General discussion

Bush now says would consider SS tax cap increase...

Discussion is locked

Follow
Reply to: Bush now says would consider SS tax cap increase...
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Bush now says would consider SS tax cap increase...
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
Well

He's going at it the wrong way, but maybe he'll come around to some sort of decent position.

Dan

- Collapse -
Well

Any major overhauls of the system wouldn't happen overnight...and would take time to take root since it would be based upon the aging of the current population. so this increase in tax is merely a shot in the arm to keep SS functioning well for a while until whatever the new system will be comes into fruition.

- Collapse -
HappyDaze here again FairShare going from $12,240 to $13,770

Looks like the Kompassionate Kapitalist Bu$h Retirement Plan is about the same as the one that the Kerry, Klinton, Kennedy, Konkel and Karl M. Krowd proposed. RAISE TAXES ON THE UNDESERVING RICH again.

All those hard working and productive but unworthy wealthy citizens making over $80K per year, er-r-r-r I mean $90K per year, will be paying their new ?FAIR SHARE? of $13,770. Let us hope the K2 Bu$h increase of $1530 to $13,770 is $ocial $ecurity OSADI FAIR enough for the ?from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs? K5 Krowd.

Daddy Bu$h said, ?Read my lips?NO NEW TAXES. Now Baby Bu$h, after chanting his ?no raising taxes? version of the family mantra, may soon be raising $ocial $ecurity?s max-taxable wage ceiling.

It?s D

- Collapse -
Cat, with all your

character substitutions and such, it's hard to tell if your statements are serious, sarcastic, or what.

FYI,

Dan

- Collapse -
Re: Cat, with all your?Dan McC? McCullough? or is it MkK ;-)

Ref: Cat, with all your character substitutions and such, it's hard to tell if your statements are serious, sarcastic, or what. FYI Dan

Dan?I?ve enjoyed your largely progressive-liberal Anti-This & Pro-that repartee here on SE, though most of what your ANTI to I?m PRO on and vice versa. I?m O.K. with that, after all this is America and we still have free speech??DON?T WE? I?m disappointed that my largely conservative-capitalist repartee delivers confusion to you as regards whether I?m serious, sarcastic, or what? Please pardon my French , but c'est la vie.

It?s not completely clear to me what you mean by all your character substitutions, but the short answer in response to serious, sarcastic, or what? is ALL OF THE ABOVE. I haven?t a clue as to exactly what and which specific items-subject matter contained this last post of mine, and in my other previous SE e-pontifications over time that you?ve commented upon, have worked to pull your chain.

You might be surprised to hear that we have common ground in some areas. Not many, but some.

Speakeasy is clearly a Hardspeaking, NEWBIE BEWARE ZONE and its group personality is a bit thin-skinned and a tad left of mine. I?ve found that the in crowd is given wide commentary latitude, whereas those deemed outsiders are called Trolls, Flamers and the like for the same level and kind of commentary. In the long view I take this as a positive for it makes the SE Forum a fun place to visit and in which to exercise key rattling skills.

Thanks for your courteous FYI. I hope over time the clarity of my SE posts improve so they will be found to be less confusing to and more decipherable by you. JP the Cat Cool

- Collapse -
Wow

I was speaking purely lexicographically and syntactically. I certainly was not speaking to the content or political genesis of your post, and absolutely without the intent to offend or confront.

I'm always pleased when I find common ground with other forum members, but, and forgive my lapse in memory, I can only recall a few post to appear with your ID. Have you posted in Speakeasy using a different ID?

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:WOW?

?Lexicographically and Syntactically vs. Content or Political Genesis? that do narrow the bandwidth for me. For the record: NO OFFENSE TAKEN.

We must take special care when we find ?common ground? for we may find we have jointly dug two 2 1/2 ft x 2 1/2 x 7 ft holes.

Question: Have you posted in Speakeasy using a different ID?

Answer: No and yes. As the CNET record shows, I?ve been a CNETizen since back in Oh-Two. Like you I ended up truncating my original full ?John Hancock? based USER NAME. Partly because of SE ?Incoming,? but I mostly ?blame? that initial truncation action on Cindi Haynes who DIVINED my commanding Tokamak-tic Electro-Magnetic personality?a Ya-Ya Sisterhood Divining thang, you see Wink The third, and apparently last, adaptation occurred days ago. The DEVIL?er-r-r-r I mean Lee Koo MADE ME DO IT.

< http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-7598-0.html?forumID=51&threadID=63493&messageID=752783 >

It was done to reflect my intra-planetary techno-geek status.

Sadly my new CNET e-tag, was judged to be ?ODD? by my favorite DNA Guru (initials ?DK?), for what reason I haven?t a clue. Maybe because Dr. Dave didn?t like the idea of me having ?e-SENIORITY? on him. Of course, it could be because 66.6% [Humm-m-m?666 Mark of the Beast???] of the letters in it are tools of Dr. Dave?s Ivory ?Texas? Tower micro-bio trade. But fear not, I?m keeping this new C-Tag it in spite of MOD DK launching an IED (Improvised E-UserName Disclosure) inquiry into CNET Gatekeeper Lee Koo.

I hope that answers your question, Dan. JP Cool

- Collapse -
anybody else wonder?

New name in the forum. One wonders, becaue you
"toe the party line", why you are allowed to post but those of us who oppose the "party line" are whisked out of existence.

- Collapse -
Catgic has been around ...

... he has posted with the same registration, but changed his ID -- something we won't be able to do for much longer. So if they haven't closed the option yet, you may want to reconsider using your real full name on a public forum. Wink

- Collapse -
Re: anybody else wonder?-Sage REAL ID Cyber Advise from Evie

Lee Koo will soon be getting word from the CNET Head Shed to freeze all Screen Names in place from here to e-Eternity.

< http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-7598-0.html?forumID=51&threadID=63493&messageID=752783 >

If Skip Noonan is your REAL ID, take Lady Evie?s sage cyber-advice and change your public Screen Name to a suitable, but more cryptic nom de plume. Lee Koo and his Cyber-Kompany are getting ready to pore CNET concrete over everyone?s Screen Names. Like the U.S. Government, CNET has decided it wants to OWN & CONTROL your SCREEN ?REAL? ID?you best do?er tr

- Collapse -
Let it be retroactive ...

... then we'll see if the baby boomers think it's the right thing to do. Why should the baby boomers have had that extra money to pad their private investment accounts all this time so that younger workers foot the bill?

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Your sarcasm doesn't become you, Evie.

Changing the rules in the middle of the game is always wrong, because it prevents making rational decisions. BTW, if this does happen, it'll raise an important philosophical issue -- will the maximum benefit also be raised? If not, this will be the beginning of "means testing," which for an INSURANCE program is completely appropriate.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
If SS is welfare for the elderly ...

... then let's call it what it is. I'm losing patience with baby boomers that voted in big government big spending politicians and see the only solution to the problems they created being taxing younger workers even more Sad

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Actually Dave ...

... there are no guarantees or qualms about changing the rules for SS. OK, so the new law will up the limit -- let's say to $100K. So that's an additional $1200/year paid by those making >90K now for the future. Sounds "painless" and those like you that see SS as an income redistribution system don't have much of a problem with that, especially those about-to-retire baby boomers that won't be effected for too many years. If the legislation also included a 12% tax (off the top) on the first $10K (or less if income was less than $100K) withdrawn from any 401K or IRA by a worker that made more than 90K for the past 10 years, see how quickly those same people would object. If you don't think this is right, I wonder why you think it is right to kick the burden of SS rock down the road and onto younger workers.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Nor does your hypocracy...

or possibly naivety since you appear to be claiming that you are unaware that "the rules" for Social Security have changed often.

One major rule change that was "overlooked" was that within 30 years of conception Social Security was to have been PRIVATIZED--at least that is how FDR himself felt and stated.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) SS Cap Increase??..Eliminate It Period.
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Eliminate benefit caps too?
- Collapse -
Yup

And introduce means testing for benefits.

Dan

- Collapse -
So you do think ...

... it should be welfare for seniors and an income redistribution scheme?

- Collapse -
No more so

than other govenment aide programs.

Dan

- Collapse -
Quite frankly, if you want a minimum income

guarentee, then let's just call it that and be done.

No caps, because it pays one set amount, pegged to the cost of living, to basically let people have minimum shelter and eat. The medical coverage would be outside that amount.

Then there is no caps on benefits or payments.

Call it subsistence living support and be done with it. Perhaps build huge dormotories for those without housing.

But accept it is just that, socialized subsistence level funding, don't mealy mouth it.

JMO

Roger

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Welcome to real world politics, Roger.
- Collapse -
No, it's not real world

because those urging this and that benefit won't stand up and say what it is.

And then argue about it's merits in those terms.

Hell, maybe we need a minimum subsistence support. But if we do, the healthy and abled bodied should have to pick up trash or something in return (please note, the healthy and able bodied part).

It's always portrayed in terms of helping the most unfortunate, the handicap, extreme elderly, the orphaned or abandoned child, the injured. Very little is mentioned about the rest.

Called it staight out government subsistence, and then fight for it.

JMO

Roger

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
You'll notice

that they never call it "The Huge Tax Break to the Super-Rich Because They Put Us in Office" Bill. That's the way politics 'works' -- for lack of a better word.

Dan

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) I'll grant that, proviso is that's a POV too.
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Everything's a POV, Roger.
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Agreed, as pointed out about the ACLU.
- Collapse -
Perhaps

but the difference is that what we were discussing were POVs based on politics. Many opinions expressed regarding the ACLU are based on ignorance of their goals and activities.

Dan

- Collapse -
Then the Dems should stop trying to ...

... fool people by claiming it is an insurance program!

- Collapse -
Bush is addressing the concerns of the Democrats

That the Democrats are not really concerned about the effect on deficit, it's more a concern about them losing TAX dollars that it could otherwise spend on building bigger government.

CNET Forums

Forum Info