember the 5% unemployment rate, back when we had a government that understood that it couldn't create jobs?
:eek: Please tell me you didn't post that? Please tell me your memory isn't that short? (Re: Unemployment rate from October 2008 per NYTimes.com)
October 2008 is 22 months after the "libbos" took over the government.
 
Wow. Please show me where in the Constitution it is stated that there be in SSI, etc.?
The relevant test is to point out where the Constitution gives the government the power to create SS, SSI, Medicare, etc.
 
no. it was cuts to providers, which mean that seniors wouldn't get healthcare. according to the Medicare Actuaries; were Obamacare to fully go into effect, huge percentages of providers would simply stop seeing Medicare patients all-together, or go bankrupt.

More unsubstantiated BS from the rightwing. Under the law, there are no cuts to the benfits seniors receive under Medicare. And doctors would continue seeing Medicare patients or go out of business for lack of paying customers
 
The relevant test is to point out where the Constitution gives the government the power to create SS, SSI, Medicare, etc.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...."
 
I have seen no evidence or that in the last 30 years, all I have seen is different spending priorities. It was the GOP majority vote that created the biggest part of our recent debt, the optional war in Iraq.
This is just plain silly.
The INCREASE in entitlement spending from FY2008 to FY2009 exceeds the full cost of the war in Iraq, thus far.
 
Feel free to post data from other sources....

This is just plain silly.
The INCREASE in entitlement spending from FY2008 to FY2009 exceeds the full cost of the war in Iraq, thus far.

I'm guessing that you don't realize that the FY2009 budget was passed under bush*

I love it when the rightwingers make our argument for us without realizing it. :lamo
 
This is just plain silly.
The INCREASE in entitlement spending from FY2008 to FY2009 exceeds the full cost of the war in Iraq, thus far.

Dammit, you mean we could have been killing people instead of feeding them and provding them medical care?!
 
The surplus is guaranteed though the full failt and credit of the US.
This doesnt address a thing I said.

The FICA cap will need to be raised to repay the SS funds for general fund uses so tax cuts could be provided to the wealthy.
This response indicate a great ignorance of how SS works.
FICA funds go directly to SS outlays; repayment of the SSTF bonds must come from the general fund, or borrowing.
FICA revenues cannot be used to repay the SSTF bonds because the revenue represented by the SSTF bunds went into the general fund.

So, my statement stands:
The $2.6T SS "surplus" doesn't exist; the SSTF is full of IOUs that will be repaid thru borrowing - thus running up the deficits and adding to the debt.
 
Back
Top Bottom