Words of wisdom from Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Cancel 2018. 3]

bfgrn:

have you found anything to substantiate your claim that the GOP wants to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs?

 

[Bfgrn]

At least your honest. You don't want it to change at all which would be nice if money grew on trees but it doesn't and changes are going to have to be made because it is an unsustainable program. And the idea that we can raise taxes high enough to cover S.S. and Medicare without any changes to those programs isn't reality. We would have to raise taxes so high that we would completely suffocate the economy. And stating the programs, especially medicare/medicaid, are on an unsustainable path is not a partisan statement, it's a factual statement.

Yea...

Hey grandma, get off you ass and get a fucking job you lazy old hag!

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Any reform has to:
A) works within the framework of the existing structure, because there is NO WAY privatization can lower cost without cutting benefits.
B) NOT lower benefits
C) NOT raise the cost on beneficiaries.

Roflmao....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Do you always step on your dick freak?

Some more wisdom from Dwight D. Eisenhower:

In 1960, when asked what major projects Nixon had assisted with during the Eisenhower Presidency, Ike famously said, “If you give me a week, I may think of something.” Eisenhower also delayed his endorsement of Nixon during the 1960 race for the Republican Presidential nomination.


This is a transcript of the 1971 conversation between President Richard Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman that led to the HMO act of 1973:

John D. Ehrlichman: “On the … on the health business …”

President Nixon: “Yeah.”

Ehrlichman: “… we have now narrowed down the vice president’s problems on this thing to one issue and that is whether we should include these health maintenance organizations like Edgar Kaiser’s Permanente thing. The vice president just cannot see it. We tried 15 ways from Friday to explain it to him and then help him to understand it. He finally says, ‘Well, I don’t think they’ll work, but if the President thinks it’s a good idea, I’ll support him a hundred percent.’”

President Nixon: “Well, what’s … what’s the judgment?”

Ehrlichman: “Well, everybody else’s judgment very strongly is that we go with it.”

President Nixon: “All right.”

Ehrlichman: “And, uh, uh, he’s the one holdout that we have in the whole office.”

President Nixon: “Say that I … I … I’d tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it’s, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I’m not too keen on any of these damn medical programs.”

Ehrlichman: “This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am …”

President Nixon: [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: “This … this is a …”

President Nixon: “I don’t [unclear] …”

Ehrlichman: “… private enterprise one.”

President Nixon: “Well, that appeals to me.”

Ehrlichman: “Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …”

President Nixon: [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: “… the less care they give them, the more money they make.”

President Nixon: “Fine.” [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: [Unclear] “… and the incentives run the right way.”

President Nixon: “Not bad.”

[Source: University of Virginia Check - February 17, 1971, 5:26 pm - 5:53 pm, Oval Office Conversation 450-23. Look for: tape rmn_e450c.]

Do tell me genius.... WHAT does that have to do with what I stated?

 

[cawacko]

Yea...

Hey grandma, get off you ass and get a fucking job you lazy old hag!

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

Yes, I'm just making it up. Medicare/Medicaid can go on forever without any changes and it is only heartless people who would say otherwise.

 

[cawacko]

Please tell me why Ike wouldn't support a common sense solution like this?

Senator Bernie Sanders announced that he will introduce legislation that would strengthen Social Security without cutting benefits to any of its beneficiaries. The legislation would eliminate the income cap that currently exists in the payroll tax that does not tax income above $106,800.

To keep Social Security functional through the Baby Boom collection years, Sanders’ legislation would simply apply the same payroll tax already paid by more than nine out of 10 Americans (you know… the working class) to those with incomes over $250,000 a year. The legislation would leave Social Security benefits untouched yet fully fund the program by making the wealthiest Americans pay the same payroll tax already assessed on those with incomes up to $106,800 a year.

Sanders points out that President Obama himself endorsed this idea on the campaign trail in 2008. “What we need to do is to raise the cap on the payroll tax so that wealthy individuals are paying a little bit more into the system. Right now, somebody like Warren Buffet pays a fraction of 1 percent of his income in payroll tax, whereas the majority…pays payroll tax on 100 percent of their income. I’ve said that was not fair,” said then Candidate Obama. As we all know the wealthy took that as a red flag and upped their class warfare ante with a full on assault of the working class using their ALEC funded Tea Party tools as the point troops. The Social Security system is currently fully funded until 2037. Lifting the payroll tax cap would virtually eliminate funding shortfalls the program would experience over the next 75 years.

This legislation, of course, is far too fair and makes too much sense so the Tea Party/GOP will certainly oppose it as they do any legislation that might actually do some good for America's working class. The only tax increases Republicans will agree to right now is an increase in taxes for the working class, itself. The Tea Party motto is apparently, "America for the rich and all the rest can piss off."

So you propose jacking up taxes to keep all the benefits in line for S.S. How do you propose paying for the unfunded trillions in Medicare/Medicaid liabilities?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yes, I'm just making it up. Medicare/Medicaid can go on forever without any changes and it is only heartless people who would say otherwise.

When you get his idiotic posters and cut and pastes, you know he has nothing to contribute to the conversation and that he is in way over his head. Just look at what he quoted to me. Has nothing to do with what I said to him, but because is has Nixon and HMO in the same article he thought he would post it and hope it meant something.... and USC sucks.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, I'm just making it up. Medicare/Medicaid can go on forever without any changes and it is only heartless people who would say otherwise.

You know, I constantly hear from you right wing scum that we can't raise taxes on the wealthy, they are the 'job creators'. Well, the 'job creators' had a decade of tax cuts, corporate lawyers authoring laws that swindled the working families, business friendly regulatory agencies and a government that catered to their every whim. And the results:

ZERO net jobs...a lost decade.

NOW, because of the trashing of our economy by Wall Street and the private sector, we MUST instead cut the programs for the most vulnerable among us.

You people make me sick. You were raised by wolves. You are ignorant, heartless pieces of human excrement.

 

[Bfgrn]

Do tell me genius.... WHAT does that have to do with what I stated?

It is perfectly CLEAR why 'health care costs skyrocketed in this country when we shifted to the HMO/PPO model.'

Maybe you need an adult to explain it to you pea brain.

This is a transcript of the 1971 conversation between President Richard Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman that led to the HMO act of 1973:

Ehrlichman: “Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …”

President Nixon: [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: “… the less care they give them, the more money they make.”

President Nixon: “Fine.” [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: [Unclear] “… and the incentives run the right way.”

President Nixon: “Not bad.”

 

[cawacko]

You know, I constantly hear from you right wing scum that we can't raise taxes on the wealthy, they are the 'job creators'. Well, the 'job creators' had a decade of tax cuts, corporate lawyers authoring laws that swindled the working families, business friendly regulatory agencies and a government that catered to their every whim. And the results:

ZERO net jobs...a lost decade.

NOW, because of the trashing of our economy by Wall Street and the private sector, we MUST instead cut the programs for the most vulnerable among us.

You people make me sick. You were raised by wolves. You are ignorant, heartless pieces of human excrement.

That still doesn't change the trillions in unfunded liabilities that we have promises. Raising taxes to 100% isn't going to cover our obligations so something else must be done. What would you recommend?

 

[Bfgrn]

That still doesn't change the trillions in unfunded liabilities that we have promises. Raising taxes to 100% isn't going to cover our obligations so something else must be done. What would you recommend?

I already did. Grandma can get a job. Maybe she can go back to college and start a new career so she can cover the additional costs that will have to come out of her fixed income. Maybe people that reach 65 won't retire, and the younger people can just wait for jobs to open up. We can set up morticians to move 'em out when they croak on the job.

Your bullshit doesn't hold water, we paid for WWII by raising taxes. Heaven forbid we ask your beloved opulent to have to settle for an off brand of caviar. Maybe they won't notice if you lick their asshole harder...

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

bfgrn:

have you found anything to substantiate your claim that the GOP wants to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs?

still waiting....

 

[cawacko]

I already did. Grandma can get a job. Maybe she can go back to college and start a new career so she can cover the additional costs that will have to come out of her fixed income. Maybe people that reach 65 won't retire, and the younger people can just wait for jobs to open up. We can set up morticians to move 'em out when they croak on the job.

Your bullshit doesn't hold water, we paid for WWII by raising taxes. Heaven forbid we ask your beloved opulent to have to settle for an off brand of caviar. Maybe they won't notice if you lick their asshole harder...

I posted this earlier. This is coming from the USA Today which is hardly a right-wing bastion of thought. You can call me every name in the book but these numbers don't lie and they won't somehow magically disappear. And raising our taxes to 100% still won't cover these costs. Yeah, economic reality sucks sometimes. You sarcastically say tell Grandma to get a job because you don't want to actually look and attempt to deal with the problem.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-06-06-us-debt-chart-medicare-social-security_n.htm

 

[Bfgrn]

I posted this earlier. This is coming from the USA Today which is hardly a right-wing bastion of thought. You can call me every name in the book but these numbers don't lie and they won't somehow magically disappear. And raising our taxes to 100% still won't cover these costs. Yeah, economic reality sucks sometimes. You sarcastically say tell Grandma to get a job because you don't want to actually look and attempt to deal with the problem.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-06-06-us-debt-chart-medicare-social-security_n.htm

Really?

USA Today's reporter Dennis Cauchon knows how to sell newspapers: just put a huge-looking number like "$59 trillion" in a headline about how much US taxpayers will have to come up with to cover social insurance programs. Here's the article that got so much attention yesterday.

Conspicuously absent was any mention about how much time taxpayers would have to come up with the money, or the estimated tax receipts that would flow into the government over that time period.

I hunted and hunted in Cauchon's article for a reference or link to those (and other) important assumptions behind the $59 trillion; no luck. Then I hunted and hunted for Dennis Cauchon's email address or telephone number, so I could ask him directly; no luck there, either.

I hope he sees this article, so he can send me an email explaining those important little tidbits behind their analysis. Reason: Just as any mortgage holder plans to pay the mortgage gradually over a period of years out of future income—instead of coming up with the money tomorrow—so does the federal government plan to pay the social insurance costs gradually over a period of years out of future tax receipts—instead of coming up with the money tomorrow. The scary-sounding "unfunded promises" really means "future costs to be funded out of future tax receipts"—although the article doesn't explain that.

Just for fun, I added up how much tax revenue the federal government would collect between now and 2052 (the approximate timeframe it looks like USA Today's analysis covered), for various productivity growth scenarios. After verifying the timeframe, all I'll need to know is the discount factor USA Today used on the way to their $59 trillion result. After that, we can see what portion of future tax receipts will be required to pay the future social insurance costs. For reference, it takes 15% of tax receipts today.


Dennis Cauchon
USA Today’s dishonest statistical analysis reinforces ‘public workers as welfare queens’ meme

Holland goes on to smash USA Today’s ‘analysis’ by showing how reporter Dennis Cauchon compared public and private wages without controlling for any of these other factors to conclude, “Wisconsin is one of 41 states where public employees earn higher average pay and benefits than private workers in the same state, a USA TODAY analysis finds.”

 

[cawacko]

Really?

USA Today's reporter Dennis Cauchon knows how to sell newspapers: just put a huge-looking number like "$59 trillion" in a headline about how much US taxpayers will have to come up with to cover social insurance programs. Here's the article that got so much attention yesterday.

Conspicuously absent was any mention about how much time taxpayers would have to come up with the money, or the estimated tax receipts that would flow into the government over that time period.

I hunted and hunted in Cauchon's article for a reference or link to those (and other) important assumptions behind the $59 trillion; no luck. Then I hunted and hunted for Dennis Cauchon's email address or telephone number, so I could ask him directly; no luck there, either.

I hope he sees this article, so he can send me an email explaining those important little tidbits behind their analysis. Reason: Just as any mortgage holder plans to pay the mortgage gradually over a period of years out of future income—instead of coming up with the money tomorrow—so does the federal government plan to pay the social insurance costs gradually over a period of years out of future tax receipts—instead of coming up with the money tomorrow. The scary-sounding "unfunded promises" really means "future costs to be funded out of future tax receipts"—although the article doesn't explain that.

Just for fun, I added up how much tax revenue the federal government would collect between now and 2052 (the approximate timeframe it looks like USA Today's analysis covered), for various productivity growth scenarios. After verifying the timeframe, all I'll need to know is the discount factor USA Today used on the way to their $59 trillion result. After that, we can see what portion of future tax receipts will be required to pay the future social insurance costs. For reference, it takes 15% of tax receipts today.


Dennis Cauchon
USA Today’s dishonest statistical analysis reinforces ‘public workers as welfare queens’ meme

Holland goes on to smash USA Today’s ‘analysis’ by showing how reporter Dennis Cauchon compared public and private wages without controlling for any of these other factors to conclude, “Wisconsin is one of 41 states where public employees earn higher average pay and benefits than private workers in the same state, a USA TODAY analysis finds.”

The skeptical optimist? A website run by a guy who doesn't give his name? That's whose word we are suppose to take?

 

[cawacko]

Here you go from the Medicare Trustee's report itself. This report is written by people in the Obama administration. Are they heartless right-wing scum for reporting this?


Conclusion

Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative corrections if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided.

The financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare should be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that those affected can adequately prepare.


http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

 

[Damocles]

Here you go from the Medicare Trustee's report itself. This report is written by people in the Obama administration. Are they heartless right-wing scum for reporting this?


Conclusion

Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative corrections if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided.

The financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare should be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that those affected can adequately prepare.


http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

Heartless scum recommend changes to the benefits. Bastardly heartless jerkwads. And 1.5 Trillion over 10 years isn't going to do it, not even close considering we already OVERSPEND by more than that per year under the Supplemental Spending insanity. (Does anybody remember the promise he made never to use this method of spending? He had super majorities in the house and Senate and never once offered a budget even his own party could pass...)

Taxing "the rich" isn't going to pay this kind of spendthrift insanity, cuts will have to come, at least according to the bastardly heartless people under the current Administration....

 

[Damocles]

Bfgrn should be calling the White House to ask them why they want Grandma to kiss off... Maybe use a bit of propaganda like pictures with captions designed to evoke emotion...

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

bfgrn:

have you found anything to substantiate your claim that the GOP wants to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs?

third time bfgrn

it is clear you will ignore this and have now run away from your OP and turned the thread into a completely different topic.

i will take that as your submission that you're wrong.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Social Security taxes are levied on covered earnings up to a maximum level set each year. In 2010, this maximum—or what is referred to as the taxable earnings base—is $106,800.

The taxable earnings base serves as both a cap on contributions and a cap on benefits. As a contribution base, it establishes the maximum amount of each worker’s earnings that is subject to the payroll tax. As a benefit base, it establishes the maximum amount of earnings used to calculate benefits.

Since 1982, the Social Security taxable earnings base has risen at the same rate as average wages in the economy. However, because of increasing earnings inequality, the percentage of covered earnings that are taxable has decreased from 90% in 1982 to 85% in 2005.

​

The percentage of covered earnings that is taxable is projected to decline to about 83% for 2014 and later. Because the cap was indexed to the average growth in wages, the share of the population below the cap has remained relatively stable at roughly 94%. Of the 9.5 million Americans with earnings above the base, roughly 80% are men and only 9% had any earnings from self-employment income.New Jersey has the highest share of the population above the maximum (11.6%) and South Dakota has the lowest share (2.1%).

CRS estimated the potential impact of eliminating the taxable wage base on future benefits andtaxes.

If the base were removed in 2013, CRS estimates that by 2035, 21% of beneficiaries would have paid some additional payroll taxes over the course of their lifetimes.

However, the average change in taxes and benefits would be small. Looking only at individuals who would pay anyadditional taxes over the course of their lifetimes, at the median, total lifetime tax payments would rise by 3% and benefits would increase by 2% relative to current law. In general, those in the highest income groups would have the largest changes in both tax payments and in benefits relative to current law.

Raising or eliminating the cap on wages that are subject to taxes could reduce the long-range deficit in the Social Security Trust Funds. For example, if the maximum taxable earnings amount had been raised in 2005 from $90,000 to $150,000—roughly the level needed to cover 90% of all earnings—it would have eliminated roughly 40% of the long-range shortfall in Social Security.

If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years.




http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss9.pdf

​