Comments on: ThinkFast: March 29, 2007

By: Raymond Funamoto

Raymond Funamoto — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:05:56 +0000

OF COURSE the IN-Justice dept. and the white house worked together to mislead and OUTRIGHT LIFE TO CONGRESS—THAT IS A TYPICAL Karl FAT-F*CK Rove SCHEME, and Rove IS THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING THE WHOLE CONSPIRACY. By the bye, I forgot to mention that NEVER HAVE I SEEN SUCH DISGUSTING and REPULSIVE CONTORTIONS OF JIGGLING BLUBBER-FAT and VILE CATERWAULING ULULATIONS by Rove at the Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner—-I AM SURE MANY OF THE AUDIENCE TOSSED THEIR COOKIES WHEN Miss Piggy Rove WENT INTO HER MINCING DANCE BLEARGGGGGGGG!!!!!! Only Rush Limburger’s “Whirling Dervish” SPASMS of ST. VITUS’ DANCE ON HIS WEBCAM BROADCAST COME EVEN CLOSE TO Rove’s DUSGRACEFUL DISPLAY OF HIS BLOATED CARCASE!!!!!

Violence EXPLODES in Iraq as white house downplays the situation by saying “things are not that bad…they are PEACHY….if ya don’t mind the PITS!!!!!”

Shiites KILLING Sunnis KILLING Shiites KILLING Sunnis KILLING Shiites KILLING Sunnis KILLING Shiites….HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM How can this VICIOUS CYCLE be stopped…..I KNOW, HOW ABOUT INTRODUCING SOME NEW VARIABLES….CHIMPya W. Bush, Karl FAT-F*CK Rove, Torticola DICKLess B(ugger) FRANKENCheney, Bujshland Uber Allies, Ahmadinejad, Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Iranian FANATIC Ayatollahs/Mullahs…..KILL ALL THESE SCUM WHILE YA Shiites and Sunnis ARE AT IT!!!!! YEAH!!!!! HAH!

Income Inequality—A TYPICAL Rovian STRATEGY OF DIVIDE AND CONQUER—–THE RICK GET RICHER, THE POOR GET POORER, AND THE MIDDLE CLASS REMAIN WHERE THEY ARE, MIRED IN THEIR SQUALOR!!!!
TIME TO BREAK FREE OF THIS UNNATURAL SITUATION AND START MAKING CLASSES MORE EVEN AND PUNISHING THOSE LIKE Rove and Monkey Boy CHIMPya WHO SEEK TO EXPLOIT IT FOR THEIR GAIN!!!!!

“Immigration Reform”? NO WAY JOSE! FAT-F*CK Rove WILL BE TOO BUSY DODGING SUBPOENAS AND TESTIFYING TO HELP CHIMPya FORMULATE, LET ALONE ACCOMPLISH ANY POLICY VICTORY—-Bushland Uber Allies IS DOOMED TO SINK INTO ITS WELL-DESERVED OBLIVION!!!!!

Less Than A Year At Home—TIME TO IMPLEMENT THE “SEVEN DAYS IN MAY” PROTOCOL, TAKE AWAY CHIMPya and Bushland Uber Allies POWER, FROG-MARCH THEM ALL TO GITMO AND HAVE THEM STAND TRIAL FOR HIGH CRIMES AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE MILITARY!!!!! MILITARY TRIBUNALS, OF COURSE!!!!! HAH!

WHAT IS IT WITH THESE REDNECK Okies? Coburn and THAT DISGUSTING PIECE OF HYENA-SHIT and SEWER-RAT Inhofe ARE PARTIAL TO COCKFIGHTING, ESPECIALLY THE TYPE THEY PULL THEIR FLYZIPPERS DOWN TO DO!!!!! YEEEEHHHHHAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!

They can improve the cure of wounded soldiers by FIRING INCOMPETENT MORONS AND BOOBS LIKE CURRENT ACTING HEAD FISH-MOUTH Pollock and her predecessor(should be PRE-DECEASED-OR) Kiley, TWO MONUMENTALF*CK-UPS!!!!!

Giuliani and Thompson COULD BE PRESIDENT IF HELL FREEZES OVER, WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY reougnant-repub rightwingnut crank fudge-pachyderms ARE DENYING GLOBAL WARMING, IN THE HOPES THAT CRAZY CLIMATE CHANGE MAKES HADES COOL AND ICY!!!!!

By: John M, USAF, RET

John M, USAF, RET — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:35:51 +0000

#9
“This is a good thing when we can get more American households over the $100k mark.”

Numnuts, do you have any concept of percentage? 10% is 10%!. Ok, using your logic that means that there are more “low income” workers than before also. (just in case 6th grade math escapes you: 90% of 100 is 90….90% of 1000 is 900!)

Rest of TPers, sorry didn’t mean to feed the troll.

By: dlet

dlet — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:11:08 +0000

#94
Dale
I would agree to the no cap on both sides in principle. But not knowing what that would do I would say maybe someone would have to do an analysis on that. To me it sounds better than what it is right now. More even. I don’t mind wealthy people investing their money to make more but when there is a distinct advantage just because they make more money it doesn’t sit well with me.

By: Not Canadian

Not Canadian — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:46:32 +0000

Remember the monolith in “2001: A Space Odyssey”?

Bizarre Hexagon Spotted on Saturn

To bad we’re too engrossed in our trivial, day-to-day greed to be bothered by such incredible wonders.

By: Barfly

Barfly — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:05:20 +0000

If the answer is yes, then Iâ€™d agree that there shouldnâ€™t be a cap. If the answer is no, then Iâ€™d have to *agree* with the cap.

Ding! Ding! Winner!

He can draw out according to how much he put in, of course. But if the guy is a walking heart-attack waiting to happen (did you see any pictures of the Exxon-Mobil guy?), and he drops over, his funds are treated no differently than anyone else’s; survivors can collect the same as everone else, according to the formula, no more, no less. But earnings (sports figures, media figures, tv & movie stars), all would have to pay the same as the rest of us. How much did Oprah make last year? David Geffen? Barb Striesand? Sean Hannity? They are all getting a huge break, and that’s why you don’t hear calls for lifting the cap: it profits the wealthy quite well as it is. So don’t try making the case that just because the rich pay so much, they don’t get astronomically more in return. It’s fantasy.

By: Dale

Dale — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:58:56 +0000

#93, yeah, that’s pretty much what I was alluding to in #92 (which probably wasn’t posted yet when you posted).

I could agree to no income cap on deductions if there was no income cap on withdrawals (which I don’t think is the case).

By: dlet

dlet — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:53:41 +0000

So if you want to pull a higher percentage from the wealthy, isnâ€™t that just another example of a different tax rate?
Comment by Dale

Why not just tax all their income like people below $95,000? Then when they retire they can pull a higher amount out with relation to what they put in. Then they can enjoy the lifestyle they are used to.

But for some reason our government hos decided that the wealthy should get to enjoy a higher percentage of their paycheck than the less advantaged.

By: Dale

Dale — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:50:48 +0000

Barfly, so how is the amt you *receive* from SSI determined? Is it not a percentage of what you put in? Let’s say you get 10%/yr of what you put in.

If there was no cap, and the Exxon-Mobil CEO put in (approx) 28m from his 400m retirement, should he then get 2.8m/yr *out* of social security? If the answer is yes, then I’d agree that there shouldn’t be a cap. If the answer is no, then I’d have to *agree* with the cap.

In other words, if there’s a cap on what you *take out*, then there should be a cap on what you *put in*.

(Again, this is all assuming he lives a relatively long time, etc)

By: theswan

theswan — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:50:31 +0000

Being a hot button issue “immigration reform” will be the great “distraction” that the republicans will throw up in the face of all their other woes.
George’s alka selsa, pill.

By: Barfly

Barfly — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:46:20 +0000

million dorrars â€”

Make that “dollars”

By: Barfly

Barfly — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:43:24 +0000

IOW, heâ€™ll only get out the same as someone making the limit of $95k. So if thatâ€™s the case (and this is an assumption on my part), then why *should* he pay into SS on any income over $200k?

Comment by Dale â€” March 29, 2007 @ 1:15 pm

The point is he’s not pulling the same proportional weight as those who must contribute (by statute) on every dollar earned. He’s getting an undeserved break. You can’t make the case that the wealthy are pulling the wagon – they aren’t. It’s about everyone paying the same, as we are all supposedly equal. By shafting the system, the rich not only show their disdain, as Leona Helmsly did:”Only the little people pay taxes,” for the American concept of shared sacrifice for the common good, but they have little vested interest in seeing that the money is invested wisely. The last CEO of Exxon-Mobile walked away with a retirement package worth $400,000 million dorrars — yet he only contributed to the limit of the SSI cap, just like someone working two jobs to better themselves.

He should pay in on all his income, because that’s the American way. Or at least it used to be when they instituted the program. Let him fully contribute, and if he dies, his legal heirs can collect on his benefits in the same manner as the rest of us; his kids can draw payments until adulthood, and the rest goes into the fund. His legal spouse can collect throughout her life as well, and at her death, the remainder goes back into the fund.

Just like the rest of us.

By: Dale

Dale — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:41:46 +0000

#86, it’s my understanding that the percentage of your pay (up to the $95k cap) is the same regardless of your income (somewhere around 6.7%???) So if you want to pull a higher percentage from the wealthy, isn’t that just another example of a different tax rate?

#85 and #86; I understand that you won’t *necessarily* pull out what you put in, or you could pull out more. I’m talking in the abstract… let’s say that you put in 6.7% (or so) from your income, the SSA determines, from the amt you’ve paid in how much you should receive per month… correct? So if the cap would be extended to, say, 200k… then the person who’s paying in would get more out; correct?

Oh, and Mark, I haven’t gotten my info from any “republican misinformation campaign”… I’m just trying to find out… leave politics out of this. (pretend I’m a new Democrat :-)

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:32:53 +0000

Dale, your comments on social security #85 are so far off base that it is no wonder at least 30% of the population is woefully unknowledagble on the subject of the Social Security Insurance Program. No Body gets out exactly what they pay in. Most get more some get less, it all depends on the length of your life time etc. For instance a friend of mine died 14 years ago leaving behind a wife and two children. He personally got nothing out of the system. He was 37 at the time so he was no where nnear retirement. However his children drew surviivors benfits (literally these benfits kept the family from selling their house and falling into poverty). Anyhow the kids draw until they are 21, so they should draw through college but the total draw has been about 26,000 or so. Which was far more than my frined had paid into the system at that point in his life. So there is a possibilty that you get out what uyou pay in, but the probablility is very low. Of course your thoughts on this show just how well the republican mi-information campaign to sell social security as a retirement program worked. There are a lot out there with similar misinformd views.

By: dlet

dlet — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:31:59 +0000

So if a person, say, makes $200k, pays on $95k, heâ€™s only getting out what he paid in, correct? IOW, heâ€™ll only get out the same as someone making the limit of $95k. So if thatâ€™s the case (and this is an assumption on my part), then why *should* he pay into SS on any income over $200k?
Comment by Dale

THat’s not the point. You are talking about what someone could receive when the retire in the future. On the weekly paycheck the percentage that is taken out for SS is higher for lower income employees than higher income employees. That leaves the wealthy with a greater p[ercentage of their paycheck to invest(get richer), spend on commodities, burn, whatever. That is the point.

By: Dale

Dale — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:15:15 +0000

Baloney. When you factor in Social security payroll taxes, the middle class pay more. The wealthyâ€™s contribution to SSI is capped at about $95,000 â€” after that, they donâ€™t pay a dime on additional income. Their total taxes arenâ€™t higher, as a proportion of their income.

This is something I’ve never understood (and no, I’m not just trying to pick any nits). It was my understanding that SSI was meant to be a sort-of retirement acct; that you’d take out what you put in (and yes, let’s not get into any arguments about SSI running out of money).

So if a person, say, makes $200k, pays on $95k, he’s only getting out what he paid in, correct? IOW, he’ll only get out the same as someone making the limit of $95k. So if that’s the case (and this is an assumption on my part), then why *should* he pay into SS on any income over $200k?

By: Barfly

Barfly — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:30:35 +0000

I fail to understand how tax revenue actually helps the wealthy more then it hurts them since the top 10% of earners pay over 80% of all taxes already.

Baloney. When you factor in Social security payroll taxes, the middle class pay more. The wealthy’s contribution to SSI is capped at about $95,000 — after that, they don’t pay a dime on additional income. Their total taxes aren’t higher, as a proportion of their income.

And you’re very short-sighted if you can’t see how taxes supports all the parts of government that the rich use to enhance and protect their wealth. Prosecutors, to keep their investments safe; troops, to make sure another national entity cannot steal their wealth; public health agencies, so that they rich can leave their enclaves and hobnob with common folks with little worry of contracting a disease from eating in restaraunts, riding in elevators, or visiting a store. The list is quite long.

By: Barfly

Barfly — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:29:41 +0000

As far a Coburn goes, I believe Oklahoma is one of only two states which currently allow cockfighting, and I believe until recently, dogfighting as well. He’s just sticking up for his constituents interests.

By: dlet

dlet — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:28:57 +0000

According to the report, the Bush administration has argued that
its tax policies, despite cuts that benefited those at the top more
than others, had not added to the widening gap but â€œmade the tax code
more progressive, not less.â€

They either have no shame in lying or they…..well they just have no shame.

By: Barfly

Barfly — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:24:22 +0000

#68, data from the US Census Bureau says that the poverty rate has *leveled out* from 2004 to 2005â€¦ so how will you *soon not be able to tell the difference*.

Can ANYBODY show some facts to back up their statements that poverty is getting worse?

Comment by Dale â€” March 29, 2007 @ 12:02 pm

Well, there is this:

New York- The income gap between rich and poor in the
United States has increased significantly, The New York Times online
edition reported Thursday.
According to the report, new analyses of 2005 tax data shows that
the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income
as the bottom 150 million Americans.

Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the
average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap
from 1980.

The report cites Internal Revenue Service data analyzed by
economist Professor Emmanuel Saez of the University of California,
Berkeley, and Professor Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of
Economics.

If the economy is growing but only a few are enjoying the
benefits, it goes to our sense of fairness,” the report quoted
Professor Saez as saying. “It can have important political
consequences,” the professor said.

While total reported income in the US increased almost 9 per cent
in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available,
average incomes for those in the bottom 90 per cent dipped slightly
compared with the year before, dropping 172 dollars, or 0.6 per cent.

According to the report, the gains went largely to the top 1 per
cent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than 1.1 million
dollars each, an increase of more than 139,000 dollars, or about 14
per cent.

The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than 100,000
dollars, also reached a level of income share not seen since 1928,
according to the report.

Last year, according to data from other sources, incomes for
average Americans increased for the first time in several years, the
report said.

But because those at the top relied heavily on the stock
market and business profits for their income, both of which were
strong last year, it was likely that the disparities in 2005 were the
same or larger now, The New York Times quoted Professor Saez as
saying.

Saez noted that the analysis was based on preliminary data and
that the highest-income Americans were more likely than others to
file their returns late, so his data might understate the growth in
inequality.

According to the report, the Bush administration has argued that
its tax policies, despite cuts that benefited those at the top more
than others, had not added to the widening gap but “made the tax code
more progressive, not less.”

By: mmark

mmark — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:23:46 +0000

#72 I agree whole heartedly that more people are suffering under tyhe current economy than at any time since the early 1980’s. Only this time the gap between those who are caught with the short end of the stick and those who are holding the pot of gold is so much greater.

One thing not mentioned in these discussions on the economy and the gap is health coverage. I am so very fortunate to have decent health care coverage. This year my medical bills have been over $20,000 and without health insurance I would be screwed. And in my case I am 100% healthy. (I had to undergo a battery of procedures and tests becuase of an isuue that cropped up, the tests were all negative) Add on to my bills our normal stuff and them my kids have been sick this winter for the fiirst time in years along with my wife and suddenly I am looking at 25 – 30 k in medical costs. and the first quarter is nto over yet! I can easily see how one catestrophic medical occurannce could drive a family into poverty.