Member since June 17, 2009
This user has no shared collections.
View More Collections
Why don't you go browse some
and pick a few to favorite?
commented on Ted Rall
almost 6 years ago
My beef is with those that consider Social Security an entitlement program. To answer your other question, if they paid more into it, that is their money, they should get that out of it. They feel that any change in the tax code that effects only them will be bad for the economy. Yet they have been living with a tax code that effected only them. A portion of their salary was tax exempt. Why ??
The trouble that Social Security is in right now is partially due to the fact that reserves in the program were borrowed by the federal government to fund other programs and those loans are not being paid back. If you want that program eliminated fine. If you don’t, and it is still going to be around, then treat everyone equally. Apply that deduction to one’s entire salary. Why is that NOT fair??
Hey Jade, looking at an increase as a percentage instead of a specific amount is missing the big picture. If I make $1 million dollars a year, and with tax credits, pay $1000 in tax. An increase of 280% raises my tax AMOUNT from $1000 to $3800. I still made $1 million dollars. How hard will the additional $2800 hit my lifestyle?? I am against raising taxes just to raise taxes but if there is a benefit to society what is wrong with that? Social Security is not an entitlement. During my working years I PAID INTO THAT PROGRAM. I am just getting my money back. Back in the day when I WAS working for a living, 100% of my salary was taxed as my contribution to Social Security. Those making more than $106K per year had anything OVER that amount exempt from that tax. Talk about sucking at the teat of society.. Those individuals had a tax break I did not get. None of that group complained THEN about the tax break they got but now feel that those that did not qualify for that tax break don’t deserve to get back what they paid in.
commented on Ted Rall
over 6 years ago
to Lavocat… Yes the U.S used nuclear weapons twice..IN a war that was not going to end quickly if standard military tactics were used.. Remember also that NO ONE has used nuclear weapons against ANY target since. Can we be certain that a regime that is using 13th century religious dogma to stir up its civilian population is going to practice that same restraint ?? Hoping that it DOES is not prudent. Now I don’t respect, let alone trust, any political leader in that part of the world. Most consider the offer of negotiation as a sign of weakness and use it as propoganda to stay in power.
McCain may be in trouble with the fringe in the republican party. His re-action to the latest Supreme Court ruling about corporations and campaign finance may lose him his seat in AZ. He may push for a re-writing of the campaign finance bill he sponsored a while back and that would put him at odds with those candidates that are running against key democrats in 2010 and are looking for corporate donations to help them out. But then again, if the religious right and other such groups are correct, the world will be ending in 2010 anyway. So the makeup of congress will be irrelevant.
commented on Ted Rall
almost 7 years ago
RV, if the Russians did not win because of the Americans then who are we fighting ? It is solely business interests that have driven both the Iraq and Afghan conflicts. Business backed by the American attitude that we have the most powerful armed forces in the world. We need to prove this as often as possible to the rest of the world and ourselves yet we don’t want to appear as bad (or worse) than the last 2 military powers that felt the need to impose their image of a perfectly run world on everyone else. Those being Communist Russia and Nazi Germany. In some places a theocracy IS a nation’s best form of government. In others, socialism is the best solution for that country’s people. Why do we feel the need to impose democracy on everyone when WE don’t have a democracy. For those of you not clear on how things are run here, the U.S is a republic. On this one I agree with George Will. We should not spend our limited resources ‘nation building’ in other parts of the world when OUR nation needs so much rebuilding. Besides, our record on nation building is not so good. Both Vietnam and Iran removed U.S backed dictators through force and violence
Criteria for treating an illness without insurance is that you’ll be expected to pay in advance for the visit. Not the covered co-pay but all of it. You just won’t be turned away at the door like a homelss person in the street asking for change. Treatment for Swine Flu may be provided without insurance but it probably won’t be free? Also, I talked to my son’s doctor not more than a week ago and was told that there really isn’t a vaccine currently available. So, you’ll go to a doctor, be told you have Swine Flu, pay the doctor for the visit and then…..??
There is a common misconception about “taxes”. Once paid they are not YOURS anymore. “Your” taxes do not pay only for programs you support or benefit you financially or philisophically. There are millions of people who feel that as a nation we spend too much on defense as opposed to more social programs like public education. Just as there are millions who feel we do not spend ENOUGH on defense. The government is not stealing your money through taxes. It is paying for things you cannot afford to pay for yourself. So stop thinking that it is. The taxes YOU pay provide the umbrella you live under that allows you to live like you do. If taxes need to be raised to continue to provide that umbrella, then pay them. You feel that taxes take YOUR wealth and give it away to SOME of those around you. Yet you want the government (ALL the people) to GIVE you money through lower taxes. Where do you get off taking money from ME to maintain your extravagent lifestyle? The services the government provides to all of our society end up getting cut when you cry, bleeep and moan about your inability to invest more.
I, nor anyone else, has a problem with you saving 18% of your yearly income and investing it wisely. I have a problem with those that invest NOTHING of their own, gamble with the funds of others and if the gamble is successful, take a piece of the profits and act as though they are the cream of society. Or live off of the wealth generated by earlier generations of their family and act as though they are the cream of society. There is a difference between making a fortune through hard work and bribing the elected leaders of society into changing the structure of society (how taxes are calculated and collected, government oversight to ensure that the other 90% of society are not stepped on, etc) to ensure that they ARE treated as the cream of society. THOSE individuals are part of the infamous 10% that have gotten under the skin of the rest of society.Where does a Steven Forbes get the nerve to demand that taxes on his segment of the population get lowered to entice investment? Past giants of industry made hugh fortunes within a framework of what now are considered suffocating tax structures.
I am probably not as left as Mr. Rall but I too am let down by President Obabma’s administration to this point. Yes, it is very early in his term but the variance from what he campaigned on and what has been accomplished is growing more each day. I am not sure if the President does not want to push his campaign agenda or if he has left the day to day details to the psycho in the House (Chairman Pelosi). You would think with control of Congress and the White House that even a slightly liberal agenda would be possible. This latest fiasco with a healthcare initiative really broke my heart.
commented on Ted Rall
about 7 years ago
An idea that was floated when the idea of bailing out banks and other personal line credit holders was to distribute the bailout money directly to the consumer but NOT just distribute checks. Pick a date in time so that only OLD credit was included. Bring your credit card statement to your creditor (BOA, CHASE, etc) and apply there to get THAT specific debt paid off. Keep tabs on how much was distributed to each bank or credit agency. If the running total does not exceed what you had planed then start on homes about to be foreclosed. Getting money into the ECONOMY instead of HOPING it gets into the economy is the key to stablizing things. The banks still get their investments back and government agencies already in existence would manage the programs (no additional czars required). Our political leaders already assumed the risk by agreeing to fund a recovery, How the money was SPENT is why our economy is still shaky. The stock market is NOT a valid yardstick to measure the overall economy since a large portion of the population is not part of it. All political comments before and after the bailout began stress that keeping small business afloat helps more people.
Copyright © 2016. Universal Uclick, All rights reserved.