If Riot would have been around in the 1700's I believe she would have sided with the Brits.

tax tax tax tax

No, they don't pay "twice as much as they should", they pay the regular amount, their taxes have not gone up, they have gone down.
But our income has gone down because some people pay less than others.

And I am not worried about poverty-line people paying taxes. They should not. I am worried if you are in the 28% bracket, and Warren Buffet only pays 16% (as he has said he does) due to loopholes.

Actually yes, it was.

Nope. Case closed only if one is simplistic and ignoring more than half the truth. We have no trouble paying our debt. Even yesterday, American treasuries were considered the safest haven in the world. The world is throwing money at us, at marginal low interest rates, begging us to borrow, as we are so reliable and safe.

Half the AAA rated countries by S & P have greater debt to GDP ratios than us. That is not the problem. The current problem resulting in the credit rating downgrade is due to the obstructive politicians in Washington - which is the Tea Party and the GOP who refuses to raise revenue (specifically outlined by S & P in their press release).

Bush cut our income markedly. We need that back.

If you want your taxes lowered, then I suggest you support removing loopholes from the wealthy, so everyone pays a relatively equal percentage, and the tax base is expanded.

Adults, in the financial world use the word "revenue" to describe income. We get our income, as a country, from taxes. It's not a talking point, it's just the correct word to use.

You can increase revenue without raising the tax rates, but by closing loopholes. That's only a tax increase to the dogmatic narrow-minded Grover adherants. Which is primarily 2/3 of the Republican party.

Baloney. That is no where near what I think. What I think is that we live in a cooperative society, and our Constitution said our government has the power to tax for the common good. And we do, to make all our lives better.

No. It means you stick to the strict talking points you've been told to use.

Unlike the majority of Americans, I am an adult and do not need to be told what my best interests are. I can decide that for myself and am 100% willing to deal with the consequences of my decisions.

It sounds crazy I know but that is the basic theory of being an adult.

FYI I support no political party or politician, frankly I would like to see the whole thing taken down and started over from scratched based entirely on some well written and well thought out guidelines.

I wonder if such a document exists...

Yes, it's the Constitution, where one of the first and most important tenents is that our government has the power to tax for the common good of us all. Like ensuring our elderly no longer die in poverty, without health care, on the streets like they used to before we decided to make Social Security and Medicare as safety nets.

Don't forget - those programs came out of need.

The Great Depression is over. The day the federal government entered the charity business was the first step down a very slippery slope.
Call me callous but there are privately run charities, church run charities and families who take care of their own. My mother in law runs one for the elderly, private donations pay for it. People donate ("wealthy" people like my wife and I) to pay for the services that are provided. Nobody needs the fed telling us what to do with our money. Grow up.

[quote=joeydb;798537]This is what liberals consider to be fairness. You work your ass off, and instead of getting principal plus interest, you get a modest payment per month until you croak, assuming it's solvent.[/QUOTE

If only you bothered with facts. The truth is, that most people get more out of Social Security and Medicare than they put in.

You know, that's why you have been told to scream it's broke? :D

You can't have it both ways ;)

Really? Why? What have I ever said about taxing for no reason? What a made-up, nonsensical ad hominem attack. Stick to debating the opinions.

[quote=Riot;798575]And THAT is exactly the problem. Well put.

Social Security and Medicare are not charities. They are not "giveaways". We all contribute during our lives, and we all benefit.

Yeah, well that didn't work so well in the past, resulting in seniors starving and dying due to lack of health care and a stipend in their old age. Being a caring, charitable Christian country, who worries about our poor and our elderly, we decided that we would all contribute a bit, so all of us would have a fall-back insurance safety in our old age.

Get out. You don't like the way this country was created, and what our American values are as a society, and you don't want to contribute, but want to take all the benefits - move elsewhere.

Try creating Galt's Gulch, and see how long you last.

[quote=Clip-Clop;798579]And that just started next year. And all it needs is a little tweek, as we've done all the other times it was needed. Solvent for decades.

This attack on Social Security is nothing but ginned-up Republican attempts to destroy it and give Wall Street the funds. They've been trying to do it since Reagan created the fiction of the "welfare queen driving a Cadillac".

How did Wall Street do in 2008 with your retirement fund?
did they do Friday with your retirement fund?

Thank goodness all our citizens have the safety net of Social Security. It was a good idea started for widows and orphans, and it's good for all of us.

Anybody that doesn't like that should move to another country. The trouble is, all first-world countries, with better lifestyles than us - more vacation time, earlier retirement, better health care, better quality of living, less expensive housing and food, and better perceived happiness - tax more than us. You can be taxed less - move to a second or third world country.

A good society, a good country, isn't created in a vacuum of selfishness and independence from society.

This is pointless, the discussion began about losing money in the markets and has become a soapbox for forced donations into programs we might get to see last until we are 10 years away from being able to access them at 30-40% of our investment. Tap out.

I handle my own investments. Doing fine.

Uhhh... isn't that where debt comes from?

So much for it being successful. It's a sinkhole. It's a loser. It needs to go.

No, Joey. Social Security is not where our debt comes from.

Not the total debt. Doesn't that mean that it is always a drain and cannot carry it's own burden as a program? If most people get out more than they put in, that seems to be the case.

What it means is that now, for the first time in history - never in the past - there is slightly more coming out than going in. That is why full benefits now would extend to 2037, with only 78% benefits after that. Because 2037 is when we would first see that problem.

So we make a little tweek to fix it for decades. Hardly the disasterous failure you falsely portray it as. Very successful program. Has made 100% of it's payments for decades, and will readily do that until 2037 doing nothing else. Then 78% after that. Doing nothing else.

So it will be tweeked in the near future, so that after 1937, 100% gets paid out then, too.

Now, if you don't want to be a participatory American patriot in this society, and you don't want to contribute to our common good as a society - MOVE ELSEWHERE

If you think preventing old people from starving on the street in ill health is a bad thing - MOVE ELSEWHERE

If you want to sit on your ass and collect a check from government, originally taxed from someone else's hard work - MOVE ELSEWHERE!

So you really thing ALL the SH*IT we are in now is because of Welfare?

I'm saying it doesn't help, and by definition those on it aren't moving the economy forward. And I'm saying it's among the first things to be reduced as expenses go.

It doesn't account for ALL of our debt...just $9,000,000,000,000 up until 2004. More than that now.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2807