djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 12:06:51 GMT -5
yes there is. THEY are stopping them from doing it. compromise means that both sides give up something they want to get something they want. it doesn't mean that Democrats bend over and get reamed by the GOP simply because the GOP doesn't want to compromise. sorry, but i don't buy the childish argument any more. if the goal is cutting the deficit, than BOTH sides should take some electoral hurt for it. not one. How is standing by your principals childish? it is principles, i believe. and it is childish when the consequences of standing by those principles are far more damaging to the people you were elected to serve than compromising them.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 12:28:30 GMT -5
I work in a variety of areas, including tech. When we have a problem, we don't COMPROMISE, we FIX IT!
this is a red herring argument. the typical scenario is that you don't have two parties that have competing goals in business.
a more helpful analogy would be a collective bargaining agreement, and you damn well do COMPROMISE for that, or you have a lockout or strike.
Despite the brainwashing, there is ZERO compromise required but just the right steps to be taken. As I commented, if you had 4 kids and someone wants to kidnap only one of them, do you accept their compromise? NO! You bash their damn skull in!
there is only no compromise if you have one party rule, or the means to the end are agreed upon by all parties.
bashing in of the skull is reserved for fascist dictatorships. i think that if that is what the GOP has in mind, we should make sure that the electorate is aware of that next fall.
We can not accept more tax hikes because that will only hurt the economy, raise little if any revenue (it might even bring in less) and it's NOT tax rates but SPENDING that is the issue as I hate pointed out and proved multiple times.
there is no evidence that tax hikes would hurt the economy. the amount of revenue they would bring can be determined by analyzing the historical patterns from OTA Paper 81. and since the proposed deficit reductions are skewed 80% on the cut side, i think everyone agrees that is where the pain should be felt.
This is why I hate arguing with liberals: they never listen to facts.
the only thing i hate is absolutes, which you seem to like to level at every opportunity.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jul 17, 2011 12:52:42 GMT -5
IMO, republicans really lost it when Obama offered 4 trillion in cuts and Boehner said no, we will take a smaller package with no cuts to subsidies and loopholes. You know Obama is not going to go hog wild on tax increases before an election.The bipartisan debt panel said there needs to be a combo of spending cuts and revenue increases.Economists said there should be both.Many fiscal conservatives have been calling for cuts to these same loopholes and subsidies...but all of a sudden, the GOP feels the need to turn down an offer for cuts that large to protect them? It is getting goofier all the time.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 12:59:09 GMT -5
IMO, republicans really lost it when Obama offered 4 trillion in cuts and Boehner said no, we will take a smaller package with no cuts to subsidies and loopholes. You know Obama is not going to go hog wild on tax increases before an election.The bipartisan debt panel said there needs to be a combo of spending cuts and revenue increases.Economists said there should be both.Many fiscal conservatives have been calling for cuts to these same loopholes and subsidies...but all of a sudden, the GOP feels the need to turn down an offer for cuts that large to protect them? It is getting goofier all the time. you got it wrong, u. Boehner did NOT disagree with that proposal. he LOVED IT. he went running back to congress, excitedly to tell them about it, and CANTOR SHIT ALL OVER HIM. that is why he no longer leads negotiations. which in turn is why negotiations have failed. the American people believe, by more than a 2:1 margin, that this should be a compromise deal that involves both closing loopholes and cutting spending. in this case, the people are right. it is a shame that the leadership is not listening.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jul 17, 2011 19:37:59 GMT -5
It would kind of be like paying an insurance company for a deferred annuity and them telling you when you're 62/65/67/70 that you've saved too much in outside vehicles so they'll be paying your annuity benefits to another customer.
Spread the wealthers don't see that as punishment but most people do.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 17, 2011 19:43:14 GMT -5
You're absolutely right, formerexpat. I don't see that as a punishment, at all. I see it as a choice I make. I can choose to keep what I don't need just because it's mine, Mine, MINE, or I can choose to allow it to do good for someone else. I see that as receiving a gift ... the gift of the opportunity to give something back, and to help another human being who isn't as fortunate, perhaps. Punishment? Perhaps, to some. Not to me.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jul 17, 2011 19:44:19 GMT -5
Compromise means USA = PIIGS^2 within 30 years.
Cuts will come. Most people should hope that they're structured and done willingly and not under the methods that Greece, Italy, Ireland, etc are facing.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jul 17, 2011 19:49:51 GMT -5
Tell me how you can avoid paying FICA. I'm interested in hearing how.
You're not the only person that is [and liberals aren't the only political party that are] compassionate towards people, but compassion isn't having your hard earned money forcefully taken from you and then turning around and saying "I'm okay with it because other people are more needy than me."
You've got to be a willing participant to be able to give. You're not giving shit.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 17, 2011 19:54:09 GMT -5
Heh. I think that's my point, formerexpat. I couldn't avoid paying it. We did, however, make good choices in preparing for retirement; therefore, I don't need that money at this time. It now becomes my choice whether to take it, or not. At this point, I choose not to do so and I don't feel punished in the slightest.
As far as what I'm giving, you don't have a clue, just as I don't have a clue what you give. I, however, would have the sense to realize that and keep my fingers still about what you give and what you don't give.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 17, 2011 19:59:30 GMT -5
if you don't use it, medicare IS charity. Yea but don't forget when you die Medicare does help to pay for some of your funeral expenses...so don't knock it ... $250.00 I believe..covers them opening the grave I think. Actually, thats one I can see them doing away with actually. Hey, have to start somewhere.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jul 17, 2011 20:18:15 GMT -5
You don't have a choice. Assuming you're making over $40k as MFJ in retirement, 85% of your benefits are taxed.
My generation will take even greater reductions and it's likely I'll be means tested out, so the over $20k I pay in annually for FICA in today's dollars will be my gift to the welfarians of the US.
My giving doesn't stop there but I don't mind one bit giving to causes that I feel are good. It might also shock you to learn that I both volunteer and donate to a local homeless shelter on a regular basis.
The difference is that it's by choice. Choice - key word. Very important to me and most Americans. Not the arbitrary decision by DC about who the winners and losers should be with my tax dollars.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jul 17, 2011 20:45:38 GMT -5
How is standing by your principals childish? it is principles, i believe. and it is childish when the consequences of standing by those principles are far more damaging to the people you were elected to serve than compromising them. So where is the condemnation of Obama then? He and the Democrats could simply go with the spending cuts and zero tax hikes. Yet it's only the GOP who gets blamed for holding things up.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jul 17, 2011 21:07:50 GMT -5
Ameiko wrote:
I work in a variety of areas, including tech. When we have a problem, we don't COMPROMISE, we FIX IT!
Response:
this is a red herring argument. the typical scenario is that you don't have two parties that have competing goals in business.
a more helpful analogy would be a collective bargaining agreement, and you damn well do COMPROMISE for that, or you have a lockout or strike.
And then you consider whether it's a good idea to move to South Carolina...
Interesting analogy with the unions, given how they have helped to either:
1. destroy the manufacturing base of the economy by demanding more than they can command in a global economy as well as making it more enticing to send factories and jobs outside of the nation to people who are grateful to have work.
2. completely bloated goverment budgets on all levels.
Yeah, really making compromise look sweet.
Ameiko commented:
Despite the brainwashing, there is ZERO compromise required but just the right steps to be taken. As I commented, if you had 4 kids and someone wants to kidnap only one of them, do you accept their compromise? NO! You bash their damn skull in!
there is only no compromise if you have one party rule, or the means to the end are agreed upon by all parties.
Or one party realizes that the other party is right, lets go of their idealogy (at least on that issue) and takes the sensible road. I have proven that it is spending that is an issue and the Obama and the Democrats have exploded the deficit and debt beyond even what Bush II did. Their path is completely wrong and thus we must go completely 180 degrees: compromise just hurts us.
Also, as I have commented and you and others love to ignore, every compromise that GOP has with the Democrats always hurt both the GOP and the nation.
bashing in of the skull is reserved for fascist dictatorships. i think that if that is what the GOP has in mind, we should make sure that the electorate is aware of that next fall.
Wow, more demonization. The funny thing is that it's the lefties, including SIEU and ACORN who has engaged in well documented and frequent violence. The tea party has been overwhelmingly peaceful.
From Ameiko:
We can not accept more tax hikes because that will only hurt the economy, raise little if any revenue (it might even bring in less) and it's NOT tax rates but SPENDING that is the issue as I hate pointed out and proved multiple times.
Response:
there is no evidence that tax hikes would hurt the economy. the amount of revenue they would bring can be determined by analyzing the historical patterns from OTA Paper 81. and since the proposed deficit reductions are skewed 80% on the cut side, i think everyone agrees that is where the pain should be felt.
Just look at the tax compromise that Bush I engaged it: it tanked the economy. There were also many tax hikes after the 1930's downturn which lead to the Great Depression. Very well documented if you do your research.
Ameiko:
This is why I hate arguing with liberals: they never listen to facts.
Response:
the only thing i hate is absolutes, which you seem to like to level at every opportunity.
Only because the truth tends to be a little more absolute and the world less grey than the left loves to contend. In this case, it is quite stark: spending, NOT low tax rates, is the reason for our issue. This is simply indisputeably based on the CBO numbers and for anyone to believe otherwise is a complete fool or idealogue.
Historically, tax hikes have reduced revenues and tax decreases increased revenue. It's the Laffer curve, plain and simple. Sure, there is a rate where revenue decreased but we have never reached it.
Tax revenue after the 2003 Bush tax cuts is an indisputeable fact. A 3 year decline was reversed and indeed revenues surged. Revenues increased to the point where the 2007 budget (the last one passed by Bush and a GOP Congress) had a deficit of 160 billion. Since then, the tax rates remained the same but we have a 1.6 trillion deficit!
Yet people claim this deficit is due to the Bush tax cuts! In reality, spending has surged under Obama and the Democrats and thus it must stop!
This can not be disputed! It is FACT! There should be no discussion and no compromise because tax hikes are the demonstrable wrong reason and indeed they are only there in an attempt to steal wealth and freedom from the producers to buy votes for Democrats and increase dependency.
Seriously, think on this: the Democrats are saying that we mismanaged your money badly; we want to take more of it! LUNACY!!!
I speak on absolutes because this is a battle of absolutes: freedom vs slavery and truth vs hypocrisy. We must once and for all repudiate the idea that is is acceptable for the federal government to steal money from one group to give to another, particulary for causes that defy the Constitution. We must return to the principal that the individual must be responsible for themselves and that if someone wishes to pursue a cause, that they should do so with their own money rather than steal it from others with the power of the federal government's gun.
Government has grown like a malignancy, infiltrating our lives and stealing our essence, turning us into slaves and children to a government too easily swayed and too firmly entrenched with unelected buearcrats who pass regulations in areas that should only be passed as Congressional laws if at all!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 22:22:05 GMT -5
Compromise means USA = PIIGS^2 within 30 years. Cuts will come. Most people should hope that they're structured and done willingly and not under the methods that Greece, Italy, Ireland, etc are facing. i am not really following you, here. our situation is not even as bad as Japan's, let alone Greeces. and there is a lot more going on in Greece than we hear in the Western press. they did some really stupid ass things with tax reform, for example.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 22:25:19 GMT -5
Ameiko wrote: I work in a variety of areas, including tech. When we have a problem, we don't COMPROMISE, we FIX IT!Response: this is a red herring argument. the typical scenario is that you don't have two parties that have competing goals in business.
a more helpful analogy would be a collective bargaining agreement, and you damn well do COMPROMISE for that, or you have a lockout or strike.And then you consider whether it's a good idea to move to South Carolina... how would that analogy apply to the current debate in Washington? is the GOP planning to move to Iceland?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 22:30:28 GMT -5
Or one party realizes that the other party is right, lets go of their idealogy (at least on that issue) and takes the sensible road.
but both parties believe that, a. which brings us back to compromise. or hopeless entrenchment, if they all think like this.
I have proven that it is spending that is an issue and the Obama and the Democrats have exploded the deficit and debt beyond even what Bush II did.
not really. Bush added almost $5T. Obama has yet to add $2T, by my count. now, if you are asking me to speculate about whether he will top Bush, i think it is quite likely.
Their path is completely wrong and thus we must go completely 180 degrees: compromise just hurts us.
i am not that interested in U Turns. especially in the midst of a fragile recovery. with creditors watching. i don't think it is prudent. i think a series of adjustments with a long term plan on fixing the problem is the best possible way to handle it. but to each their own, i guess.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 22:33:10 GMT -5
bashing in of the skull is reserved for fascist dictatorships. i think that if that is what the GOP has in mind, we should make sure that the electorate is aware of that next fall.
Wow, more demonization The funny thing is that it's the lefties, including SIEU and ACORN who has engaged in well documented and frequent violence. The tea party has been overwhelmingly peaceful..
yeah, i agree. it was a little bit outrageous of you to resort to the bashing in the skull language. apology accepted. ;]
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 22:45:10 GMT -5
the only thing i hate is absolutes, which you seem to like to level at every opportunity.
Only because the truth tends to be a little more absolute and the world less grey than the left loves to contend.
i wouldn't really know, since i am not a member of "the left". however, i disagree that the truth is black and white. it never has been, and i doubt it ever will be.
In this case, it is quite stark: spending, NOT low tax rates, is the reason for our issue.
actually, it isn't. it is a combination of spending, economic downturn, and low revenues. ie- if revenues were 2x higher, there would be massive surpluses. this is hypothetical of course. only two countries tax that high.
This is simply indisputeably based on the CBO numbers and for anyone to believe otherwise is a complete fool or idealogue.
LOL! pre-emptive ad hominem! awesome!
Historically, tax hikes have reduced revenues and tax decreases increased revenue.
historically meaning never?
It's the Laffer curve, plain and simple. Sure, there is a rate where revenue decreased but we have never reached it.
that is because the Laffer curve, in the real world sense, is pure idiocy, and if followed to it's natural conclusion, will bankrupt this nation.
Tax revenue after the 2003 Bush tax cuts is an indisputeable fact. A 3 year decline was reversed and indeed revenues surged.
you are not isolating the variable of revenue for inflation and for economic growth. when those factors are backed out, the revenue losses become readily apparent. an easy way of seeing it is by looking at the revenue as a percent of GDP. that is what OTA Paper 81 does, and it is an absolutely devistating case against supply side economics. most supply sider's don't understand how this works, so i will illustrate it with a common sense analogy.
joey is working as a chemical engineer at $74k but loses his job. he finds another job in the same field at $54k/year. after four years, he is making $77k. however, his work mate, who went on with the company, is now making $93k/year. so, even though in absolute terms, Joey is making more than he did before, he is still making less than he would if he had stayed on the same track. tax cuts work exactly the same way. when adjusted for inflation and economic growth, the net loss is perpetual.
Revenues increased to the point where the 2007 budget (the last one passed by Bush and a GOP Congress) had a deficit of 160 billion. Since then, the tax rates remained the same but we have a 1.6 trillion deficit!
wait- do you go by the name gofor on another board? i think i will delay responding to any more of this until i find out.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 17, 2011 22:54:54 GMT -5
It wasn't I who commented you didn't give anything, formerexpat. It was you who said that about me ... as though you'd know. As I said, I have more sense than to go on about that about which I know nothing. I've left that to you. As for voluntary vs involuntary, if I choose not to accept benefits but to leave it for others who might truly need it, that's a voluntary action on my part. I could take it if I chose. I don't choose to. It's about choice. You make yours, I'll make mine. We'll show the differences in our characters by which choses to pitch insults.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 23:01:45 GMT -5
it is principles, i believe. and it is childish when the consequences of standing by those principles are far more damaging to the people you were elected to serve than compromising them. So where is the condemnation of Obama then? i condemn him routinely, where i feel it is justified. his insane wars in the middle east are a notable (and expensive) black mark on his record. his continuation of illegal practices that he promised to terminate is another one. the idiotic bipartisanship which compromises the principles that he ran on is a third. some of these items are impeachable offenses, imo. would you like me to go on? i could. all night. but i could do the same for Bush, of course. he fucked everything up, imo. and it is going to take a lot of Obama or someone else to fix it. doing more Bush like things is not going to do it, imo.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 18, 2011 8:30:19 GMT -5
this is part of the $4T deal that the GOP stupidly rejected. as a result, it will probably not happen. unfortunately. Considering no one laid out what the $4T consisted of, I'm glad they didn't accept it. Please no more "vote on it to see what's in it" bullshit from this admin...
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 18, 2011 9:00:17 GMT -5
You're absolutely right, formerexpat. I don't see that as a punishment, at all. I see it as a choice I make. I can choose to keep what I don't need just because it's mine, Mine, MINE, or I can choose to allow it to do good for someone else. I see that as receiving a gift ... the gift of the opportunity to give something back, and to help another human being who isn't as fortunate, perhaps. Punishment? Perhaps, to some. Not to me. And how is forcibly having SS and Medicare taxes taken from our paychecks a choice?
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jul 18, 2011 9:16:32 GMT -5
It would kind of be like paying an insurance company for a deferred annuity and them telling you when you're 62/65/67/70 that you've saved too much in outside vehicles so they'll be paying your annuity benefits to another customer. Spread the wealthers don't see that as punishment but most people do. It would be closer of an example if you said the company said they don't have enough to pay all the claims, you have enough saved in other accounts, so they are going to use what you paid in to pay for other claims since "you don't need it."
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jul 18, 2011 9:41:14 GMT -5
the American people believe, by more than a 2:1 margin, that this should be a compromise deal that involves both closing loopholes and cutting spending. in this case, the people are right. it is a shame that the leadership is not listening. www.gallup.com/poll/148472/deficit-americans-prefer-spending-cuts-open-tax-hikes.aspxSeems the number is al over the place, depending on what poll you look at. www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/578556/201107151857/No-US-iDoesnt-i-Want-Tax-Hikes.htmThat's why Republicans should ignore Obama's demand for tax hikes. In our own IBD/TIPP Poll, 60% of Americans said they'd be "less likely" to vote for someone who supports increasing the debt ceiling without "major spending cuts." Heck, 58% said they either "somewhat" or "strongly" oppose raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling at all. In our June poll, 74% of Americans opposed tax hikes as a way of getting out of our economic mess, while 80% also opposed more government spending. I believe that it does need to be a mixture of Sever Cuts (military, medical, food and governmental services) and Targeted tax increases, (removal of the EITC, closing of loopholes, even increases in the across the board tax rates on everyone by 5ish percent)
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 18, 2011 9:53:05 GMT -5
You're absolutely right, formerexpat. I don't see that as a punishment, at all. I see it as a choice I make. I can choose to keep what I don't need just because it's mine, Mine, MINE, or I can choose to allow it to do good for someone else. I see that as receiving a gift ... the gift of the opportunity to give something back, and to help another human being who isn't as fortunate, perhaps. Punishment? Perhaps, to some. Not to me. And how is forcibly having SS and Medicare taxes taken from our paychecks a choice? It isn't, and I haven't said it was. What I said was: I don't choose to use Medicare. I never have said I had a choice as to whether it would be withheld. Of course, it will be withheld. My choice lies in whether to use it, or not use it. I choose not to use it. I have my own insurance through my work, so don't need Medicare.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 18, 2011 9:54:55 GMT -5
It would kind of be like paying an insurance company for a deferred annuity and them telling you when you're 62/65/67/70 that you've saved too much in outside vehicles so they'll be paying your annuity benefits to another customer. Spread the wealthers don't see that as punishment but most people do. It would be closer of an example if you said the company said they don't have enough to pay all the claims, you have enough saved in other accounts, so they are going to use what you paid in to pay for other claims since "you don't need it." Which, in the case of Medicare, is fine with me. I don't need it, so if it can be used for others who do, that's great. I don't see that as a punishment.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jul 18, 2011 13:28:07 GMT -5
It would be closer of an example if you said the company said they don't have enough to pay all the claims, you have enough saved in other accounts, so they are going to use what you paid in to pay for other claims since "you don't need it." Which, in the case of Medicare, is fine with me. I don't need it, so if it can be used for others who do, that's great. I don't see that as a punishment. What would you do if a private company did the same thing without giving a choice? Just because the government does it, doesn't make it right.
|
|