|
|
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
|
|
(583 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:44 PM
|
|
Let's face it, that 6.5% is a whole lot more important to the poor man than the rich man. That's even before we start counting in all the improved opportunities and products money affords. Realistically, it doesn't make sense to bleed stones.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,476
Registered:
7/15/07
|
|
(582 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:42 PM
|
> Frankly though you guys are off your rockers. Crying
> about the wealthiest giving a tiny fraction of their
> income to keep the nation's most at risk alive and
> well.
Are you speaking of the thread in general or the SSI discussion specifically?
|
|
|
Posts:
3,166
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(581 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:41 PM
|
|
Frank, why do you keep saying SSI instead of SSA?
|
|
|
Posts:
4,476
Registered:
7/15/07
|
|
(580 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:41 PM
|
> Not sure I follow. What do you mean by an equal part
> of their pay? I would guess you mean everyone would
> pay the same percentage of their income(?). When you
> say you don't think benefits should be proportional
> (to contribution), what should it be based on?
>
At risk of sounding like a commie, need.
I think everyone should be taxed the same rate. If the poorest pays 6.5%, the richest should pay 6.5%.
For your 6.5%, you are guaranteed benefits if you need them later. Basically, it'd be insurance against not planning for your retirement.
> >
> > But then, I'd let people opt out and if they did
> opt
> > out and ended up old a broke, they get to live
> off
> > government cheese.
>
> Allowing opting out would be a disaster. We've
> created a monster- too many people would not act
> responsibly.
That's the problem. Things like SSI encourage irresponsibility. Within our ability,we've removed consequence.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,166
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(579 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:38 PM
|
Apparently what was missing from that sentence was your comprehension.
Adjust payouts to remain constant.
Adjust paying in downwards.
What happens?
|
|
|
Posts:
3,137
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(578 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:33 PM
|
> You guys are wrong about the cap.
>
> The amount paid is adjusted for inflation.
And?
Meanwhile
> the amount of the nation's wealth under the cap keeps
> shrinking. Which means the income keeps shrinking
> proportionally.
ok....what's missing from that sentence?
>
> Even if we gave the rich welfare, hah, it would still
> help the system to end the cap.
SS is not welfare- it's an entitlement based on contribution. Ending the cap helps how, and for how long?
>
> Frankly though you guys are off your rockers. Crying
> about the wealthiest giving a tiny fraction of their
> income to keep the nation's most at risk alive and
> well.
Call me crazy because I don't expect the gov't to act as our nanny. They can't keep it up at this rate forever- then what have we got?
|
|
|
Posts:
3,137
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(577 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:24 PM
|
> > > > rainy, what you pay in, is how your
> pay out
> > is
> > > > calculated. Raising the cap, means the
> well
> > of
> > > will
> > > > receive higher benefits when they
> retire,
> > if
> > > the
> > > > gov't is being fair.
> > >
> > > Which will lead to the same problem, too
> much
> > going
> > > out, not enough coming in. While I think
> the
> > cap
> > > should be removed, the cap isn't the
> problem,
> > the
> > > business model is.
> >
> > I agree with both statements. Although I would
> not
> > support raising the cap, unless benefits were
> > proportional.
>
> The model is wrong and the biggest problem is the
> proportionate benefits. I've said all along I have
> no problem with a safety net and whether it was
> intended that way or not, that's what I believe SSI
> should be. And I think everyone's contribution
> should be an equal part of their pay for a spot in
> that net should they ever need it.
Not sure I follow. What do you mean by an equal part of their pay? I would guess you mean everyone would pay the same percentage of their income(?). When you say you don't think benefits should be proportional (to contribution), what should it be based on?
>
> But then, I'd let people opt out and if they did opt
> out and ended up old a broke, they get to live off
> government cheese.
Allowing opting out would be a disaster. We've created a monster- too many people would not act responsibly.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,166
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(576 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:21 PM
|
You guys are wrong about the cap.
The amount paid is adjusted for inflation. Meanwhile the amount of the nation's wealth under the cap keeps shrinking. Which means the income keeps shrinking proportionally.
Even if we gave the rich welfare, hah, it would still help the system to end the cap.
Frankly though you guys are off your rockers. Crying about the wealthiest giving a tiny fraction of their income to keep the nation's most at risk alive and well.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,476
Registered:
7/15/07
|
|
(575 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:10 PM
|
> > > rainy, what you pay in, is how your pay out
> is
> > > calculated. Raising the cap, means the well
> of
> > will
> > > receive higher benefits when they retire,
> if
> > the
> > > gov't is being fair.
> >
> > Which will lead to the same problem, too much
> going
> > out, not enough coming in. While I think the
> cap
> > should be removed, the cap isn't the problem,
> the
> > business model is.
>
> I agree with both statements. Although I would not
> support raising the cap, unless benefits were
> proportional.
The model is wrong and the biggest problem is the proportionate benefits. I've said all along I have no problem with a safety net and whether it was intended that way or not, that's what I believe SSI should be. And I think everyone's contribution should be an equal part of their pay for a spot in that net should they ever need it.
But then, I'd let people opt out and if they did opt out and ended up old a broke, they get to live off government cheese.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,137
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(574 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:07 PM
|
> > rainy, what you pay in, is how your pay out is
> > calculated. Raising the cap, means the well of
> will
> > receive higher benefits when they retire, if
> the
> > gov't is being fair.
>
> Which will lead to the same problem, too much going
> out, not enough coming in. While I think the cap
> should be removed, the cap isn't the problem, the
> business model is.
I agree with both statements. Although I would not support raising the cap, unless benefits were proportional.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,137
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(573 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:03 PM
|
> So, insisting on factual discussion is refusing to
> deal with reality?
>
> Always a pleasure speaking with you.
The fact that you are not recognizing is that the plan is not healthy. You think that's not a big deal- it's a very big deal.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,476
Registered:
7/15/07
|
|
(572 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:03 PM
|
> rainy, what you pay in, is how your pay out is
> calculated. Raising the cap, means the well of will
> receive higher benefits when they retire, if the
> gov't is being fair.
Which will lead to the same problem, too much going out, not enough coming in. While I think the cap should be removed, the cap isn't the problem, the business model is.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,137
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(571 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:01 PM
|
> > > If taxes aren't increased or spending isn't
> > decreased, the program will be broke. At least
> until
> > the boomers die.
> >
> > If by "broke" you mean continuing to pay out at
> a
> > slightly lower rate, sure. Unless we stop the
> slide
> > into third world economic conditions.
> >
> > What's your point anyways? You're arguing with
> me
> > that there are problems, when I'm the guy
> saying
> > there are problems and here's a pack of
> solutions.
>
> Jared,
>
> All they have to do is remove the salary tax cap.
> Republicans always fight that change. They'd rather
> argue that because the program has funding problems,
> it should be scrapped. The rest of the country
> says...horseshit.
rainy, what you pay in, is how your pay out is calculated. Raising the cap, means the well of will receive higher benefits when they retire, if the gov't is being fair.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,476
Registered:
7/15/07
|
|
(570 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 10:58 PM
|
> Jared,
>
> All they have to do is remove the salary tax cap.
> Republicans always fight that change. They'd rather
> argue that because the program has funding problems,
> it should be scrapped. The rest of the country
> says...horseshit.
I'm asking sincerely, because I don't know the answer, how many democrats have come out openly in favor of completely lifting the cap?
|
|
|
Posts:
35,117
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(569 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 10:22 PM
|
> > If taxes aren't increased or spending isn't
> decreased, the program will be broke. At least until
> the boomers die.
>
> If by "broke" you mean continuing to pay out at a
> slightly lower rate, sure. Unless we stop the slide
> into third world economic conditions.
>
> What's your point anyways? You're arguing with me
> that there are problems, when I'm the guy saying
> there are problems and here's a pack of solutions.
Jared,
All they have to do is remove the salary tax cap. Republicans always fight that change. They'd rather argue that because the program has funding problems, it should be scrapped. The rest of the country says...horseshit.
|
|
|
|
|
