Hillary Makes Another Proposal

[NaughtyGeek]

Why, oh why, did we kill off McCarthyism?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Rangoric
When they take money out of Social Security (or borrow or whatever), the least they could do is use it for this.

Roger, that

Originally posted by: CPA
great, now more of my money can go to other people's retirement.

You mean like my retirement is paying for the illegal Bush Occupation of Iraq?? Over $4 trillion has been *looted* out of gov't trust funds. C'mon CPA, tell us how you plan to pay that $4 trillion back without tax dollars???. More Tax Cuts??? I'm waiting . . . .

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Do you do anything but lie? Or you just don't know what your talking about? . . . The Bush plan includes the creation of two new accounts.... That does NOT sound like taking anyone's money.

You need a new taking point. The Bush plan phased out traditional IRAs - you therefore would not be able to reduce your taxable income by contributing to an IRA. Sounds like a tax increase to me - or more typical Republican double-speak. Any IRA savings that were rolled into an RSA before Jan. 1, 2004 would be taxed over four years.

By the way, how do you propose to pay the $4 trillion back to us Real Americans???

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: techs
Doesn't anyone remember this plan?
When Bush proposed it three years ago!

This barely resembles the Bush plan. Bush proposed giving people the option to put a small portion of their own money that goes into SS into private accounts where they choose what to invest but it is overseen by the government.

Hillary is proposing taking money from the rich/wealthy and distributing it to everybody.

What was that the Bushies used to say back when they had control of the WH, Senate, and House?

Oh yeah, "majority rules".

:laugh:

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Rangoric
When they take money out of Social Security (or borrow or whatever), the least they could do is use it for this.

Roger, that

Originally posted by: CPA
great, now more of my money can go to other people's retirement.

You mean like my retirement is paying for the illegal Bush Occupation of Iraq?? Over $4 trillion has been *looted* out of gov't trust funds. C'mon CPA, tell us how you plan to pay that $4 trillion back without tax dollars???. More Tax Cuts??? I'm waiting . . . .

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Do you do anything but lie? Or you just don't know what your talking about? . . . The Bush plan includes the creation of two new accounts.... That does NOT sound like taking anyone's money.

You need a new taking point. The Bush plan phased out traditional IRAs - you therefore would not be able to reduce your taxable income by contributing to an IRA. Sounds like a tax increase to me - or more typical Republican double-speak. Any IRA savings that were rolled into an RSA before Jan. 1, 2004 would be taxed over four years.

By the way, how do you propose to pay the $4 trillion back to us Real Americans???

I want my portion of that $4 trillion back. Good post.

 

[Sacrilege]

I think this is a bad idea as well.

I would rather have the government spend $20-25 billion annually on pointless wars.

 

[ProfJohn]

When is Hillary going to show us her plan to balance the budget?

This plan = $20 billion a year.
Her healthcare plan = $110 billion a year.
Baby plan = $20 billion a year.

That is $160 billion a year and we are not even to the general election yet.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
You need a new taking point. The Bush plan phased out traditional IRAs - you therefore would not be able to reduce your taxable income by contributing to an IRA. Sounds like a tax increase to me - or more typical Republican double-speak. Any IRA savings that were rolled into an RSA before Jan. 1, 2004 would be taxed over four years.

Since your to dense to understand the benefits let me spell them out for you.

First this program would encourage savings which benefits all Americans.

Second this program front loads taxes which increases Government revenues while giving Americans a break when they go to spend their savings in retirement. This benefit is double for the poor who do not benefit from current 401k as many upper income people would.

Third, people would be encouraged to roll their 401ks into the new program. This would give Americans an even better reason to save as they know ITS THEIRS and not the governments. They are saving for their future.

Since the taxes are front loaded Americans are given the benefit at the end. This cannot be underestimated as their savings will grow under this plan. This actually works very well in enforcing the idea of saving money. There is a real benefit to saving instead of getting socked by the government for doing it. Roth IRAs work this way and I don't see people crying about them

 

[spidey07]

Who wants to bet the stocks/funds offered by such a program would be directly tied to clintonco's holdings?

ps - if anybody listened to Mark Levin tonight, I was John from Louisville trying to understand if hillary is a communist or socialist. Seems the consensus is she's more marx than socialist.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
You need a new taking point. The Bush plan phased out traditional IRAs - you therefore would not be able to reduce your taxable income by contributing to an IRA. Sounds like a tax increase to me - or more typical Republican double-speak. Any IRA savings that were rolled into an RSA before Jan. 1, 2004 would be taxed over four years.

Since your to dense to understand the benefits let me spell them out for you.

First this program would encourage savings which benefits all Americans.

Second this program front loads taxes which increases Government revenues while giving Americans a break when they go to spend their savings in retirement. This benefit is double for the poor who do not benefit from current 401k as many upper income people would.

Third, people would be encouraged to roll their 401ks into the new program. This would give Americans an even better reason to save as they know ITS THEIRS and not the governments. They are saving for their future.

Since the taxes are front loaded Americans are given the benefit at the end. This cannot be underestimated as their savings will grow under this plan. This actually works very well in enforcing the idea of saving money. There is a real benefit to saving instead of getting socked by the government for doing it. Roth IRAs work this way and I don't see people crying about them

Thank you for your on-going obfuscation. You are encouraged to maintain the status quo of talking points from the corrupt Republican Party. Your insistence in defying the will of the American people will result in the same election results in 2008 that were seen in the 2006 mid-terms.

Thanks, again!

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Roth IRAs work this way and I don't see people crying about them

Because, if I'm not mistaken, I'm not paying for your Roth IRA. If people want money for when they retire, then they should save it, not me. If they can't afford to put money aside, maybe they should cut off the cable or carpool to work. The last freaking thing I want to do is start paying more "Social Security" seeing as I'll never see that money again as it is. There are quite a few socialist nations out there for those of you desiring that particular utopia.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Roth IRAs work this way and I don't see people crying about them

Because, if I'm not mistaken, I'm not paying for your Roth IRA. If people want money for when they retire, then they should save it, not me. If they can't afford to put money aside, maybe they should cut off the cable or carpool to work. The last freaking thing I want to do is start paying more "Social Security" seeing as I'll never see that money again as it is. There are quite a few socialist nations out there for those of you desiring that particular utopia.

Nice post. You get it.

Not to mention a Roth gives you the freedom (umm, founding principals of our country?) to choose what you want and control your own destiny.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Roth IRAs work this way and I don't see people crying about them

Because, if I'm not mistaken, I'm not paying for your Roth IRA. If people want money for when they retire, then they should save it, not me. If they can't afford to put money aside, maybe they should cut off the cable or carpool to work. The last freaking thing I want to do is start paying more "Social Security" seeing as I'll never see that money again as it is. There are quite a few socialist nations out there for those of you desiring that particular utopia.

Nice post. You get it.

Not to mention a Roth gives you the freedom (umm, founding principals of our country?) to choose what you want and control your own destiny.

No he doesn't "get it", and neither do you. The point of these programs isn't to help out people who have plenty of money...they don't need government help. But propaganda aside, not everyone can save for retirement...and with social security going down the tubes, we're either going to do something or have a lot of homeless old people. If you were a Wal-Mart greeter, spidey, you might have a point...but you're not, you make what is probably a very decent living doing some sort of telcom network engineering (or something close). You CAN afford retirement, but should the system really be designed around your personal needs?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, nobody likes paying taxes, but I don't see that stopping people from trying to get rich. Let's face it, there are still a TON of incentives to being wealthy, and the higher taxes you pay don't seem to be crippling the upper class too much. In a perfect world, we'd all pay the same thing...but it's not a perfect world, and there are certain things a decent society needs to have in order to function. It might not be "fair" to have wealthier people pay more for those things, especially when they tend to use them less...but I look at it this way, this country did a lot to help get wealthier people where they are, asking them to give something back doesn't seem too unreasonable to me.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Like Pabster, I prefer politicians who are brain dead and never have any ideas.

I think the problem with Bush has not been a lack of ideas. 😉

 

[palehorse]

I believe that one of Hillary's goals is to eliminate the middle-class altogether.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
It might not be "fair" to have wealthier people pay more for those things, especially when they tend to use them less...but I look at it this way, this country did a lot to help get wealthier people where they are, asking them to give something back doesn't seem too unreasonable to me.

And that's our fundamental disagreement and why the liberal class warfare approach is appealing to many. I on the other hand side on the "give me liberty" side and have the constitution in my work office and home office.

You side with a socialist/communist side. "but they have too much money! We must take!" And I fundamentally disagree with that, based on the constitution and what we (the USA) stand for.

This country did NOT do a lot to help them succeed. They did it themselves DESPITE the barriers continually being put into place.

Self reliance for the win.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Rainsford
It might not be "fair" to have wealthier people pay more for those things, especially when they tend to use them less...but I look at it this way, this country did a lot to help get wealthier people where they are, asking them to give something back doesn't seem too unreasonable to me.

And that's our fundamental disagreement and why the liberal class warfare approach is appealing to many. I on the other hand side on the "give me liberty" side and have the constitution in my work office and home office.

You side with a socialist/communist side. "but they have too much money! We must take!" And I fundamentally disagree with that, based on the constitution and what we (the USA) stand for.

This country did NOT do a lot to help them succeed. They did it themselves DESPITE the barriers continually being put into place.

Self reliance for the win.

It has nothing to do with "having too much money". If people want to get rich, more power to them, and the government certainly isn't standing in their way to any significant extent. Like I said before, the tax breaks may be great, but I don't see rich people donating it all to charity so they can live the good life working at Wal-Mart. Your argument is silly unless you're willing to make the claim that ANY tax is a crippling tax that makes it bad to be rich. Government has certain functions to perform, SOMEONE has to pay for it, and call me crazy, but I think lawyers and doctors are in a better position to do so than Wal-Mart greeters.

And do you honestly believe that living in this country has nothing to do with success? I know it's pretty ego boosting to think so, but face it, there is a reason our country does so well compared to a lot of other countries with less government.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I believe that one of Hillary's goals is to eliminate the middle-class altogether.

The middle class doesn't have estates worth $7 million. I don't know how conservatives have been so successful perpetuating the myth that the middle class is the same as the upper class, but that's clearly not the case.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: spidey07
...
Self reliance for the win.

I also think it's worth pointing out that I have no problem with self-reliance, I think it should be encouraged...and our system provides plenty of rewards for taking your life in your own hands. But that doesn't work for everyone, what's the harm in helping out those who have trouble helping themselves?

But I'm curious, just how many "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" conservatives actually, you know, pulled themselves up by their bootstraps?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Rainsford
It might not be "fair" to have wealthier people pay more for those things, especially when they tend to use them less...but I look at it this way, this country did a lot to help get wealthier people where they are, asking them to give something back doesn't seem too unreasonable to me.

And that's our fundamental disagreement and why the liberal class warfare approach is appealing to many. I on the other hand side on the "give me liberty" side and have the constitution in my work office and home office.

You side with a socialist/communist side. "but they have too much money! We must take!" And I fundamentally disagree with that, based on the constitution and what we (the USA) stand for.

This country did NOT do a lot to help them succeed. They did it themselves DESPITE the barriers continually being put into place.

Self reliance for the win.

And at the risk of making too many posts in a row, you need to invest in a dictionary. It's "communism" when the job market is totally flat, where there is no advantage to being a doctor vs being a waiter. Do we really seem in danger of that?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
And at the risk of making too many posts in a row, you need to invest in a dictionary. It's "communism" when the job market is totally flat, where there is no advantage to being a doctor vs being a waiter. Do we really seem in danger of that?

All indicators and movement say yes, IMHO.

Following the Marx Doctrine is where we are at with Hillary (enable the poor decision makers, punish the good - take what from one's ability and give based on need.) I don't want that from our elected officials, especially at the federal level. It doesn't happen overnight of course, it's a slow creep. We need to stop that creep.

This isn't about McCarthyism as we should have learned from that witch hunt. Just calling somebody a communist doesn't hold like McCarthy's witch hunt. There is too much history and information instantly available for that to happen. But following an official's/candidate stance and ideas can yield insight.

It's about the continuous "we need to redistribute wealth" that is leading down that path.

I've always respected you and will continue to do so, but we just fundamentally disagree. That's fine. I respectfully agree to disagree.

-edit-
I see Hillary's idea as nothing more than rob from the rich to give to the poor. This is called enabling behavior. All psychologists can agree that this behavior is bad.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Who wants to bet the stocks/funds offered by such a program would be directly tied to clintonco's holdings?

ps - if anybody listened to Mark Levin tonight, I was John from Louisville trying to understand if hillary is a communist or socialist. Seems the consensus is she's more marx than socialist.

Get off the phone you big dope!!! 🙂

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Roth IRAs work this way and I don't see people crying about them

Because, if I'm not mistaken, I'm not paying for your Roth IRA. If people want money for when they retire, then they should save it, not me. If they can't afford to put money aside, maybe they should cut off the cable or carpool to work. The last freaking thing I want to do is start paying more "Social Security" seeing as I'll never see that money again as it is. There are quite a few socialist nations out there for those of you desiring that particular utopia.

Nice post. You get it.

Not to mention a Roth gives you the freedom (umm, founding principals of our country?) to choose what you want and control your own destiny.

No he doesn't "get it", and neither do you. The point of these programs isn't to help out people who have plenty of money...they don't need government help. But propaganda aside, not everyone can save for retirement...and with social security going down the tubes, we're either going to do something or have a lot of homeless old people. If you were a Wal-Mart greeter, spidey, you might have a point...but you're not, you make what is probably a very decent living doing some sort of telcom network engineering (or something close). You CAN afford retirement, but should the system really be designed around your personal needs?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, nobody likes paying taxes, but I don't see that stopping people from trying to get rich. Let's face it, there are still a TON of incentives to being wealthy, and the higher taxes you pay don't seem to be crippling the upper class too much. In a perfect world, we'd all pay the same thing...but it's not a perfect world, and there are certain things a decent society needs to have in order to function. It might not be "fair" to have wealthier people pay more for those things, especially when they tend to use them less...but I look at it this way, this country did a lot to help get wealthier people where they are, asking them to give something back doesn't seem too unreasonable to me.

I don't think you "get it" either. As much as Billary or any other socialist candidate may try to trumpet the noble "Robin Hood" story, the fact of the matter is that they aren't going to take from the rich to pay for this(and they really shouldn't.) They'll take from the middle class just like they always do thus further elevating the rich(by the way, most politicians fall under the rich category) and eroding the middle class until we all fall into the poor category and we all need the government/rich to take care of us.

Me, I'll stick to the I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn philosophy.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
And at the risk of making too many posts in a row, you need to invest in a dictionary. It's "communism" when the job market is totally flat, where there is no advantage to being a doctor vs being a waiter. Do we really seem in danger of that?

Yes, we do. Doctor pay under a UHC system is much lower than it is in a free market. The incentive for people to go in to the field is taken away, resulting in lower quality people, and less of them. And Hillary doesn't talk about that...

She's a Socialist, but there's a very fine line to walk. If she keeps stepping, she'll be a full blown Communist.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: spidey07
ps - if anybody listened to Mark Levin tonight, I was John from Louisville trying to understand if hillary is a communist or socialist. Seems the consensus is she's more marx than socialist.

Her college thesis papers seem to suggest that as well.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: techs
Doesn't anyone remember this plan?
When Bush proposed it three years ago!

This barely resembles the Bush plan. Bush proposed giving people the option to put a small portion of their own money that goes into SS into private accounts where they choose what to invest but it is overseen by the government.

Hillary is proposing taking money from the rich/wealthy and distributing it to everybody.

What was that the Bushies used to say back when they had control of the WH, Senate, and House?

Oh yeah, "majority rules".

:laugh:

British tried that too. Give it a shot.