|
|
Clinton says this as if.... it's a good thing???? Via Instapundit...... Daily Times - Site Edition Friday, October 30, 2009 Al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan: Hillary Clinton LAHORE: The leadership of Al Qaeda is in Pakistan, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday. ?I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn?t get them if they really wanted to,? she added. ?Maybe that?s the case; maybe they?re not gettable. I don?t know... As far as we know, they are in Pakistan,? Clinton told senior Pakistani newspaper editors in Lahore, AFP reported. ?The percentage of taxes on GDP (in Pakistan) is among the lowest in the world... We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn?t move, and that?s not what we see in Pakistan,? she said. ?You do have 180 million people. Your population is projected to be about 300 million. And I don?t know what you?re going to do with that kind of challenge, unless you start planning right now,? she said. ?If we are going to have a mature partnership where we work together? then ?there are issues that not just the United States but others have with your government and with your military security establishment?. Separately, Clinton also met army chief General Ashfaq Kayani and exchanged views on a host of security-related issues. link
|
Posts:
3,166
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(613 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 6:17 PM
|
Very way double. We agree it is irresponsible to do nothing. I still consider calling doom and failure... excessively emotional, when worst case projections still show 74% payouts for at least the next 75 years.
--
Edited by JaredP at 11/14/2009 3:30 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
3,137
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(612 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 2:23 PM
|
> To which I responded something along the lines of,
> I'm not responsible for common stupidity. It is NOT
> doomed if unchanged. It is LIKELY (but far from
> certain) going to have to reduce payments in two
> decades (worst case) or three decades (intermediate
> case) or never (things get better) if nothing
> changes. Btw the worst case scenario is only a cut of
> 26% and social security will survive just fine. Worst
> case.
It is a failed plan if payments are reduced and the Trust fund is bust (no safety net). It is inevitable,whether or not you see it. If you're fine with that, good for you. It will be irresponsible to ignore the issue, which is what I have said from the get go.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,166
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(611 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 12:10 PM
|
To which I responded something along the lines of, I'm not responsible for common stupidity. It is NOT doomed if unchanged. It is LIKELY (but far from certain) going to have to reduce payments in two decades (worst case) or three decades (intermediate case) or never (things get better) if nothing changes. Btw the worst case scenario is only a cut of 26% and social security will survive just fine. Worst case.
--
Edited by JaredP at 11/14/2009 9:59 AM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
3,137
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(610 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 10:46 AM
|
> > Do you read? I have said repeatedly (in this
> thread) that it needs to be fixed, and their will be
> serious consequences if it's not. You said that was
> hysteria.
>
> My objection was to your word choice (doom!) and
> supposed consequences.
My first post said it's going broke. You replied:
"Oh?
www.ssa.gov
They showed a profit last year, and the year before
that, and the trust fund is bigger than ever. No
hysterics please."
I then replied that it was common knowledge that ss wil be doomed if not modified. That's true. The gov't acknowledges it. BO acknowledges the program must be addressed. It is apparently acceptable to you that benefits will be cut by 25% or more, and that the SS Trust will be exhausted. Those things spell program failure if changes are not implemented. It is not unreasonable to expect a benefit from a program to which a worker has contributed for their entire working career, even though it is not guaranteed.
--
Edited by doubletake at 11/14/2009 7:46 AM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
3,166
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(609 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 1:31 AM
|
> Do you read? I have said repeatedly (in this thread) that it needs to be fixed, and their will be serious consequences if it's not. You said that was hysteria.
My objection was to your word choice (doom!) and supposed consequences.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,137
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(608 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 1:22 AM
|
> Let's try this Double:
>
> SSA is an imperfect system.
agree
>
> Millions of lives depend on that system.
agree
>
> I am recommending we fix it.
I understand that.
>
> You are recommending we destroy it.
Do you read? I have said repeatedly (in this thread) that it needs to be fixed, and their will be serious consequences if it's not. You said that was hysteria.
>
> Agree or disagree?
|
|
|
Posts:
9,549
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(607 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 1:21 AM
|
> > 
> >
> > Don't look now, Frank, but I think we agree
> again.
> >
> > Remove the cap, and don't pay out to the rich
> that
> > don't need it.
> >
> > Problem solved. What shall we tackle next,
> Frank?
> > 
>
> I'd say global warming but it looks like mother
> nature is taking care of that for us. God damn its
> cold out tonight.
Ok, Middle East Peace it is.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,166
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(606 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 1:16 AM
|
Let's try this Double:
SSA is an imperfect system.
Millions of lives depend on that system.
I am recommending we fix it.
You are recommending we destroy it.
Agree or disagree?
|
|
|
Posts:
3,137
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(605 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 1:04 AM
|
> Doubletake,
>
> Here's the issue restated for you:
> You said ending the cap will make things worse for
> social security.
Sorry, Jared, but no, I did not. Read.
> I say that is illogical, unsubstantiated crap, and
> gave a simple illustration on how the cap is making
> things worse.
what things specifically?
>
> > Don't confuse the plans original intent with what
> it has become.
>
> Don't confuse what it has become with your fantasies.
>
It isn't my fantasy that Americans have become dependent on social security payments. Go ask a bunch of seniors if they would voluntarily give it up.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,166
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(604 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 12:45 AM
|
Doubletake,
Here's the issue restated for you:
You said ending the cap will make things worse for social security.
I say that is illogical, unsubstantiated crap, and gave a simple illustration on how the cap is making things worse.
> Don't confuse the plans original intent with what it has become.
Don't confuse what it has become with your fantasies.
--
Edited by JaredP at 11/13/2009 9:47 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
4,476
Registered:
7/15/07
|
|
(603 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 12:35 AM
|
> > By paying your 6.5%, you are saving.
> Saving money you can't get to unless your broke?
> That's motivating.
>
Having a fat pension beats living off SSI every day of the week. No matter what you put in place, there will always be those that do as little as possible to get by. And those would be the ones that end up living entirely off SSI and any charity that takes pity on them. But like all insurance, the idea is not to need it. Its there in case.
> >
> > The problem is that its government mandated.
> Its not
> > a choice. Which is why in my perfect world it'd
> be
> > optional. If you opted in, you are making a
> choice
> > to save should you ever need the help. If you
> opt
> > out and end up old and broke, sorry about your
> luck.
>
> If it's optional, that's not as bad, but still think
> it would encourage those that "saved" to blow
> anything else they could set aside. It wouldn't be
> smart to blow your other savings, but you'll never
> get an argument from me that most people are smart
> enough to see the big picture.
I guess from a "you can't take it with you" kinda way it'd be smart to blow everything.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,137
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(602 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 12:33 AM
|
> > Define the "issue" clearly, and I'll answer.
>
> If you'd rather spend the time more productively, I
> could use help teaching my cat to bark. I think I
> heard a 'b" the other day.
>
>
>
> Sorry, cheap shot.
>
> --
> Edited by LastStand4Ever at 11/13/2009 9:25 PM PST
Ha!
|
|
|
Posts:
3,137
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(601 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 12:31 AM
|
> > > > > For your 6.5%, you are
> guaranteed
> > benefits
> > > if
> > > > you
> > > > > need them later. Basically, it'd
> be
> > > insurance
> > > > > against not planning for your
> > retirement.
> > > >
> > > > That would be rewarding bad behavior,
> and
> > > > discouraging responsiblity, no?
> > >
> > > No. It'd be insurance. You don't drive
> through
> > a
> > > forest because you have car insurance and
> if you
> > hit
> > > a tree you're covered.
> >
> > If you get a check for not saving, but don't if
> you
> > do, what does that drive?
>
> By paying your 6.5%, you are saving.
Saving money you can't get to unless your broke? That's motivating.
>
> The problem is that its government mandated. Its not
> a choice. Which is why in my perfect world it'd be
> optional. If you opted in, you are making a choice
> to save should you ever need the help. If you opt
> out and end up old and broke, sorry about your luck.
If it's optional, that's not as bad, but still think it would encourage those that "saved" to blow anything else they could set aside. It wouldn't be smart to blow your other savings, but you'll never get an argument from me that most people are smart enough to see the big picture.
>
>
> Sounds cold, I know but decisions should have
> consequences. And they should be decisions not
> government mandate.
I agree with that.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,476
Registered:
7/15/07
|
|
(600 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 12:25 AM
|
> Define the "issue" clearly, and I'll answer.
If you'd rather spend the time more productively, I could use help teaching my cat to bark. I think I heard a 'b" the other day.
Sorry, cheap shot.
--
Edited by LastStand4Ever at 11/13/2009 9:25 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
3,137
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(599 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 12:25 AM
|
> Doubletake, reality check:
>
> Social Security is NOT a retirement fund. It was
> built to take care of those UNABLE to care for
> themselves. As in UNABLE to save for themselves.
>
> --
> Edited by JaredP at 11/13/2009 9:17 PM PST
Don't confuse the plans original intent with what it has become.
|
|
|
|
|
