Class warfare salvo?

[Okla-homey]

Currently, Social Security payroll taxes are withheld at 6.2 for everyone who earns up to $102K

Thus, currently no one who earns over $102K has SS payroll taxes withheld for the amount earned over $102K.

BHO wants to build in a do-nut hole to have the taxes start again at $250K.

BHO says that will help keep SS solvent. whatever. My question to BHO is, why not the folks between $102K and $250K? Aren't there more of them than the >$250K crowd? Or are you afraid of alienating the largest group of your high-earning liberal pals?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25143640/

[Frozen Sooner]

Thus, currently no one who earns over $102K has SS payroll taxes withheld.

False. They have SS payroll taxes withheld on income up to $102k.

[Crimsontothecore]

Of course now he says he will cut taxes for the middle class.

[King Crimson]

what is "class warfare" supposed to connote or even mean in your post Homey?

just curious how you inflect it. and which "classes" you mean?

[Mjcpr]

Who allowed the > $102k to go untaxed in the first place?

[Vaevictis]

Who allowed the > $102k to go untaxed in the first place?

It's due to the fact that your SS benefits stop scaling above a certain income amount, so they don't tax you above that amount.

It was done that way in the interest in fairness.

[mdklatt]

Or are you afraid of alienating the largest group of your high-earning liberal pals?


I thought all liberals were homeless or on welfare? :confused:

[Okla-homey]

False. They have SS payroll taxes withheld on income up to $102k.

:les: READ THE LINK!

[SoonerInKCMO]

Thus, currently no one who earns over $102K has SS payroll taxes withheld.


False. They have SS payroll taxes withheld on income up to $102k.


:les: READ THE LINK!


The 6.2 percent payroll tax is now applied to all income up to $102,000 a year

:confused:

[Okla-homey]

what is "class warfare" supposed to connote or even mean in your post Homey?

just curious how you inflect it. and which "classes" you mean?


The presidential candidate told senior citizens in Ohio that it is unfair for middle-class earners to pay the Social Security tax "on every dime they make," while millionaires and billionaires pay it on only "a very small percentage of their income."

First off, they pay the same percentage as everyone else does up to $102K. Now, the fact they earn more than that doesn't mean they should necessarily have to continue paying to the extent of their income just because some guy who earns $45K pays 6.2 on his entire income. sheesh.

"Class warfare" in this context means pitting one economic class of people against another economic class to earn support of the class one purports to champion. Never mind the fact "millionaires and billionaires" can never hope to collect in SS benefits anywhere near the amount they paid in. They're not evil BHO, they've worked hard and done well.

That's that "liberation theology" he listened to for over twenty years percolating out. Stick-it-to-the-"man"!!!

[Okla-homey]

:confused:

sorry. I meant income above $102K is not taxed for SS purposes. E.g. if Obama earned $115 at his last paying job, there was only SS payroll tax assessed against his first 102K.

He's down with that.

But he wants to fix it such that people who earn over $250K start paying 6.2 again to infinity.

[SoonerInKCMO]

You know, if Cindy McCain has to start paying another 6.2% tax on those millions she makes, she'll never get that credit card paid off. :(

[Rogue]

SS isn't meant for all contributors to recoup what they make, and it never was. It is a safety net for the elderly and disabled. I know it sounds too socialist for some, but I happen to like the deal. Same as I like paying school taxes although I don't have kids. It makes my country better. One measure of a country is how well it takes care of it's old and infirm. How well are we doing?

[Okla-homey]

SS isn't meant for all contributors to recoup what they make, and it never was. It is a safety net for the elderly and disabled. I know it sounds too socialist for some, but I happen to like the deal. Same as I like paying school taxes although I don't have kids. It makes my country better. One measure of a country is how well it takes care of it's old and infirm. How well are we doing?

I absolutely agree with the first two sentences. The problem is, IMHO, over time, the "safety net" morphed into the implied equivalent of a national old-age pension system.

Far too many folks don't put anything away for their old age and indeed plan to rely entirely on SSI for their post-retirement age existence. That, and the fact people are living waaaay longer than FDR planned for when he rammed SS thru Congress.

It will eventually bankrupt this country if nothing is done to remedy the hemorraging. Similarly, UAW pension plans have made it virtually impossible for domestic car and light truck makers to remain competitive. E.g. GM pays more in health benefits (w/extremely low or no co-pays/deductibles) to its retirees than it does for steel.

Finally, if it's such a good deal, why does Congress exempt itself from SS withholding? Hmmmm?

[85Sooner]

SS isn't meant for all contributors to recoup what they make, and it never was. It is a safety net for the elderly and disabled. I know it sounds too socialist for some, but I happen to like the deal. Same as I like paying school taxes although I don't have kids. It makes my country better. One measure of a country is how well it takes care of it's old and infirm. How well are we doing?

the sad part is that if everyone was forced to save the same amount and invest it rather than give it to the gov, they would be able to retire at 55 with plenty of dough. See the 1969 Galveston experiment.

[Vaevictis]

the sad part is that if everyone was forced to save the same amount and invest it rather than give it to the gov, they would be able to retire at 55 with plenty of dough. See the 1969 Galveston experiment.

Heh, tell that to the folks who lost the vast majority of their retirement stash in the Enron/WorldCom/Stock Market Crash of 19XX, etc.

[Vaevictis]

Finally, if it's such a good deal, why does Congress exempt itself from SS withholding? Hmmmm?

I imagine it's because the majority of the members of Congress are in the class of folks who make enough money that they're going to pay in more than they ever hope to get out.

[King Crimson]

"Class warfare" in this context means pitting one economic class of people against another economic class to earn support of the class one purports to champion. Never mind the fact "millionaires and billionaires" can never hope to collect in SS benefits anywhere near the amount they paid in. They're not evil BHO, they've worked hard and done well.

That's that "liberation theology" he listened to for over twenty years percolating out. Stick-it-to-the-"man"!!!

OK, first. you don't think that social classes are in conflict over finite resources and how they are allocated in society and the role that politics plays in that is not something to consider? and just saying that "people work hard for it" may have some play in a newish, low population density state like Oklahoma, but that's not how the really really wealthy people in this country live. the VP of Philip Morris aren't thinking about "working really hard" in Greenwich, Connecticut. those people make more money when they are asleep than most Okies can even dream of.

are you saying that social classes don't exist; surely, you are not that pie in the sky. did you not read SE Hinton when you were a kid?

the GOP don't ever play class politics? just the Dems? i know it's fun to believe in trickle down economics where what's good for the upper class is good for the lower, but that's not the way it is.

and any "class politics" authored by Al Gore or mostly any other Dem heavyweight is hardly anything that threatens the overall structure of the economy, political base, etc. it deserves ridicule, and it got it in 2000. that's what makes it so funny and ideologically absurd that calling Obama a "Marxist" has any traction. did i miss where he called for the abolition of private property or offered a general critique of alienation or commodity fetishism (hold it up, 2nd amendment people...it ain't the same). and that morons buy into it, is proof that just plain old name calling/scapegoatism works for most people. it's viral on the youtubes.

i mean, because we all know he's a Muslim. how is that Obama can advocate a class free society and at the same time support the class hierarchical aristocratic/women suppressing regimes of the Islamofascist world?

there are surely no contradictions in the GOP worldview advanced by it's scions in the last 8 years?

[Frozen Sooner]

Finally, if it's such a good deal, why does Congress exempt itself from SS withholding? Hmmmm?

Because they don't. Members of Congress pay into Social Security just like just about everyone else.

This has been the case for 25 years now.

[Okla-homey]

OK, first. you don't think that social classes are in conflict over finite resources and how they are allocated in society and the role that politics plays in that is not something to consider? and just saying that "people work hard for it" may have some play in a newish, low population density state like Oklahoma, but that's not how the really really wealthy people in this country live. the VP of Philip Morris aren't thinking about "working really hard" in Greenwich, Connecticut. those people make more money when they are asleep than most Okies can even dream of.

are you saying that social classes don't exist; surely, you are not that pie in the sky. did you not read SE Hinton when you were a kid?

the GOP don't ever play class politics? just the Dems? i know it's fun to believe in trickle down economics where what's good for the upper class is good for the lower, but that's not the way it is.

and any "class politics" authored by Al Gore or mostly any other Dem heavyweight is hardly anything that threatens the overall structure of the economy, political base, etc. it deserves ridicule, and it got it in 2000. that's what makes it so funny and ideologically absurd that calling Obama a "Marxist" has any traction. did i miss where he called for the abolition of private property or offered a general critique of alienation or commodity fetishism (hold it up, 2nd amendment people...it ain't the same). and that morons buy into it, is proof that just plain old name calling/scapegoatism works for most people. it's viral on the youtubes.

i mean, because we all know he's a Muslim. how is that Obama can advocate a class free society and at the same time support the class hierarchical aristocratic/women suppressing regimes of the Islamofascist world?

there are surely no contradictions in the GOP worldview advanced by it's scions in the last 8 years?

Spin it however you please. with all due respect, IMHO, its just repackaged "the reason you are poor is because rich people exist."

The two are not now, nor have they been mutually exclusive in the US at any time since 1941.

I'll grant you, the robber barons of the late Victorian Era did manage to keep the huddled masses huddling, but their power was broken by the reforms of the late 30's (yes, I admit, FDR did some good stuff) and were consigned to the trash heap by the effects of WWII and our transition to the information age.

I'll assert one other thing. I don't think its possible to embrace "liberation theology" without also buying in to a substantial amount of Marxist theory. Mind you, not Christianity as practiced by the vast majority of people of color in the US. I'm talking about the brand peddled by that "church" BHO attended faithfully for twenty years, and the kind peddled by Farrakan. In a phrase, "to each according to his needs, from each according to his means."

See, you can still allow private ownership of property while taxing the bejebus out of people to build the Big Rock Candy Mountain. Of course, all too soon, the people with the means bail. Either off-shore or they sell-out and live on their trust funds. There is a tipping point at which the people with the means will say, "enough, I'm out!" Exhibit A: France.

What you're eventually left with is a shell of an economy and a bunch of useless people who don't know how to take care of themselves because they've not been required to do so.

If BHO wins, the republic will survive. It's weathered dangerous storms before. But, after his single term, there will be a lot of rebuilding to do. Unless of course the jihaadists, encouraged and emboldened by his victory, don't nuke the carp out of one of our major cities plunging us into economic ruin.

[King Crimson]

"spin it however you please".

that's great. no offense, i know you got a law degree and all that (like i ****ing care--), but if you want to be taken seriously, opening like that lumps you back with Rush.

forget it. you ain't even worth it. you are an ideology machine. you talk like one. you know very little about the history of political thought.

[CORNholio]

Kill ambition by punishing those who succeed. "The LOVE of money is the root of all evil" not MONEY ITSELF. People need to quit demonizing money. Doing so promotes socialistic policies.

[yermom]

ok, so if i make over $250k, is 6% really going to punish me? is that going to take food out of my mouth?

do you really think that is enough to get someone to move to another country?

compare the tax rate to like anywhere in Europe...

[King Crimson]

soonerjack: just because homey writes the rah rah civics class, hero story of America you like to hear does not make it beyond scrutiny.

sorry if you disagree. as big an asshat as i am, i've never sent anyone neg spek.

democracy is the art of living with people you disagree with.

[Okla-homey]

"spin it however you please".

that's great. no offense, i know you got a law degree and all that (like i ****ing care--), but if you want to be taken seriously, opening like that lumps you back with Rush.

forget it. you ain't even worth it. you are an ideology machine. you talk like one. you know very little about the history of political thought.

Rush, Hannity, Coulter, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a thing is true. Moreover, whether a person is grounded in knowledge of the history of political thought or not has very little to do with whether or not a person chooses to drink the Kool-Aid and buy into a failed proposition.

Please enlighten me by providing an example of a state that has taxed itself to prosperity?

The simple immutable fact is some people are doomed to remain poor. Some by the bad choices they made. Others by bad luck. Still others by the fact they simply don't have the mental ability to succeed. It's been that way since time immemorial, or at least since Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden.

One thing is certain, a society cannot boost all these unfortunates to the middle class and remain economically viable. Nor can it enforce a classless society. Not even nature works that way. There are always "alphas." The best a society can do is provide equal opportunities for all to succeed. Otherwise known as universal public education. That, and provide the basic necessities of life to those who are incapable of providing them for themselves.

That's also why the framers of the Constitution referred to our inalienable right to "pursue" happiness, vice an inalienable right to "be" happy.

Oh, and one more thing. The study of the law is the study of political thought. Laws are merely tangible manifestations of political thought. Any course in jurisprudence or legislation will teach you that.

Finally, read Madison. The man thought more about democracy than any human before or since.

[Jerk]

SS isn't meant for all contributors to recoup what they make, and it never was. It is a pyramid scheme for the elderly and disabled. I know it sounds too socialist for some, but I happen to like the deal. Same as I like paying school taxes although I don't have kids. It makes my country better. One measure of a country is how well it takes care of it's old and infirm. How well are we doing?

Fixed;)

[Chuck Bao]

Please enlighten me by providing an example of a state that has taxed itself to prosperity?

Are you kidding?

Let's just continue on with the same old failed Republican mantra of spend and cut taxes. Maybe if we ignore the fiscal deficit it will go away. Or, maybe there will be an economic boom around the corner. I have no idea where that will come from, but we can always place a second or third mortgage loan on our children's future. Oops, we can't do that anymore, as dollar assets continue to sink.

[Okla-homey]

Are you kidding?

Let's just continue on with the same old failed Republican mantra of spend and cut taxes. Maybe if we ignore the fiscal deficit it will go away. Or, maybe there will be an economic boom around the corner. I have no idea where that will come from, but we can always place a second or third mortgage loan on our children's future. Oops, we can't do that anymore, as dollar assets continue to sink.

Thats not the GOP mantra. That's the W and donk Congress mantra. Spending is out of control. It needs to be reined in.

[Okla-homey]

ok, so if i make over $250k, is 6% really going to punish me? is that going to take food out of my mouth?



You make my point. IOW, "they can afford it. so tax 'em."

It adds up and someday, people start bailing. Over this? Prolly not. But he's just getting started.

[Scott D]

At least the Founding Fathers knew they didn't know everything, and therefore legislated in that manner.

Too bad the same can't be said for modern day politicians and mouthpieces.

[JohnnyMack]

If BHO wins, the republic will survive. It's weathered dangerous storms before. But, after his single term, there will be a lot of rebuilding to do. Unless of course the jihaadists, encouraged and emboldened by his victory, don't nuke the carp out of one of our major cities plunging us into economic ruin.

Did Tuba help you write that?

[Rogue]

One thing is certain, a society cannot boost all these unfortunates to the middle class and remain economically viable. Nor can it enforce a classless society. Not even nature works that way. There are always "alphas." The best a society can do is provide equal opportunities for all to succeed. Otherwise known as universal public education. That, and provide the basic necessities of life to those who are incapable of providing them for themselves.

That's also why the framers of the Constitution referred to our inalienable right to "pursue" happiness, vice an inalienable right to "be" happy.

Oh, and one more thing. The study of the law is the study of political thought. Laws are merely tangible manifestations of political thought. Any course in jurisprudence or legislation will teach you that.
Not bad, my friend. While you do seem to be trying awfully hard to show that conservativism is the more consistent philosophy, even I sometimes find myself nodding in agreement with you.




Finally, read JEFFERSON. The man thought more about democracy than any human before or since. And, fixed. ;)

[Vaevictis]

It adds up and someday, people start bailing. Over this? Prolly not. But he's just getting started.

Heh, we had marginal income tax rates will north of 70% at one time (as high as 91%, iirc), and we did just fine.

I think we're a long way away from the point where people start bailing.

[olevetonahill]

Yall have No clue
the former USSR lost how many suitcase NUkes ?

[Vaevictis]

Unless of course the jihaadists, encouraged and emboldened by his victory, don't nuke the carp out of one of our major cities plunging us into economic ruin.

Are you ****ing kidding me? Do you actually believe that these guys would go "Oh nos, John McCain is president, better not pull the trigger on that nuke we've got."

Please. If they get nukes, they're not going to decide whether or not to use them based on who the sitting president is.

[Okla-homey]

Are you ****ing kidding me? Do you actually believe that these guys would go "Oh nos, John McCain is president, better not pull the trigger on that nuke we've got."

Please. If they get nukes, they're not going to decide whether or not to use them based on who the sitting president is.

No. What I'm saying is we must have a president and commander-in-chief who prioritizes national security above all else and realizes if we fail there, nothing else is possible. No one but the president can order the use of force. He must be willing to do so when necessary. If not, the diplomats are powerless.

The point is, there must be no yielding and no relaxation of the operational tempo versus jihaadists. Otherwise, the jihaadists could become successful in North America again. It is generally undisputed they want BHO to win. Why pray tell? It's not because he's Muslim, because he gave it up. It's because he's inexperienced and has campaigned from day one on the notion that we should have more talk and less action. That's "change you can beleive in" [that can get us all killed]

Finally, I do not understand why people ignore the fact the guy emerged from the Chicago machine. Chicago. A very troubled city. His long held association with local radicals like Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright, et al. say a great deal about the kind of administration he would have. It would mirror the environment in which he was made. Why would we want to bring that to Washington? We're not just electing a president, we're also electing the people around him.

So far, the people BHO's chosen as his closest confidants and "mentors" (his word, not mine) are pretty dang sketchy. Also, I don't buy that balderdash excuse that he had to hang with them because they are his homeys, thus invoking some twisted form of loyalty to show what a good guy he is and buy him a pass. By way of contrast, if some Bubba in Alabama told you, "well, I honestly didn't like the Klan, but they are from my community and since everyone else was a member, I decided to join," what would your reaction be?

[Vaevictis]

No. What I'm saying is we must have a president and commander-in-chief who prioritizes national security above all else and realizes if we fail there, nothing else is possible. No one but the president can order the use of force. He must be willing to do so when necessary. If not, the diplomats are powerless.

Ah, okay. Above all else? Do you really mean that? Or are you just exaggerating for effect? Because I could propose some rather draconian measures that would enhance national security that I think you might just oppose.


The point is, there must be no yielding and no relaxation of the operational tempo versus jihaadists. Otherwise, the jihaadists could become successful in North America again. It is generally undisputed they want BHO to win. Why pray tell? It's not because he's Muslim, because he gave it up. It's because he's inexperienced and has campaigned from day one on the notion that we should have more talk and less action. That's "change you can beleive in" [that can get us all killed]

Really. I get the sense that he endorses more talk -- which, to me, equates to more action. See, I'm a big fan of the Von Clausewitz view that war is just another way of achieving your policy goals. The fact that we, as a people, hold diplomatic efforts in such low regard is something I find rather sad.

If you eschew diplomacy, you are NOT doing everything you can to keep this country safe. You don't want to talk to Iran at all? You think it's rewarding them? Counter-point: Where would Israel be today if they had refused to talk to Anwar Sadat?

I strongly suspect that it's not that Obama doesn't place a very high priority on national security, rather I just think you disagree about how he intends to achieve it and interpret that as placing a low priority on it.


Finally, I do not understand why people ignore the fact the guy emerged from the Chicago machine. (...)

Now this stuff is actually fair and totally reasonable, and I tend to agree.

[sooner n houston]

Now this stuff is actually fair and totally reasonable, and I tend to agree.

You sir are headed for a banning!!! This is no place for civil discourse. :D

[Okla-homey]

see below


Ah, okay. Above all else? Do you really mean that? Or are you just exaggerating for effect? Because I could propose some rather draconian measures that would enhance national security that I think you might just oppose.

"Above all else" in this context means ahead of any other executive branch function.

Really. I get the sense that he endorses more talk -- which, to me, equates to more action. See, I'm a big fan of the Von Clausewitz view that war is just another way of achieving your policy goals. The fact that we, as a people, hold diplomatic efforts in such low regard is something I find rather sad.

Clausewitz also stood for the proposition that war is the extension of policy by other means. At the end of the day, if the state with which you are negotiating doesn't feel you have the will to use military power, you are are hosed.

If you eschew diplomacy, you are NOT doing everything you can to keep this country safe. You don't want to talk to Iran at all? You think it's rewarding them? Counter-point: Where would Israel be today if they had refused to talk to Anwar Sadat?

Well, Israel would lack one state in the region that "officially" acknowledges its right to exist

I strongly suspect that it's not that Obama doesn't place a very high priority on national security, rather I just think you disagree about how he intends to achieve it and interpret that as placing a low priority on it.

He places social programs above national security IMHO.

Now this stuff is actually fair and totally reasonable, and I tend to agree.

Happy you see that too. It bothers me a ton.

[Jerk]

Did Tuba help you write that?

Dude, what happened to you? I thought we had you coming around to the Dark Side, then this Obama fellow shows up and you're right back to where you were.

[yermom]

see below

i'm gathering more that he values social programs over past tax cuts for the rich

[stoopified]

I thought all liberals were homeless or on welfare? :confused:You forgetting Ted Turner and Hanoi Jane?

[JohnnyMack]

Dude, what happened to you? I thought we had you coming around to the Dark Side, then this Obama fellow shows up and you're right back to where you were.

Homey is smarter than that. He shouldn't resort to petty scare tactics. He's prolly just tired from studying for his lawyerin' test. I'll give him a pass. :D

[Okla-homey]

i'm gathering more that he values social programs over past tax cuts for the rich


There you go again. We should do these things for people because other people have the money to pay for it. Thus, we should take from the rich and give to the poor. "Robin Hood" economics. Or shall we call it, Obamanomics? ;)

[Okla-homey]

Homey is smarter than that. He shouldn't resort to petty scare tactics. He's prolly just tired from studying for his lawyerin' test. I'll give him a pass. :D

petty, schmetty.

The simple fact is, we face an entrenched and committed enemy who will not be deterred by talk or cajolery. He also doesn't mind dying in his attempts to bloody us. Thus, we must keep our swords bright. Moreover, our enemy is cornered in remote regions of NW Pakistan and isolated pockets of resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we back off and give them manuever room, we will be hit again as sure as night follows day. Our hopes are properly pinned on remaining in place and working with the moderate elements in those societies to marginalize and emasculate these radical elements.

[Sooner24]

i'm gathering more that he values social programs over past tax cuts for the rich

That's just what we need, more social programs. :rolleyes:

[yermom]

There you go again. We should do these things for people because other people have the money to pay for it. Thus, we should take from the rich and give to the poor. "Robin Hood" economics. Or shall we call it, Obamanomics? ;)

what is it where you take the money from the poor and give it to your cronies?

they have it to pay, and Bush figured they needed a break

how are we going to pay for all this national security in Iraq by cutting taxes?

[Scott D]

how are we going to pay for all this national security in Iraq by cutting taxes?

monopoly money, duh ;)

[Okla-homey]

what is it where you take the money from the poor and give it to your cronies?

they have it to pay, and Bush figured they needed a break

how are we going to pay for all this national security in Iraq by cutting taxes?

Surely we can find some pork to cut-out.

[yermom]

while you're at it, let's stop congress from approving pay raises for themselves

[Scott D]

Surely we can find some pork to cut-out.

therein lies the rub. they all make arguments as to why their pork isn't pork.

[Chuck Bao]

I was going to say that that is a pretty easy thing to say: end the so-called class warfare by ending pork.

Might as well say: let them eat cake.

[Sooner24]

I was going to say that that is a pretty easy thing to say: end the so-called class warfare by ending pork.

Might as well say: let them eat cake.


Or not drop out of school, get one of those free college educations that the State of Oklahoma gives away, since their parents probably make under $50K a year, and then go out and become productive members of society. Or eat cake which ever is easiest.

[yermom]

which free college educations are those? :confused:

[mdklatt]

which free college educations are those? :confused:

It's right down the street from the free health care.

[JohnnyMack]

petty, schmetty.

The simple fact is, we face an entrenched and committed enemy who will not be deterred by talk or cajolery. He also doesn't mind dying in his attempts to bloody us. Thus, we must keep our swords bright. Moreover, our enemy is cornered in remote regions of NW Pakistan and isolated pockets of resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we back off and give them manuever room, we will be hit again as sure as night follows day. Our hopes are properly pinned on remaining in place and working with the moderate elements in those societies to marginalize and emasculate these radical elements.

Typical Republican war machine. You can't see the forest for the trees.

[Sooner24]

which free college educations are those? :confused:

http://www.okhighered.org/okpromise/about.shtml

[Okla-homey]

Or not drop out of school, get one of those free college educations that the State of Oklahoma gives away, since their parents probably make under $50K a year, and then go out and become productive members of society. Or eat cake which ever is easiest.

or honorably serve your country for a couple years and get 1) free college through the GI Bill and 2) free health benefits for life at a VA hospital.

[Scott D]

or honorably serve your country for a couple years and get 1) free college through the GI Bill and 2) free health benefits for life at a VA hospital, as long as you aren't a woman.

fixed ;)

[yermom]

http://www.okhighered.org/okpromise/about.shtml

that's interesting. there's more to paying for college than just tuition though

[sooneron]

or honorably serve your country for a couple years and get 1) free college through the GI Bill and 2) free health benefits for life at a VA hospital.

Couple of years?

[SoonerJack]

soonerjack: just because homey writes the rah rah civics class, hero story of America you like to hear does not make it beyond scrutiny.

sorry if you disagree. as big an asshat as i am, i've never sent anyone neg spek.

democracy is the art of living with people you disagree with.

So I negged you, big deal. Next time you say something I agree with, I'll send you positive spek.

[sooneron]

Or maybe just post your disagreement in the thread so that you have a dog in the fight.

[sooneron]

I think that if people are going to have to pay in to SS under BHO's plan, the % should drop. Why should a person earning 340K (before taxes) pay over 20k in to SS? Incrementally dropping the % would make sense to me. This, of course would be difficult to implement if the person were earning say, a salary of 280K and they had commissions. Which is what a LOT of people have in the 250K + bracket. It would have to be calculated at FYE.

[Sooner24]

that's interesting. there's more to paying for college than just tuition though

True, but if my kid had qualified it would have made a huge difference. As it is I am paying for my kid and and helping pay for someone else to go to OU.

[mdklatt]

True, but if my kid had qualified it would have made a huge difference. As it is I am paying for my kid and and helping pay for someone else to go to OU.

Did you your kid go to public school?

[soonerboomer93]

Dude, what happened to you? I thought we had you coming around to the Dark Side, then this Obama fellow shows up and you're right back to where you were.

wouldn't that be considered supporting the Dark Side

atleast in some circles...