My pirate ship of Awesome is buoyant and resilient. Your fresh boat of fail meanwhile, is taking on water.
I don't hate the rich per se. Some have actually deveolped some useful products. Computers, pharmaceuticals etc. It is just useful to point out that as the percentage of the GDP devoted to finance has more than doubled in the last 30 years no real economic benefit has accrued and in fact most Americans for instance are no better off. Now that the rich have bought the politicians they have changed the rules so their out-sized earnings, and of those who serve them, have increased also beyond that of more productive folks in other industries. This leaves the overpaid folks in finance feeling like they are somehow contributing to society comensurate with their pay which is ridiculous. Also we should note that the large percentage of high SAT scorers who have devoted themselves to finance in the past twenty or so years have actually tanked the economy and had to be bailed out by we the tax payers or almost all of them would be unemployed.
The point is that it doesn't matter whether our current tax policies are good for our economy or not. Our elected officials support these policies, because they are bought off by corporate interest, the will of the voter has zero impact on most legislation, especially in regards to finance, policing the middle east, immigration, and protecting American jobs. If the American people can be conned into supporting the interest of Wall Street, great, three cheers for corporate owned media, but these policies are enacted whether the voter likes it or not.
a cautionary tale? Fired workers burn Indian executive to death http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110304/ap_on_re_as/as_india_executive_killed BHUBANESHWAR, India – Indian police detained two people after an angry mob of fired workers burned to death a senior executive of a steel factory, an official said Friday. After learning they were laid off, about a dozen workers attacked a vehicle carrying Radhey Shyam Roy as he was leaving the factory in eastern Orissa state on Thursday, dousing the Jeep with gasoline and setting it on fire, said police Superintendent Ajay Kumar Sarangi.
Not likely. American workers just: blame themselves because they weren't "market value"; lose their health insurance, if they had it or can't pay COBRA w.o a paycheck; get foreclosed on; get depressed and cranky ; their spouses leave them; they start drugging/drinking; they find Jesus and the wealthy pastor instructs them to vote for the GOP because of gays/abortion; and then they patiently wait because they will eventually either get trickled down upon ala libertarism or in a rush of abundance/grace they wiil become rich cause they pray a lot.
I'll go right ahead and say that I didn't watch your clip Sammy. I've always found Saturday Night Live pretty idiotic and, if it's any like any of your worthless posts, I'm not missing much. My response was an honest issue for responsible parents (and quite frankly, anyone who should ever have a kid) anywhere. Does it matter that you think it's dorky? No. I don't quite care whether a particular moronic little twerp, hiding behind the mask of online anonymity, thinks it's dorky. What I will do however, is point out once again that once your moronic arguments are torn to shreds, you've resorted the usual idiotic deflection/diversion tactics to change the subjects. Heck, you even posted a video. I was wondering when the idiotic picture/video was gonna show up. Can't have three Sammy Fisher posts without one of those. You outlasted your record this time, congrats. Now go back in your hole until we do this dance again. I look forward to embarrassing you once more. Their parents ALREADY paid their dues. And that's not even considering the good ole Tomb Raider tax. Actually moron, now I remember where I recall you from. We went over this several month ago. What you spew here is the same bullsh1t you spew months ago. Think your 6.2% (or 4.2%) SS covers YOUR social securities. Let's not kid yourselves that your 6.2% on the average household income of $50,000 (by my calculations, roughly $3,100 a year) pays all the bills? Hint, it does not. Ditto with health care. So the way I look at it, you could leave and come back with the same bullsh1t several month later and hope that I'm not here, so you could use the same bullsh1t. Or you could look like a moron. And yes, I'm calling you one now. I don't recall ever giving away what I do for a living, but it doesn't matter. My life is far more productive than most people out there. I don't hate the poor at all. I just can't help that the amount of social spending benefiting the poor increased multi-folds with the rich expecting to pay for them and a continued bail-out system in place for said folks (with which we don't even need congressional approval any more) over the past 30 years, yet it is the rich that has the "moral hazard," are angry, etc. I believe the term is called hypocrisy. But hey, that would be too fair now would it? As for why I don't hate the poor, they're just looking after their own SELF-INTEREST. Same as the rich. Can't blame that, can ya?
I regularly "spew" the same information as I deal in facts and available evidence rather than insults and anecdotes. Actually, I believe that the 12.4% of my salary that goes into SS (the "employer contribution" is still part of the total compensation of an employee) more than pays for my retirement. At 2%, contributing an average of $6,200 a year over 40 years, compound interest (compounded yearly) adds it up to $381,982. At the calculated SS monthly payment (based on 40 years of employment at an average salary of $50,000) of $2,099, that money would be depleted after 15 years and a couple of months. Given that people retire (these days) at 65, with an average life expectancy of 78.4 years in 2008, that means that on average, people do pay into SS what they get out, or just a touch more. One of us in this discussion is using numbers, facts, and available evidence. The other is calling names and looking like a...
Do you know how to have a civil conversation? Nobody called you any names, but you post in this thread with nothing but rude name calling. I have no idea what points you made because your tone was so unpleasant that it got in the way. Please learn to have civil discourse dealing with facts and evidence.
Facts? You mean like starting with "defense spending is the largest government outlay," which when proven false, moving onto something else? Facts seems rather a moving target for you. First of all, the "employer contribution" is exactly as it sounds, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION. If your employer could get away with not paying it, they wouldn't, so let's not get on the slippery slope in the first place. It was another one of those programs the government stated to benefit YOU, not the rich. Secondly, perhaps you've not been paying attention, $50,000 (and declining) is HOUSEHOLD INCOME. And according to the census bureau, the average HOUSEHOLD in America is 2.60. So even if I give you your "employer contribution," you're splitting it 2.60 ways. All of a sudden, the numbers don't look quite as well now do they? Chuckles, given your numbers and "facts," I think I just called a spade a spade. Might want to check the facts. I wasn't the first one to get all personal. Allow me to refer you to my first post in this thread. That'll be post #36. Feel free to find an insults laced post. Perhaps you feel it isn't proper for me the respond in kind. And for the sake of civility, perhaps you have a point. Nevertheless, it's pretty clear where it went downhill. And it wasn't me. Now if you are more willing to rein in a couple of dogs, then perhaps we can discuss more of those mannerisms on an equal footing.
You need to read what I wrote again, I said that defense is the largest outlay as far as items that come out of the income tax. SS and Medicare are funded by payroll taxes. Yes, it is the "employer contribution," but it is still a contribution to the SS fund that is part of my total compensation package. I used $50,000 all the way through because it was the number that you threw out there. I used that same number to calculate how much money would be deposited into the SS fund, how much it grows into at the 2% that the trust fund pays, and how much the fund pays out once you retire. I have shown my work and the numbers look exactly the same as they did when I ran them. Here, I will run another set for you... The median personal income for people over 18 was $25,149, for a contribution of $3118.48 per year. Using the same interest calculation, it comes out to $192,129.62 and the SS payout would be $924, so that person would be able to draw for even longer, about 17 years and four months after retirement. That is nearly five years longer than the average life expectancy, so on average, AGAIN, you pay more into SS than you get out. So, for those keeping track, my numbers are still valid while MFW continues to throw in unrelated nonsense to try and obfuscate the issue. I stand by my calculations. You are welcome to stand by your opinion, but it is very clear that your opinion is based on something other than facts and available evidence. I did check the facts. The facts are that you chose to call me names rather than address the substance of my argument. I didn't engage in any name calling whatsoever, so saying that you were responding "in kind" is disingenuous and dishonest. The only dogs that I feel the need to "rein in" are Bella and Dug, the two that live in my house. The other people in this forum speak for themselves and not for me, if you have issues with what they are saying, take it up directly with them. I don't care to discuss mannerisms, just facts. It doesn't appear that facts are your forte, based on what we have seen in this and other threads, but feel free to respond any time. Please, in the future, if you are going to use numbers, make sure they are relevant to the topic at hand. Your household size number didn't change the SS payout calculation at all and wouldn't as it is a completely unrelated number.
My friend, in your ultra-dorky, FOB'by "I NO WATCH YOUR TVS AM TOO BUSY WORKING AND MAKING THEM MONEYS!!!" tirades you do nothing but identify yourself as about the biggest toolbag in the universe. I suggest you investigate alcohol or recreational drugs to obtain a smattering of cool points before you depart this luscious orb.
Yes, I have worked with union workers. They worked hard. Please tell me what unions you worked in? I have been a member and worked with the Machinists Union in a factory during college and the Texas State Employees Union after college.
I know that Social Security is currently self-sustaining on the payroll tax and will be for awhile, but I believe Medicare is only mostly paid by the payroll tax with the remainder coming from general revenue. Now if there was really a trust fund, then Medicare would probably be completely paid from the payroll tax.
This has been true since Medicare Part D passed. BTW, there is a trust fund, it is called US Treasury notes, one of the safest investments in the entire world.
Wow. I suppose I should be eternally grateful that the ubermensch occasionally dole out some minuscule portion of their wealth to keep the ignorant proletariat satiated. Goodness.
Maybe I am more cynical than you, but I think the government has been spending the payroll tax all along. I know that the Social Security Administration does hold treasuries, but those will now have to be paid out of general revenue with interest. If it were a real trust fund, then the federal budget numbers would not include the surplus from the social security tax.
