www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall President Bush

Also from CJ:
This point also needs to be corrected. There is a cap on the taxable income. I think it is currently set at at $87,900, and automatically adjusted for inflation each year. Because of the cap, the maximum Social Security payroll tax is about $11k per year. People with incomes above that level pay less that 12.4%. For example, last year Bush woudl have paid something like ~ 0.13%.

Clinton�s only valid claim to having balanced the budget is by going along with the Republican Congress in the 1990s to balance it. If he had gotten through socialized health care the deficit would have quadrupled. The balanced budget and welfare (the two successes he claims) were primarily Republican ideas. It is pretty weird to hear the same Democrats who agreed with Clinton that there was a funding shortfall crisis now claim that there is no crisis.

Senator Reid and others are on record as stating that ANY change to social security is unacceptable. President Bush put many proposals on the table for discussion, including several made by Democrats. If the only plan supported by Congress is the Galveston type plan will you, djs, go against your party and support it?

How will this help the beneficiaries in the present and near-term face the "crisis"? As you stated, this is this issue is entirely separate from the privatization issue.

My long term solution to the funding crisis is to prohibit abortion. Through their inflexible support for abortion the Democrats have cooperated with the extermination of over 40 million humans in the United States. This translates to 40 million less people paying taxes. If each of them earned a salary of $25,000 there would be an extra $125 billion each year in social security funds. Over 40 years this is $5 trillion. Since Democrats don�t care about human life maybe we can appeal to their new claim of being fiscally responsible and use it to ban abortion.

Another possible solution is to triple the amount of legal immigration. Even though most immigrants start with lower salaries they will have a better life here in America and help provide security for the elderly. Plus, they are willing to work in jobs that most Americans are not willing to work in.

When social security started there were about 30 workers paying in for each person receiving benefits. Today that ratio is 3 workers paying in for each person receiving benefits. More workers = more $.

The problem with removing the cap for those earning over $87,900 is that our regular tax system is progressive. Those earning over this amount are in the 35% tax bracket. If you combine federal and social security taxes their effective tax rate would be over 50%. That is unjust.

I don't know who did or did not endore "crisis" rhetoric about shortfall. In any case, a deficit horizon of some thirty years vesus 50 years carries a different degree of urgency.

If this were the "only plan", I would work to see it filibustered to death; it could leave folks like Rose in the lurch.

And the present and near-term beneficiaries?
As long as we think only about the long term all sorts of "fixes" will work.

So what? The ratio of farm to non-farm workers has dropped even more substantially. That's the beautiful thing about increased productivity.

Where do you get this? This marginal tax rate (no one pays income taxes at that rate, unless thier income infinite, and their accountant is an imbecile) applies to those making over $326,500 for singles or married couples filing jointly. So your sense of "what is just" - whatever informs it - would not be violated if we raised the cap to, say $325 k. That'll do it, and I bet Reid might just along.

Ach! And here I was mistaking you for a serious person.

Clinton didn�t believe this in 1998. For him it was a looming major crisis. Glad to know that you reject his rhetoric.

So you again disagree with the plan you said that Clinton was talking about? The same one that Democrats cheered in 1998? Did you write to your congressmen in 1998 to complain about Clinton and this Democratic plan?

This plan wouldn�t leave Rose in the lurch. The retired people of Galveston now receive benefits that are 64% higher than if they stayed in social security. That�s an extra $500 each month for a worker who retired with a salary of $17,000 after 20 years of service.

I�m sure that Senator Reid would go along with any plan to raise taxes. He doesn�t care about the people who have to pay them.

OK, let�s put aside the example of someone who makes over $319,000. I used that example since you wrongly calculated President Bush�s social security tax at ~0.13 when it is really 2.6%. Instead let�s use a married couple who makes a combined income of $150,000. Assuming that they don�t have a lot of deductions they pay $37,000 in federal income taxes + $18,600 in social security taxes. That�s almost 38% of their income. That is way too much for a supposedly free country.

Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of federal income taxes are paid by the very highest income earners. The top 1% of income earners pays about 32% of all income taxes. The top 5% pays 51.4%. The top 10% of high-income earners pay 63.5%. The top 20% of income earners pays 78% of all federal income taxes. The bottom 80% of income earners pay just 22% of the federal income tax burden. Adding an additional burden to those who already pay most of the taxes is unjust.

You were right the first time. I am a very serious person. I am serious. You support murder with your vote. How can you call yourself Catholic knowing that you vote sentences 4,000 babies to death each day? I joined a lawsuit to keep my union dues from supporting pro-abortion candidates. Why don�t you put abortion above everything else like the Holy Father teaches?

This "crisis" issue is semantical. For the record, however, Clinton did not use the word crisis in reference to social security in his 1998 SoU address. Global warming, yes. Social Security, no. Your statement:
is incompatible with transcripts of the speech.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/sotu/transcripts/clinton/index2.html

FYI Rose is not now nor has she ever been on the Galveston plan, AFAIK. I think that it therefore would pay her nothing. This is the problem with your lack of attention to the short-term shortfall and transition costs in you "fix". And please read more diligently. I oppose such a plan as the "only plan" because it does not address the short-term problem and the transition costs.

:rolleyes:

What is not "too much", IYO, and what informs this limit. I think we elect a government that, working for us, incurs expenses that we are obligated to pay. If they are doing the job badly we can get rid of them, or, of course, opt out of the system entirely. following Guadior's advice. Thanks for noting my misplaced decimal point on Bush's but he reported an income of over $800k last year.
Tell me what informs your this sense of injustice.

My vote clearly sentenced no one to anything. And your vote, apparently, spared no one from anything. If you cannot grasp that reality then you are not a serious person.

Nicholas Kristof, a liberal writing in today�s New York Times quotes President Clinton:

Rhetoric, yes. But he said it.

There is not a single Republican or Democrat who has suggested that current social security plan be scrapped. President Bush quite clearly stated that those currently 55 and older would see no change. He left the door open for younger Americans because he knows that there is not enough money coming in to pay for social security for those under 55.

Too much is anything over 20%.

Do you think that 38% is reasonable? Are you a socialist? �From each according to his ability to each according his need.� You could move to Europe. Some countries tax their people at effective rates well above 50%.

You are correct on the 2003 figure of $800,000 for Bush. He and Laura paid $228,000 in taxes (28%)

John Kerry filed singly and paid 23% on $500k. His wife�s income tax situation is very fuzzy. She is worth about $2.5 billion but only claimed an income of $5 million in 2003. That�s only a return of 0.5% on her wealth. The Kerry�s never released her full tax returns but between the two their effective rate was estimated by the Washington Post as about 12%.

"I give to the Levites all the tithes in Israel as their inheritance in return for the work they do while serving at the Tent of Meeting" (Numbers 18:21). 10% is the Biblical rate for income tax. This 10% was used to pay their equivalent of the health inspectors, the police, the justice department, and the education department. The tribes of Israel paid 10% income tax to the Levites for providing these services. The Levites in turn gave 10% of this amount to the priests.

In Deuteronomy 14 the people put aside another 10% tithe for their annual trip to Jerusalem and 3% for our equivalent of social security for �the alien, the orphan and the widow who are in your town.�

If I work all the overtime available to me I am pushed into another income tax bracket. If I do not work overtime my income tax rate is 13%. If I work overtime my tax rate jumps to 16%. Why should I be penalized for working harder then someone else? That is unjust.

Income taxes should be according to the Bible. 10% to the government. 10% to the church. 3% to help the poor. Forcing people to pay more is unjust.

Your vote sentenced no additional children to death in the short term because your candidate lost.

My vote has already saved innocent lives because Kerry promised to rescind a policy prohibiting taxpayer dollars to fund abortions internationally.

With President Bush we have a chance to replace pro-abortion Supreme Court justices with pro-life Supreme Court justices. The Democrats you voted for vowed to prevent pro-lifers on the bench anywhere. Your vote did sentence more innocents to death.

Dear CJ,

I recall, someone in my family that had acquired a phenominal amount of wealth and who never paid taxes because of loop holes. He stated that when Rockefeller ran for office, he 'decided' to pay $80,000 in income tax for political reasons. Before that he paid nothing.

See, the difference between the rich and us, is that they can afford the accountants that can find the loop holes.

Now I recall that Jackie Kennedy formed a charitable foundation. That foundation was so her grandchildren wouldn't lose their inheritance.

Now I don't know how it works, (I'm not a millionaire), but it seems that the foundation that Theresa Kerry runs, is exactly that. A way to preserve her childrens, or grandchildrens inheritance.

What she paid, is no doubt a minimal amount of what her worth is...that is why I laugh when I hear that the rich are those making over $200,000.

Now remember, Theresa Kerry isn't the only billionaire this country has. I can't help but wonder how much the Hollywood big wigs make, as well as the millions of others that have similar wealth.

I live in the Westchester/Connecticut area, and the five to twenty million dollar homes are endless. Our nation has been known to have the most unfair tax system in the world. It's time we did something about it.

Zenovia

CJ,

Do we agree that the CONCORD COALITION/AARP SOCIAL SECURITY FORUM is not the State of the Union address, and that your prior claim was false? Can you agree that the outlook as projected by the SS board and the CBO has substantially improved? Can you explain what significance if any there is to Clinton's rhetoric? Can we agree that there is no significance to his remarks both in the SotU speech and here that surpluses should go exclusively to shore up the SS trust fund, given that there are no surpluses now.

What is the plan to finance this promise? With less money coming in, how will this promise be kept?

On taxes, you seem to favor an Old Testament arrangement, even though Christ spoke differently about it. I told you before what I think is reasonable. Paying our bills, and not palming them off on the next generation. What is the justice of that behavior?

Don't be silly. You have no business suggesting what country any other American should live in.

Finally a retraction of one of your false statements.

So it's now 3999/day? Really, can you document that? There has been some discussion that the rates, which were domcumented to have fallen during the Clinton years, increased under Bush. So if you have actual data it would be interesting to see.

Oops, now a retraction of the retraction.

Maybe CJ, you'll get the point if it comes fromthe WSJ.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB110740206738644678,00.html?mod=todays_free_feature

President Clinton may not have used the term �crisis� regarding social security in his state of the union addresses but he used it elsewhere numerous times. You win disagreement on the quote from the sotu but you loose in trying to make it look like there is no crisis.

The outlook projected by the SS board and the CBO has improved but it has not improved substantially. It also does not take into account the prediction that the longevity of Americans is expected to increase (on average) another 5 years in the next 30 years. That alone will further raise the cost of social security. You may be happy to do nothing and let the problem for the next generation. Unlike President Clinton, President Bush actually wants to fix the problem.

You are correct that Clinton�s words were simply rhetorical. He acknowledged the crisis but really too no action to solve it. If he had actually succeeded with his original economic plans there would not have been a surplus in the late 1990s. It, and billions more, would have been spent on socialized health care. Luckily the people rejected his socialism and the Republicans controlled spending and created a surplus. I only wish they had the discipline now to get rid of all the pork.


You tell me. Why should I keep getting my taxes raised? How is that just? If the Democrats, who controlled Congress from the start of social security until 10 years ago had actually invested the money instead of spending it on pork projects there would be no crisis. We can�t do anything about that now. We can only cut spending and grow the economy. Social security was created as a safety net. It was never meant to be a retirement plan. The Democrats sold it as a retirement plan because they wanted power over the voters.

Christ teaches us to help those in need. Nowhere does he teach that our giving must be through a socialized governmental system. Nowhere does he teach that we should support governments taxing us without limit. Nowhere does he undo the Old Testament laws and replace them with a different percentage. Your presentation of Christ as a socialist is wrong.

We have entered into obligations to the poor and the elderly. We should keep them and pay for them by cutting other spending. We should not keep them by raising taxes every few years.

If our society keeps murdering the next generations through abortion the original 30-1 ratio between those paying into social security and those receiving it will keep getting worse. Now it is 3-1. In 20 years it will be 2-1. If nothing is changed the ratio will pass 1-1. SS taxes will then have to be gradually raised from 12.4% to about 20% by the year 2045 to pay for the shortfall. Why does this not concern you? Why do you have no problem confiscating money?

The first amendment gives me every right to suggest to you what country you should live in. If we can get you socialists to move to Europe where you can be happy we can lower taxes. Lowered taxes always increases tax revenues. People who are not penalized for hard work work harder and create more wealth.

The 4,000 per day figure is the daily average of 40+ million murdered since 1973.

Glen Harold Stassen�s research was faulty and has been debunked. The following are the first two stories that showed up in Google:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat886.html
http://www.lifenews.com/nat886b.html

Ah... This is about winning and losing? :rolleyes:

I don't care about the rhetorical hype, about whether one calls this a problem, a grave and gathering threat, an imminent threat, a clear and present danger, or a crisis. I would just like to have a discussion in which I didn't feel, because of statements of ostenible fact that actually are just pulled out of thin air. that I have to fact check everything that you write.

Exhaustion of trust fund shifting from 2032 to 2052 - that I call significant.

Why the fixation with Clinton? Anyway, his approach was to use 100% of surpluses - which did exist, independent of whether he deserved credit for them - to bulk up the trust fund. Others wanted tax cuts, etc. That was a sufficient plan until, after he was out of office, the surpluses evaporated. Senior administration officials, the WSJ, and pretty much everybody who can actually see what Bush is proposing realizes that Bush's plan will NOT solve the mid century-problem that you have described. It will make it worse.

To pay the bills. Whom do you think should pay them?

You don't get it. They spent "the money" mainly paying present benefits. If you say they should have increased the collection of revenues by rasing the payroll tax and been a little more aggressive in investing it. I agree. Unfortunately we cannot go back in time to fix the problem. We have to deal with present reality.

I am hearing the theme from the twilight zone.

If that is what we can agree to do, fine. But even if we can't we should pay our bills.

Since present SS board estimates that by doing nothing we could pay out benefits after 2042 at ~3/4 of the schedule, then, even if we do nothing ISTM we would only move 16.5% not 20%. Taking the more recent CBO projections we could do nothing until 2052 then raise then overall payroll tax to 15.5%. Of course if we do something now, the increase can be alleviated. How do you arrive at your numbers?

The right yes, but you still have no business execising that right. You have the right to make and sell pornogrpahy, but no business exercising that either. Your suggestion of things getting better if you could get the people who disagree with you to go away is fascinating. And you have every right to say it, although there is Lincoln's advice on the wisdom of remaining silent.

Really? I thought that even the trivial Laffer curve shows a revenue maximum at a finite tax rate. Wow, that would be great, we could keep lowering the rates to zero and still keep increasing the revenues. And yes, the first amendment gives you the right to say such things as this, too.

These statistics, and there limitations, have been discussed previously here. Your statement suggested better knowledge; that would have been interested to learn about. Since much of the statistical information required to reach a conclusion was unavailabe, Stassen's work only precisely reflects the sampled areas where the numbers were available. What about your specific claim about decreased abortion numbers. I think it is safe to say that Stassen's work, which you say has been "debunked" is far more thorough, complete, and rigorous than yours. So I guess that we have debunked your claim also.

Ah... This is about winning and losing? :rolleyes:

I don't care about the rhetorical hype, about whethre one calls this a problem, a grave and gathering threat, an imminent threat, a clear and present danger, or a crisis. I would just like to have a discussion in which I didn't feel, because of statements of ostenible fact that actually are just pulled out of thin air.

Exhaustion of trust fund shifting from 2032 to 2052 - that I call significant.

Why the fixation with Clinton? Anyway, his approach was to use 100% of surpluses - which did exist, indpendent of whether he deserved credit for them - to bulk up the trust fund. Others wanted tax cuts, etc. That was a sufficient plan until, after he was out of office, the surpluses evaporated. Senior administration officials, the WSJ, and pretty much everybody who can actually see what Bush is proposing realizes that Bush's plan will NOT solve the mid century-problem that you have described. It will make it worse.

To pay the bills. Whom do you think should pay them?

You don't get it. They spent "the money" mainly paying present benefits. If you say they should have increased the collection of revenues by rasing the payroll tax and been a little more aggressive in investing it. I agree. Unfortunately we cannot go back in time to fix that problem. We have to deal with present reality.

I am hearing the theme from the twilight zone.

If that is what we can agree to do, fine. But even if we can't we should pay our bills.

Since present SS board estimates that by doing nothing we could pay out benefits after 2042 at ~3/4 of the schedule, then, even if we do nothing ISTM we would only move 16.4% not 20%. Taking the more recent CBO projections we could do nothing until 2052 then raise then overall payroll tax to 15.5%. Of course if we do something now, the increase can be alleviated. How do you arrive at your numbers?

The right yes, but you still have no business execising that right. You have the right to make and sell pornogrpahy, but no business exercising that either. Your suggestion of things getting better if you could get the people who disagree with you to go away is fascinating. And you have every right to say it, although there is Lincoln's advice on the wisdom of remaining silent.

Really? I thought that even the trivial Laffer curve shows a maximum at a finite tax rate. Wow that would be great, we could keep lowering the rates to zero and still keep increasing the revenues. And yes, the first amendment gives you the right to say such things as this, too.

These statistics, and there limitations, have been discussed previously here. Your statement suggested better knowledge, that would have been interested to learn about. Since much of the statistical information required to reach a conclusion was unavailabe, Stassen's work only precisely reflects the sampled areas where the numbers were available. What about your specific claim about decreased abortion numbers. I think it is safe to say that Stassen's work, which you say has been "debunked" is far more thorough, complete, and rigorous than yours. So I guess that we have debunked your claim also.

Ah... This is about winning and losing?

I don't care about the rhetorical hype, about whethre one calls this a problem, a grave and gathering threat, an imminent threat, a clear and present danger, or a crisis. I would just like to have a discussion in which I didn't feel, because of statements of ostenible fact that actually are just pulled out of thin air.

Exhaustion of trust fund shifting from 2032 to 2052 - that I call significant.

Why the fixation with Clinton? Anyway, his approach was to use 100% of surpluses - which did exist, indpendent of whether he deserved credit for them - to bulk up the trust fund. Others wanted tax cuts, etc. That was a sufficient plan until, after he was out of office, the surpluses evaporated. Senior administration officials, the WSJ, and pretty much everybody who can actually see what Bush is proposing realizes that Bush's plan will NOT solve the mid century-problem that you have described. It will make it worse.

To pay the bills. Whom do you think should pay them?

You don't get it. They spent "the money" mainly paying present benefits. If you say they should have increased the collection of revenues by rasing the payroll tax and been a little more aggressive in investing it. I agree. Unfortunately we cannot go back in time to fix that problem. We have to deal with present reality.

I am hearing the theme from the twilight zone.

If that is what we can agree to do, fine. But even if we can't we should pay our bills.

Since present SS board estimates that by doing nothing we could pay out benefits after 2042 at ~3/4 of the schedule, then, even if we do nothing ISTM we would only move 16.4% not 20%. Taking the more recent CBO projections we could do nothing until 2052 then raise then overall payroll tax to 15.5%. Of course if we do something now, the increase can be alleviated. How do you arrive at your numbers?

The right yes, but you still have no business execising that right. You have the right to make and sell pornogrpahy, but no business exercising that either. Your suggestion of things getting better if you could get the people who disagree with you to go away is fascinating. And you have every right to say it, although there is Lincoln's advice on the wisdom of remaining silent.

Really? I thought that even the trivial Laffer curve shows a maximum at a finite tax rate. Wow that would be great, we could keep lowering the rates to zero and still keep increasing the revenues. And yes, the first amendment gives you the right to say such things as this, too.

These statistics, and there limitations, have been discussed previously here. Your statement suggested better knowledge, that would have been interested to learn about. Since much of the statistical information required to reach a conclusion was unavailabe, Stassen's work only precisely reflects the sampled areas where the numbers were available. What about your specific claim about decreased abortion numbers. I think it is safe to say that Stassen's work, which you say has been "debunked" is far more thorough, complete, and rigorous than yours. So I guess that we have debunked your claim also.

Ah... This is about winning and losing? :rolleyes:

I don't care about the rhetorical hype, about whethre one calls this a problem, a grave and gathering threat, an imminent threat, a clear and present danger, or a crisis. I would just like to have a discussion in which I didn't feel, because of statements of ostenible fact that actually are just pulled out of thin air.

Exhaustion of trust fund shifting from 2032 to 2052 - that I call significant.

Why the fixation with Clinton? Anyway, his approach was to use 100% of surpluses - which did exist, indpendent of whether he deserved credit for them - to bulk up the trust fund. Others wanted tax cuts, etc. That was a sufficient plan until, after he was out of office, the surpluses evaporated. Senior administration officials, the WSJ, and pretty much everybody who can actually see what Bush is proposing realizes that Bush's plan will NOT solve the mid century-problem that you have described. It will make it worse.

To pay the bills. Whom do you think should pay them?

You don't get it. They spent "the money" mainly paying present benefits. If you say they should have increased the collection of revenues by rasing the payroll tax and been a little more aggressive in investing it. I agree. Unfortunately we cannot go back in time to fix that problem. We have to deal with present reality.

I am hearing the theme from the twilight zone.

If that is what we can agree to do, fine. But even if we can't we should pay our bills.

Since present SS board estimates that by doing nothing we could pay out benefits after 2042 at ~3/4 of the schedule, then, even if we do nothing ISTM we would only move 16.4% not 20%. Taking the more recent CBO projections we could do nothing until 2052 then raise then overall payroll tax to 15.5%. Of course if we do something now, the increase can be alleviated. How do you arrive at your numbers?

The right yes, but you still have no business execising that right. You have the right to make and sell pornogrpahy, but no business exercising that either. Your suggestion of things getting better if you could get the people who disagree with you to go away is fascinating. And you have every right to say it, although there is Lincoln's advice on the wisdom of remaining silent.

Really? I thought that even the trivial Laffer curve shows a maximum at a finite tax rate. Wow that would be great, we could keep lowering the rates to zero and still keep increasing the revenues. And yes, the first amendment gives you the right to say such things as this, too.

These statistics, and there limitations, have been discussed previously here. Your statement suggested better knowledge, that would have been interested to learn about. Since much of the statistical information required to reach a conclusion was unavailabe, Stassen's work only precisely reflects the sampled areas where the numbers were available. What about your specific claim about decreased abortion numbers. I think it is safe to say that Stassen's work, which you say has been "debunked" is far more thorough, complete, and rigorous than yours. So I guess that we have debunked your claim also.

"Starting with Social Security. Paul Krugman and an earnest army of economists, statisticians, actuaries and others have shown and will continue to show in painstaking detail that Bush's plans for "saving" Social Security will actually destroy it.

But the key thing to remember is that despite what he says, destroying it is exactly what Bush is about. The Rove/Norquist fanatics that write Bush's speeches see Social Security as the final lynchpin in the New Deal's social justice legacy.

And that's what they want obliterated. Along with your right to a comfortable retirement, free from the need to work their fundamentalist check-out counters or to sleep in their Social Darwinist cardboard boxes."

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2005/1060