You liberal yahoos thought THA was crazy...They ARE going after our 401k's!!!

[TheHumanAlphabet]

The Socialist and the Progressives and LIbs are making this country unrecognizable...

401k's are on the table. They want us to save less and tap that huge pool of money that we were promised were ours based on tax laws...

****ing Liars!!!

Read it and weep for the country (http://www.ktrh.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=121300&article=10620481)

You know if it is on the table, it is only a matter of time before they attempt to confiscate it...

Make everyone poor and beholding to the government...

Everything I have spoken about is coming true...

[yermom]

i can't actually follow the link, but i'm not sure why 401ks and mortgage breaks are there in the first place

seems like more tax breaks for people with money that people without money don't have access to

[TheHumanAlphabet]

you are an idiot

[yermom]

well, explain it to me

i hear arguments for a flat tax, that progressive taxes are bad, well until you get to the point that you have enough income that you can pay into a 401k or buy a house, you pay more of a percentage. same thing with the cap on SS taxes and insurance.

[FaninAma]

i can't actually follow the link, but i'm not sure why 401ks and mortgage breaks are there in the first place

seems like more tax breaks for people with money that people without money don't have access to

Again, waaaah, life is so unfair. The policy is in place to encourage investment.

Damn it is frustrating that people in this country refuse to learn from the examples of previous socialist governments including what is going on in Europe currently.

[Soonerjeepman]

mortgage breaks are for people WITH money? really? I make 60K and the mortgage tax break is huge for ME...I DON'T HAVE MONEY...nice try yermon..

oh btw, here in KC IN THE URBAN HOOD there are 18 brand new frickin houses being built with GOV MONEY...granite counters, stainless appl...and guess what, you have to QUALIFY to get them..$125K then if you stay in 10 yrs you only owe $75K...but ME who hasn't missed a house payment in 20 yrs pay PMI "cause I'm a risk"..right.

They will be shacks in 3 yrs but NOOOOO we must revitalize the urban core...on TAX PAYERS $$$$ BULL$HIT...

[FaninAma]

well, explain it to me

i hear arguments for a flat tax, that progressive taxes are bad, well until you get to the point that you have enough income that you can pay into a 401k or buy a house, you pay more of a percentage. same thing with the cap on SS taxes and insurance.

The effective tax rate for 48% of the population is zero. I cannot imagine that there are very many people in the country who pay income taxes that actually pay the effective rate.

BTW, 401K's are taxed when you withdraw the funds. Roth IRA's are taxed prior to investment so your point is invalid.

[yermom]

so why do you put money into it?

[yermom]

mortgage breaks are for people WITH money? really? I make 60K and the mortgage tax break is huge for ME...I DON'T HAVE MONEY...nice try yermon..

oh btw, here in KC IN THE URBAN HOOD there are 18 brand new frickin houses being built with GOV MONEY...granite counters, stainless appl...and guess what, you have to QUALIFY to get them..$125K then if you stay in 10 yrs you only owe $75K...but ME who hasn't missed a house payment in 20 yrs pay PMI "cause I'm a risk"..right.

They will be shacks in 3 yrs but NOOOOO we must revitalize the urban core...on TAX PAYERS $$$$ BULL$HIT...

to a lot of people, 60K is a lot of money. i know lots of people that have worked their whole lives and don't sniff that.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Hear it is in a nutshell. I worked hard, saved 20% or more of my earnings for retirement in my own accounts according to what the governemnt has been saying is what we are supposed to do. If you are not saving, then you get to starve in retirement. Social Security is NOT retirement, it is a help, never was envisioned as retirement.

That is MY money, no one except me or my heirs is entitled to it.

[Soonerjeepman]

I don't/didn't complain about my wage, I know a lot of people that have worked their whole lives and make 30/40/50K more than I do.

[FaninAma]

so why do you put money into it?

The idea was to let people invest tax deferred money into a 401-k so that it would grow and they would have more money for retirement and the government would have more tax revenue off the growth. Thanks to the continuous investment bubbles and f'd up markets(thanks largely to the Fed and other central planners) there hasn't been a lot of growth over the past 12 years.

So now the government, like a ravenous wolf, is looking for other sources of "revenues". The largest source is retirement accounts but instead of taxing or taking part of the profits they will be taking more of the principal since there have been very few profits.

I tell you, this is an problem is unsolveable by the Ivy League educated eggheads. There is only one way out of our debt crisis....the same way that has been used since man started borrowing and lending money.

[yermom]

Hear it is in a nutshell. I worked hard, saved 20% or more of my earnings for retirement in my own accounts according to what the governemnt has been saying is what we are supposed to do. If you are not saving, then you get to starve in retirement. Social Security is NOT retirement, it is a help, never was envisioned as retirement.

That is MY money, no one except me or my heirs is entitled to it.

again, i can't follow your link. is taking money out of your 401k on the table, or are they talking about ditching the tax break?

[yermom]

The idea was to let people invest tax deferred money into a 401-k so that it would grow and they would have more money for retirement and the government would have more tax revenue off the growth. Thanks to the continuous investment bubbles and f'd up markets(thanks largely to the Fed and other central planners) there hasn't been a lot of growth over the past 12 years.

So now the government, like a ravenous wolf, is looking for other sources of "revenues". The largest source is retirement accounts but instead of taxing or taking part of the profits they will be taking more of the principal since there have been very few profits.

I tell you, this is an problem is unsolveable by the Ivy League educated eggheads. There is only one way out of our debt crisis....the same way that has been used since man started borrowing and lending money.

which is?

[OULenexaman]

mortgage breaks are for people WITH money? really? I make 60K and the mortgage tax break is huge for ME...I DON'T HAVE MONEY...nice try yermon..

oh btw, here in KC IN THE URBAN HOOD there are 18 brand new frickin houses being built with GOV MONEY...granite counters, stainless appl...and guess what, you have to QUALIFY to get them..$125K then if you stay in 10 yrs you only owe $75K...but ME who hasn't missed a house payment in 20 yrs pay PMI "cause I'm a risk"..right.

They will be shacks in 3 yrs but NOOOOO we must revitalize the urban core...on TAX PAYERS $$$$ BULL$HIT... you must be referring to that project on Quindaro.....there is no saving that area.....you could level the whole area and put in everything new and I'd guess 6 to 7 years would be it's life span....

[rock on sooner]

again, i can't follow your link. is taking money out of your 401k on the table, or are they talking about ditching the tax break?

The article says that the gov't is thinking about limiting the amount you can
contribute to a 401k, thereby having more $$$ to tax.

[badger]

living for today is so much easier than planning for the future.

[FaninAma]

The article says that the gov't is thinking about limiting the amount you can
contribute to a 401k, thereby having more $$$ to tax.

More to tax today, less in the future. Again the government could give a **** about future generations. Why should they...they don't vote.

[rock on sooner]

More to tax today, less in the future. Again the government could give a **** about future generations. Why should they...they don't vote.

If the gov't does something like that then there will be a mad rush
to Roth IRA's, until the gov't.....guess?

[Midtowner]

Oh my God really? "I weep for the Republic"? Very Glen Beckish there. Get out your chalkboard and hanky and you might just pull it off.

What's being considered here is decreasing the % of your income which can go into a tax deferred account or tax sheltered account. Lately, 401Ks have just been a great source of income for Wall Street, but over the past few years, unless you invested very well, your portfolio probably hasn't done anything impressive.

It's a valid place to look for revenue. Everything should be on the table.

[diverdog]

The effective tax rate for 48% of the population is zero. I cannot imagine that there are very many people in the country who pay income taxes that actually pay the effective rate.

BTW, 401K's are taxed when you withdraw the funds. Roth IRA's are taxed prior to investment so your point is invalid.

Thought this was interesting:

http://business.time.com/2012/11/28/fiscal-cliff-why-congress-might-have-to-mess-with-the-401k/

[yermom]

Thought this was interesting:

http://business.time.com/2012/11/28/fiscal-cliff-why-congress-might-have-to-mess-with-the-401k/


Meanwhile, the Tax Policy Center in Washington has found that about 80% of retirement savings benefits flow to the top 20% of earners. Eliminating the deduction for retirement savings would hit the well-off disproportionately, a condition with a lot of appeal in the current political climate.


hmm.

[diverdog]

Oh my God really? "I weep for the Republic"? Very Glen Beckish there. Get out your chalkboard and hanky and you might just pull it off.

What's being considered here is decreasing the % of your income which can go into a tax deferred account or tax sheltered account. Lately, 401Ks have just been a great source of income for Wall Street, but over the past few years, unless you invested very well, your portfolio probably hasn't done anything impressive.

It's a valid place to look for revenue. Everything should be on the table.

I agree that everything should be on the table. My only request would be that everyone share the pain including those who do not pay income taxes.

[Midtowner]

I agree that everything should be on the table. My only request would be that everyone share the pain including those who do not pay income taxes.

The counterargument to that is in the last couple of decades, the top 1 or 2% have enjoyed almost all of the prosperity. Now that we're tightening the belt, why should everyone share the pain?

[diverdog]

The counterargument to that is in the last couple of decades, the top 1 or 2% have enjoyed almost all of the prosperity. Now that we're tightening the belt, why should everyone share the pain?

Because we cannot get this under control if the other 48% don't take a hit. It could be in the form of cola adjustments, a freeze on current benefits., reduction of tax credits or a combination of everything.

Under the best of circumstances my family will get hit hard with taxes when they go up. could be as much as $700/mo.

[Midtowner]

Because we cannot get this under control if the other 48% don't take a hit. It could be in the form of cola adjustments, a freeze on current benefits., reduction of tax credits or a combination of everything.

Under the best of circumstances my family will get hit hard with taxes when they go up. could be as much as $700/mo.

What I'd like to see is the elimination of the Earned Income Credit. I get the dependency exemption, but the EIC is just free money for poor people who have kids and want new home entertainment centers.

[Soonerjeepman]

you must be referring to that project on Quindaro.....there is no saving that area.....you could level the whole area and put in everything new and I'd guess 6 to 7 years would be it's life span....

yup...I teach about 5 miles from there...I drove by a few weeks ago (co teacher and I were going to a fellow teacher's mom's house to look at replacing their front porch - labor free) and saw a few then. Hit the news last night.

That is what is so ridiculous about it, no businesses, nothing. Again, I just shake my head thinking that throwing this money away and building these nice house is actually going to "improve" the area. They'll be trashed in 3 - 5 yrs.

[Soonerjeepman]

What I'd like to see is the elimination of the Earned Income Credit. I get the dependency exemption, but the EIC is just free money for poor people who have kids and want new home entertainment centers.

We had a kid (4th grade) bring in $600 dollars last yr handing out $$...it was his mom's "refund"...oh wait, she was on welfare and didn't even work...

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Oh my God really? "I weep for the Republic"? Very Glen Beckish there. Get out your chalkboard and hanky and you might just pull it off.

What's being considered here is decreasing the % of your income which can go into a tax deferred account or tax sheltered account. Lately, 401Ks have just been a great source of income for Wall Street, but over the past few years, unless you invested very well, your portfolio probably hasn't done anything impressive.

It's a valid place to look for revenue. Everything should be on the table.

It's poor public policy to discourage retirement saving when you have a publicly funded retirement plan that is underfunded, not to mention all of the underfunded pension plans across the country.

A better place to start would be to start with the mortgage interest deduction. They could certainly start with not allowing deductions for second mortgages.

I don't know why with our debt crisis, Congress would want to encourage less saving and more borrowing except that they want us all to be slaves to the bankers.

[Midtowner]

It's poor public policy to discourage retirement saving when you have a publicly funded retirement plan that is underfunded, not to mention all of the underfunded pension plans across the country.

A better place to start would be to start with the mortgage interest deduction. They could certainly start with not allowing deductions for second mortgages.

I don't know why with our debt crisis, Congress would want to encourage less saving and more borrowing except that they want us all to be slaves to the bankers.

Borrowing for that first mortgage is hugely stimulative for the economy, from PMI payments to homebuilders and even increasing tax bases for local governments, the deduction helps keep property values up and the economy rolling. I could go for a ceiling or eliminating deductions on 2nd mortgages altogether though.

Like I said, everything should be on the table. I'm just more inclined, from a public policy perspective to tax the folks who have experienced the most growth in recent years.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Oh my God really? "I weep for the Republic"? Very Glen Beckish there. Get out your chalkboard and hanky and you might just pull it off.

What's being considered here is decreasing the % of your income which can go into a tax deferred account or tax sheltered account. Lately, 401Ks have just been a great source of income for Wall Street, but over the past few years, unless you invested very well, your portfolio probably hasn't done anything impressive.

It's a valid place to look for revenue. Everything should be on the table.

You effing progressive, Bull****. Hands off, Its mine and not yours!

[yermom]

why do i need to subsidize your savings account?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

You aren't, it is taxed when I withdraw it. It will be taxed at the rate of the income I have.

[5thYearSooner]

I remember reading some where that Japan used to do this. Since people were saving a lot and not spending enough, the government/Banks started to slap a penalty for savings..and I thought that was ridiculous.
Now in US, if they are reducing the maximum contribution limit so they can tax more - that's just wrong. People who are contributing more are not doing it because they think its a tax loophole (IMO). And it is not a tax loop hole. It is legitimate to save as much as you can.
A person who is contributing more to his/her 401k is sacrificing certain bit of life style so that he/she can live better when times are tough. So what the government is suggesting is live beyond your means( spend more) and pay more taxes and die young.

[badger]

Maybe the goal is to turn around this trend of people not maxing out credit cards, going into debt, etc. like we did in the early to mid aughts (and probably the 90s and 80s too, but I was too young then to know much about consumer habits).

If we can't put aside more 401K funds, maybe we'd spend it now instead?

In any event, I hope they make exemptions for people near retirement age (perhaps they could make it the old retirement age since people are working later in year now, heh). For those that have lost pensions or had pensions converted into 401Ks, they have a LOT of catching up to do and not as many years to do it.

[LiveLaughLove]

Oh my God really? "I weep for the Republic"? Very Glen Beckish there. Get out your chalkboard and hanky and you might just pull it off.

What's being considered here is decreasing the % of your income which can go into a tax deferred account or tax sheltered account. Lately, 401Ks have just been a great source of income for Wall Street, but over the past few years, unless you invested very well, your portfolio probably hasn't done anything impressive.

It's a valid place to look for revenue. Everything should be on the table.

And by everything, you mean EVERYTHING....well, except actual meaningful spending cuts. I notice we never talk about those in this country.

We have a SPENDING problem, not a taxing problem. You can get creative with taxes any way you want. It will NEVER solve this problem, and the damage we are doing in stagnating the economy will just snowball.

Obama's growth is barely 2%. That's not by accident, and its not to punish Obama. The people that can actually affect the economy will not spend until they see the actual amount of damage that is about to be done to them by Obama and the Democrats. Even the Democrat rich are doing this.

Evil I know. They should just spend spend spend and not consider their taxes because they are rich. Interestingly, most of them got rich by being prudent, careful, and focused. Throwing good money after bad just isn't going to happen.

So we are left to confiscate (steal) more and more. Soon that spigot will run dry, then what?

[LiveLaughLove]

why do i need to subsidize your savings account?

You truly are a "us" vs "them" person, aren't you?

Interesting.

[yermom]

You truly are a "us" vs "them" person, aren't you?

Interesting.

who is the "us" and the "them" here?

it's not like i don't have a 401k. i just don't think it would be the end of the world if i wasn't putting pre-tax money into it

but to be honest, i don't really care for all the rules for accessing my money once it's in there anyway

[pphilfran]

I can't believe the uproar over the initial link...it didn't give any real information....

I did a little digging and found a little more info...more info than I posted at the link...

I seriously doubt if there are many people that gross 50k a year are currently contributing 15.5k (not including the 2k the guy estimates the company matches) a year to a 401k...allowing a cap of 20k a year (combined) seems more than fair...

http://www.advisorone.com/2012/12/04/to-avoid-fiscal-cliff-401k-plans-may-fall-off-deep

Under a proposal dubbed the 20-20 cap now under consideration, employees would be able to contribute the lesser of $20,000 or 20% of their pay, Goldstein told AdvisorOne in an interview.

An employee earning $50,000, for example, could contribute as much as $10,000–inclusive of the company match, which Goldstein says is typically 4%, or $2,000.

That means this employee could contribute just $8,000, or 54% less than the $17,500 that current law allows.

If that same employee were age 50 or older, the “catch-up” provision of the law currently allows him to save another $5,500, for a total of $23,000.

So the proposed cap on contributions would reduce the contributions of an employee over 50 earning $50,000 a year and aggressively saving for retirement by 65.21%, the advisor calculates.

The impact of such a cap would be felt even more severely by lower-income employees. An employee (under 50) earning $30,000 a year would be limited to $6,000 a year (20% of pay) minus the employer match.

[pphilfran]

If you start at age 20 and contribute 1k a month for 40 years you will have

1.5 million at 5% growth
2.6 million at 7%
6.3 million at 10%

If we have the same inflation level that we have had since 1972 about 80% of those numbers would be eating up...

So you would roughly have

200k at 5% growth
300k at 7%
800k at 10%

But...those numbers don't take into account the raise in salary over the 40 years...if you can contribute 1k a month in year one you should be able to contribute significantly more in years 20-40...

imo a tax deferred limit of 20k is more than fair...

[BermudaSooner]

What I'd like to see is the elimination of the Earned Income Credit. I get the dependency exemption, but the EIC is just free money for poor people who have kids and want new home entertainment centers.

There is a first for everything. Midtowner...I agree with you.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Borrowing for that first mortgage is hugely stimulative for the economy, from PMI payments to homebuilders and even increasing tax bases for local governments, the deduction helps keep property values up and the economy rolling. I could go for a ceiling or eliminating deductions on 2nd mortgages altogether though.

Like I said, everything should be on the table. I'm just more inclined, from a public policy perspective to tax the folks who have experienced the most growth in recent years.

If you want to tax the rich there's better ways to do it. I'm just looking at our current debt fueled consumer driven economy and asking if that's the best way to structure our economy? I personally think we need a more sustainable model.

One could very well argue that the mortgage interest deduction was one factor in the housing bubble that created the latest mess. The 401K is already limited to something like $15K, which for someone earning $250K is only 6% of their income. It's hardly a large tax shelter for those folks.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

So what the government is suggesting is live beyond your means( spend more) and pay more taxes and die young.

So you will be beholding to the gubment and enshrine entitlements and dims forever as the ruling party or as our "dear leader"...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I seriously doubt if there are many people that gross 50k a year are currently contributing 15.5k (not including the 2k the guy estimates the company matches) a year to a 401k...allowing a cap of 20k a year (combined) seems more than fair... .

No it is not fair!!! I sacrifice and put money in. It is class warfare brought by our dim party once again...

[pphilfran]

No it is not fair!!! I sacrifice and put money in. It is class warfare brought by our dim party once again...

And you can still sacrifice and put money in...based off what this guy says, 10k on a 50k salary...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

That is still Bull****!

[Midtowner]

Y'all whine a lot. We are not paying what it costs for our government. Spending needs to come down and taxes need to go up. It is some immoral BS to run up the company's credit card and hand it to our younger generations.

Eff you baby boomers, this is your doing. Worst generation ever.

[pphilfran]

Y'all whine a lot. We are not paying what it costs for our government. Spending needs to come down and taxes need to go up. It is some immoral BS to run up the company's credit card and hand it to our younger generations.

Eff you baby boomers, this is your doing. Worst generation ever.

HEY! I resemble that remark....

[LiveLaughLove]

Eff you baby boomers, this is your doing. Worst generation ever.

Wow, something I agree 100% with you on.

[okie52]

Y'all whine a lot. We are not paying what it costs for our government. Spending needs to come down and taxes need to go up. It is some immoral BS to run up the company's credit card and hand it to our younger generations.

Eff you baby boomers, this is your doing. Worst generation ever.

Bitter, very bitter.

[pphilfran]

That is still Bull****!


What the hell do you want? This guy, if his facts are correct and this actually goes through, says you will be able to save 20% of your income (up to a 100k), tax deferred...that is more than fair...

You still have the option to save as much as you want outside of the tax deferment...

[OU68]

Y'all whine a lot. We are not paying what it costs for our government. Spending needs to come down and taxes need to go up. It is some immoral BS to run up the company's credit card and hand it to our younger generations.

Eff you lawyers, this is your doing. Worst profession ever.

FIFY

[Midtowner]

Bitter, very bitter.

Justifiably. You guys were in charge of this whole thing when you ran up huge bills and are now retiring and going apescat when we talk about touching your Medicare or Social Security (while you bankrupt both). The "greatest" generation following WWII voted for huge tax hikes on themselves to pay for WWII. This SNAFU is almost exclusively on you.

[pphilfran]

Justifiably. You guys were in charge of this whole thing when you ran up huge bills and are now retiring and going apescat when we talk about touching your Medicare or Social Security (while you bankrupt both). The "greatest" generation following WWII voted for huge tax hikes on themselves to pay for WWII. This SNAFU is almost exclusively on you.


I am a Boomer but please don't throw me in the bubbling vat of oil with those not wanting cuts....

[LiveLaughLove]

I am a Boomer but please don't throw me in the bubbling vat of oil with those not wanting cuts....

My dad despises being a baby boomer. Something along the lines of "effing hippies".

[okie52]

Justifiably. You guys were in charge of this whole thing when you ran up huge bills and are now retiring and going apescat when we talk about touching your Medicare or Social Security (while you bankrupt both). The "greatest" generation following WWII voted for huge tax hikes on themselves to pay for WWII. This SNAFU is almost exclusively on you.

Tell you what...I support delaying benefits on SS and medicare...but my generation didn't raid those funds...that started with LBJ.

When did my generation get "in charge"? Sure wasn't during Korea or Viet Nam nor was it during Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or W.


The average age of Members of the House at the beginning of the 112th
Congress was 56.7 years; and of Senators, 62.2 years. The overwhelming majority of Members have a college education.
The dominant professions of Members are public service/politics, business, and law. Protestants
collectively constitute the majority religious affiliation of Members. Roman Catholics account for
the largest single religious denomination, and numerous other affiliations are represented.


By those figures my "generation" is just now getting in charge. Maybe they'll correct the mistakes of the past but we also will be blamed for Obama.

[okie52]

My dad despises being a baby boomer. Something along the lines of "effing hippies".

Heh...pot was good.

[rock on sooner]

I'm a boomer. Let's take stock here...
Paid into SS for 53 years, paid into Medicare/Medicaid since the
beginning, served my country, a college graduate. Am on Medicare
Part A only..because it's required...have saved..use SS but not as a
primary support..have argued til I'm blue in the face for broad, real,
measureable spending cuts and supported tax increases (actually just
go back to ALL Clinton rates). Have advocated smaller gov't, leaner,
meaner military, creating WPA type programs for job creation. Have
complained repeatedly about SS being raided, stupid, useless earmarks,
supported Pubs when they do good, railed against Dems when they don't.

Now, you tell me to eff off. Guess there's just no pleasing you people...

[okie52]

I'm a boomer. Let's take stock here...
Paid into SS for 53 years, paid into Medicare/Medicaid since the
beginning, served my country, a college graduate. Am on Medicare
Part A only..because it's required...have saved..use SS but not as a
primary support..have argued til I'm blue in the face for broad, real,
measureable spending cuts and supported tax increases (actually just
go back to ALL Clinton rates). Have advocated smaller gov't, leaner,
meaner military, creating WPA type programs for job creation. Have
complained repeatedly about SS being raided, stupid, useless earmarks,
supported Pubs when they do good, railed against Dems when they don't.

Now, you tell me to eff off. Guess there's just no pleasing you people...

I've been paying SS since I was 16 so that makes about 44 years. Will have paid for 50 years by the time I claim SS. For the last 32 of 33 years I have maxed out on SS taxes. I know I won't see near what I've paid into SS but I never expected to.

Now Obama is allowing reductions in SS tax for another 2 years (if I read that correctly). Why?

[rock on sooner]

I've been paying SS since I was 16 so that makes about 44 years. Will have paid for 50 years by the time I claim SS. For the last 32 of 33 years I have maxed out on SS taxes. I know I won't see near what I've paid into SS but I never expected to.

Now Obama is allowing reductions in SS tax for another 2 years (if I read that correctly). Why?

I don't know for certain, but my guess is that he thinks it'll speed up
a recovery. Personally, it's another example of using SS as a gov't
piggy bank and I don't think it makes THAT much difference.

[LiveLaughLove]

I've been paying SS since I was 16 so that makes about 44 years. Will have paid for 50 years by the time I claim SS. For the last 32 of 33 years I have maxed out on SS taxes. I know I won't see near what I've paid into SS but I never expected to.

Now Obama is allowing reductions in SS tax for another 2 years (if I read that correctly). Why?

SS has always been a shell game pyramid scheme. Thanks FDR, you rock...on! ;P

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Y'all whine a lot. We are not paying what it costs for our government. Spending needs to come down and taxes need to go up. It is some immoral BS to run up the company's credit card and hand it to our younger generations.

Eff you baby boomers, this is your doing. Worst generation ever.you need to understand, we don't need all this **** that is being paid for. We need lots less spending and lots less services.

[yermom]

you mean like tax deferred retirement plans?

[Midtowner]

you need to understand, we don't need all this **** that is being paid for. We need lots less spending and lots less services.

Yet when you get your guys in office, they add prescription drug coverage for medicare, a couple of unnecessary wars, etc.

[LiveLaughLove]

Yet when you get your guys in office, they add prescription drug coverage for medicare, a couple of unnecessary wars, etc.

Yeah, because ALL republican presidents have done this.

What is the half-life of the Bush boogeyman? Just curious.

It appears be longer than uranium-238.

[Midtowner]

Yeah, because ALL republican presidents have done this.

What is the half-life of the Bush boogeyman? Just curious.

It appears be longer than uranium-238.

Own your screw ups and stop making excuses.

[LiveLaughLove]

Own your screw ups and stop making excuses.

I don't own any of the Bush's, Bush', Bushes, or Bush'es. Never have.

Didn't make any excuses either.

All you guys do is make excuses and blame Bush. It's old after 4 years of this idiot in the WH.

I was extremely against the Prescription Part D thing. And you guys were too, because it was Bush that wanted it.

If it had been Clinton or Obama you would have loved it mega and you know it.

I was against the war in Iraq. Told me dad the day it actually started that I thought it would cost a lot of lives for no reason, and would cost Bush his second term.

I wanted him to focus on getting OBL and Afghanistan. That war was more than justified, so not sure what was "unnecessary" about it.

[Midtowner]

All you guys do is make excuses and blame Bush. It's old after 4 years of this idiot in the WH.

What's the saying..? When the shoe fits...


I was extremely against the Prescription Part D thing. And you guys were too, because it was Bush that wanted it.

If it had been Clinton or Obama you would have loved it mega and you know it.

If it had been Clinton or Obama, the Republican House would have blocked it or the Senate would have filibustered.


I wanted him to focus on getting OBL and Afghanistan. That war was more than justified, so not sure what was "unnecessary" about it.

The drone campaign there has worked gangbusters, but everything points to the Taliban being back in charged and things returning to business as usual as soon as we pull out. I don't know whether the sort of money and life we poured into that war could justify the killing of one man.

[BermudaSooner]

I thought this was going to be the article for this thread--Obama begins push for New National Retirement System:

http://www.nationalseniorscouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89:obama-begins-push-for-new-national-retirement-system&catid=34:social-security&Itemid=62

Some excepts:
"including one representative of the AFL-CIO who advocated for more government regulation over private retirement accounts and even the establishment of government-sponsored annuities that would take the place of 401k plans."

"A representative of the liberal Pension Rights Center, Rebecca Davis, testified that the government needs to get involved because 401k plans and IRAs are unfair to poor people."

I can only guess that 401k plans are unfair because the poor don't pay taxes, so they aren't "getting anything" from a 401k plan like us taxpayers.

"Such "reforms" would effectively end private retirement accounts in America, Crone warns. "These people want the government to require that ultimately all Americans buy these government annuities instead of saving or investing on their own. The Government could then take these trillions of dollars and redistribute it through this new national retirement system."

[LiveLaughLove]

I thought this was going to be the article for this thread--Obama begins push for New National Retirement System:

http://www.nationalseniorscouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89:obama-begins-push-for-new-national-retirement-system&catid=34:social-security&Itemid=62

Some excepts:
"including one representative of the AFL-CIO who advocated for more government regulation over private retirement accounts and even the establishment of government-sponsored annuities that would take the place of 401k plans."

"A representative of the liberal Pension Rights Center, Rebecca Davis, testified that the government needs to get involved because 401k plans and IRAs are unfair to poor people."

I can only guess that 401k plans are unfair because the poor don't pay taxes, so they aren't "getting anything" from a 401k plan like us taxpayers.

"Such "reforms" would effectively end private retirement accounts in America, Crone warns. "These people want the government to require that ultimately all Americans buy these government annuities instead of saving or investing on their own. The Government could then take these trillions of dollars and redistribute it through this new national retirement system."

There's just too much money sitting for the taking in private retirement accounts to not be molested by your friendly neighborhood liberal politician.

I said it before, they are the scorpions on the frogs back. They can't help themselves.

[Midtowner]

"Such "reforms" would effectively end private retirement accounts in America, Crone warns. "These people want the government to require that ultimately all Americans buy these government annuities instead of saving or investing on their own. The Government could then take these trillions of dollars and redistribute it through this new national retirement system."

There's no way that passes. What a clustereff that'd be anyway. No way in Hell.

[BermudaSooner]

There's no way that passes. What a clustereff that'd be anyway. No way in Hell.

You really think stuff like this isn't one of Obama's long term goals?

[Midtowner]

You really think stuff like this isn't one of Obama's long term goals?

I'm not going to buy a bull**** press release from a bull**** astroturf group as Gospel.

http://www.nationalseniorscouncil.org/

I mean that ^ is the source of this rumor. Right wing astroturf sites have been known to just make **** up to scare people. Apparently there was a hearing where one person from some pensions group spoke in favor of this. Then the article states that Mark Iwry is against 401Ks.

When you do a Google Search for Mark Iwry criticism 401K search and get results like this:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=mark%20iwry%20criticism%20401K&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=cb629d3c6571b600&bpcl=39650382&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&biw=1599&bih=824

[lots of RW astroturf sites and forums quoting verbatim the same line from the National Seniors Council press release]

It is unquestionably made-up bull**** seeded to various RW media sites hoping that someone who matters will actually notice and believe the lie.

[BermudaSooner]

I'm not going to buy a bull**** press release from a bull**** astroturf group as Gospel.

http://www.nationalseniorscouncil.org/

I mean that ^ is the source of this rumor. Right wing astroturf sites have been known to just make **** up to scare people. Apparently there was a hearing where one person from some pensions group spoke in favor of this. Then the article states that Mark Iwry is against 401Ks.

When you do a Google Search for Mark Iwry criticism 401K search and get results like this:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=mark%20iwry%20criticism%20401K&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=cb629d3c6571b600&bpcl=39650382&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&biw=1599&bih=824

It is unquestionably made-up bull**** seeded to various RW media sites hoping that someone who matters will actually notice and believe the lie.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said there regarding the source, but my question stands. Do you really believe that issues like this aren't in Obama's long term goals? Imagine the amount of redistribution and the amount of "fairness" he could enact would be worth lots and lots of votes.

[BermudaSooner]

Actually, just think of all of the unfunded union pension plans (that Obama has already shown to favor with the auto bailouts) that he could help with this.

[Midtowner]

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said there regarding the source, but my question stands. Do you really believe that issues like this aren't in Obama's long term goals? Imagine the amount of redistribution and the amount of "fairness" he could enact would be worth lots and lots of votes.

I actually have no idea what his long term goals are. Neither does that bull**** website.

[LiveLaughLove]

I'm not going to buy a bull**** press release from a bull**** astroturf group as Gospel.

http://www.nationalseniorscouncil.org/

I mean that ^ is the source of this rumor. Right wing astroturf sites have been known to just make **** up to scare people. Apparently there was a hearing where one person from some pensions group spoke in favor of this. Then the article states that Mark Iwry is against 401Ks.

When you do a Google Search for Mark Iwry criticism 401K search and get results like this:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=mark%20iwry%20criticism%20401K&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=cb629d3c6571b600&bpcl=39650382&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&biw=1599&bih=824

[lots of RW astroturf sites and forums quoting verbatim the same line from the National Seniors Council press release]

It is unquestionably made-up bull**** seeded to various RW media sites hoping that someone who matters will actually notice and believe the lie.

Is US News and World Report to RW for you?

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/23/would-obama-dems-kill-401k-plans


House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return.

It's being discussed and is a real possibility for the Democrats. The only thing that will stop them is Republican control of the House.

Hardly made up BS. Unquestionably.

[FaninAma]

which is?

Collapse the debt.

It drives me crazy that the government wants to take control because they divide everybody in 2 classes: the producers and the dependents.

The problem is they treat both the same. Actually the dependents(or takers) are treated better under the progressive doctrines. I see it every day. Families who pay several hundred dollars a month for health insurance still are careful with running into the doctor because they have co-pays and deductibles while Medicaid patients run in at the drop of a hat including multiple visits for stupid **** like runny noses and coughs.

And Midtowner, I prefer you not comment on this post or any other posts of mine. I sort of despise you because of your political philosophy that I feel is the biggest reason for the mess this country is in right now.

Keynesian economics is a failure. It has been proven in every country that has tried it. The government is not filled with smart, bright or even competent people.

[Midtowner]

Is US News and World Report to RW for you?

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/23/would-obama-dems-kill-401k-plans

Really? Your link is to an editorial discussing what appears to be the same hearing and a different person testifying as the hearing referenced on the bull**** website. But is an editorial bull****? Let me introduce you to the editorial page of The Oklahoman.

It goes like this:

1) Take an obscure quote from someone outside of the administration;
2) Assume that because no one from the administration has denounced the person who uttered those words that the administration has fully adopted that point of view.
3) ???
4) OUTRAGE!!!


It's being discussed and is a real possibility for the Democrats. The only thing that will stop them is Republican control of the House.

Hardly made up BS. Unquestionably.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. All I know is I don't see it passing. Didn't work for Bush when he wanted to spend his political capital on privatizing social security (or whatever the hell he was trying to do). It won't work now.

[pphilfran]

Collapse the debt.

It drives me crazy that the government wants to take control because they divide everybody in 2 classes: the producers and the dependents.

The problem is they treat both the same. Actually the the dependents(or takers) are treated better under the progressive doctrines.

And Midtowner, I prefer you not comment on this post or any other posts of mine. I sort of despise you because of your political philosophy especially after having a terrible week seeing the consequences the progressive agenda has wreaked on my profession and it's victims that fall prey to the policies.

lol

[LiveLaughLove]

Really? Your link is to an editorial discussing what appears to be the same hearing and a different person testifying as the hearing referenced on the bull**** website. But is an editorial bull****? Let me introduce you to the editorial page of The Oklahoman.

It goes like this:

1) Take an obscure quote from someone outside of the administration;
2) Assume that because no one from the administration has denounced the person who uttered those words that the administration has fully adopted that point of view.
3) ???
4) OUTRAGE!!!



Perhaps. Perhaps not. All I know is I don't see it passing. Didn't work for Bush when he wanted to spend his political capital on privatizing social security (or whatever the hell he was trying to do). It won't work now.

Really? Are you saying the house dems did NOT invite Ms. Ghilarducci, to speak on this subject, and that she did not say what she said?

She herself wrote an op-ed in the NYTimes, that bastion of crazy RW'ers about this and has written a book about it. She's also a grad of UC Berkley, imagine that.

You are going to hide behind the whole thing being bogus because it is part of an editorial? Not everything in an editorial is editorialized. Bury that head deep mid. It might help if you stick your fingers in your ears and shout, "na na na na, I can't hear you!" while you're doing it. LOL.

[LiveLaughLove]

Collapse the debt.

It drives me crazy that the government wants to take control because they divide everybody in 2 classes: the producers and the dependents.

The problem is they treat both the same. Actually the the dependents(or takers) are treated better under the progressive doctrines.

And Midtowner, I prefer you not comment on this post or any other posts of mine. I sort of despise you because of your political philosophy especially after having a terrible week seeing the consequences the progressive agenda has wreaked on my profession and it's victims that fall prey to the policies.

On the contrary, I love his commenting on mine. My wife is constantly asking me why I am laughing, and I tell her one of the local Sooner libs is cracking me up. Usually, it's mid these days. I miss ict though. He was worth belly laughs.

[pphilfran]

Mid is not in the same league as ict...

[FaninAma]

On the contrary, I love his commenting on mine. My wife is constantly asking me why I am laughing, and I tell her one of the local Sooner libs is cracking me up. Usually, it's mid these days. I miss ict though. He was worth belly laughs.

Just a bad week watching the total abuse of the medical system by those who have no personal financial investment in it or most of the rest of the country. And it is about to get a lot worse under the ACA. I am tired of listening to the liberal drivel of those who have no f'ing clue about the consequences of the policies they tout.

[LiveLaughLove]

Just a bad week watching the total abuse of the medical system by those who have no personal financial investment in it or most of the rest of the country. And it is about to get a lot worse under the ACA. I am tired of listening to the liberal drivel of those who have no f'ing clue about the consequences of the policies they tout.

I hear ya man. Maybe I might suggest just walking away from news and here for a bit altogether. Even way before the election I felt better when I stayed away from news of all kinds.

I keep getting drawn back in to it though, because I do care so passionately about our country and what we are doing to my kids (of which there are many).

I laugh at 'em mostly though. The ones on here are harmless dolts (in that they have no political clout) and can be pretty entertaining.

[LiveLaughLove]

Mid is not in the same league as ict...

I don't know. I'll bet I've shown my wife his posts more than anyone's. She knows him as "that lawyer guy again, unbelievable".

ict is probably just a normal run of the mill publicly educated lib, semi coherent, in other words.

[diverdog]

Just a bad week watching the total abuse of the medical system by those who have no personal financial investment in it or most of the rest of the country. And it is about to get a lot worse under the ACA. I am tired of listening to the liberal drivel of those who have no f'ing clue about the consequences of the policies they tout.

Did you see the story on 60 Minutes last weekend on how the for profit hospitals were demanding their doctors fill up hospital beds or else? The reason ACA has come up is the total failure of our private care system to control cost.

[okie52]

Did you see the story on 60 Minutes last weekend on how the for profit hospitals were demanding their doctors fill up hospital beds or else? The reason ACA has come up is the total failure of our private care system to control cost.

And ACA will do almost nothing to contain costs.

[FaninAma]

I hear ya man. Maybe I might suggest just walking away from news and here for a bit altogether. Even way before the election I felt better when I stayed away from news of all kinds.

I keep getting drawn back in to it though, because I do care so passionately about our country and what we are doing to my kids (of which there are many).

I laugh at 'em mostly though. The ones on here are harmless dolts (in that they have no political clout) and can be pretty entertaining.

Same here. My oldest duaghter who is a senior at OU thinks she wants to go into medicine. It's hard for me to watch her work so hard toward a career in which she will essentially be dat the mercy of government beaurocrats and politicians. Physicians who should have 10 or more years to practice are dropping like flies because they are just fed up with the government takeover and the additional burden they impose on physcians.

[pphilfran]

I don't know. I'll bet I've shown my wife his posts more than anyone's. She knows him as "that lawyer guy again, unbelievable".

ict is probably just a normal run of the mill publicly educated lib, semi coherent, in other words.

I may not always agree with MId but he always brings the reason of his thoughts to the table and backs them with some basic facts...

No doubt in my mind he adds to the board...

[BermudaSooner]

Perhaps. Perhaps not. All I know is I don't see it passing. Didn't work for Bush when he wanted to spend his political capital on privatizing social security (or whatever the hell he was trying to do). It won't work now.

Alright, let's say it won't pass. Question is, do you favor the gubment fulling running the country's pension scheme?

[cleller]

Its odd that the experts are saying this issue will hurt lower income people the most, yet the liberal side here is defending it.

As for "everything should be on the table", I wish it were. Until some folks are forced to either use birth control, get married, or put babies up for adoption, everything is NOT on the table.

[Midtowner]

Alright, let's say it won't pass. Question is, do you favor the gubment fulling running the country's pension scheme?

Maybe there's something out there I'd approve of, but I can't imagine what. I'd have to see something specific before I could decide either way. That said, the excerpts of what someone supposedly said at those House meetings are bonkers, but maybe there's some wisdom in there somewhere. That is to say that if people fail to provide for themselves, in this country, the taxpayer ends up holding the bag. If there's some way to perhaps force the poor to save more money for themselves, financed perhaps by a corresponding hike of the minimum wage to boost income and dull the blow, I could support that so long as those over a certain income can opt-out and choose to save or not save at their own peril.

[pphilfran]

Who is defending the elimination of a 401k?

[cleller]

Maybe there's something out there I'd approve of, but I can't imagine what. I'd have to see something specific before I could decide either way. That said, the excerpts of what someone supposedly said at those House meetings are bonkers, but maybe there's some wisdom in there somewhere. That is to say that if people fail to provide for themselves, in this country, the taxpayer ends up holding the bag. If there's some way to perhaps force the poor to save more money for themselves, financed perhaps by a corresponding hike of the minimum wage to boost income and dull the blow, I could support that so long as those over a certain income can opt-out and choose to save or not save at their own peril.

If I follow, does this mean that to keep the taxpayer from "holding the bag", you would advocate raising the minimum wage, then have the government force workers to save some of it?

In exchange for this, would some programs be cut?

Parts of that could be appealing, but forcing employers to raise wages might be a can of worms. In a way, making all workers pay some income taxes would accomplish a similar goal. Either you can pay them more, and make them save some, to offset taxpayer's funding of their needs, or you can tax them some, for the same goal.

[Midtowner]

I sort of despise you because of your political philosophy that I feel is the biggest reason for the mess this country is in right now.

You need to work on growing a thicker skin if you can't even handle being exposed to ideas you disagree with on the internet.

I agree, Medicaid is effed up and it's not fair to people who pay for insurance. Who I'm most concerned about though, and I see this ever day with divorcing couples (and I actually think children of divorce get a better deal than kids with married parents). In every single divorce decree we do in Oklahoma, it is required that someone be ordered to provide medical insurance for the children. Conversely, lots of married couples simply choose to spend the money on other things.

Sixty some-odd million folks have no health insurance at all in this country. Those are working people--folks who make too much to qualify for Medicaid. ObamaCare will at least put a serious dent in that. It did in Massachusetts.

Keynesian economics works if you can continue to grow your economy. You basically grow your way out of the debt and use government spending to 'prime the pump.' Yeah, I've seen the Keynes/Hayek rap video (and think it's great), but we're on the Keynesian path for better or worse. I tend to hope the 'better' outcome is the one we end up with.

--and really, if you say you don't want me to reply to something, I'm going to reply. Almost guaranteed. If you can't handle it, take the coward's way out and put me on ignore.

[Midtowner]

If I follow, does this mean that to keep the taxpayer from "holding the bag", you would advocate raising the minimum wage, then have the government force workers to save some of it?

In exchange for this, would some programs be cut?

Parts of that could be appealing, but forcing employers to raise wages might be a can of worms. Couldn't we just make all workers pay some income taxes?

It could be phased in. I'm just explaining the framework of something I could support. Commandeering my IRA? Hell to the no. I save 20% of every dollar I earn and will hopefully have a nice nest egg for retirement.

[pphilfran]

--and really, if you say you don't want me to reply to something, I'm going to reply. Almost guaranteed. If you can't handle it, take the coward's way out and put me on ignore.

lol

[FaninAma]

And ACA will do almost nothing to contain costs.

The ACA will increase cost. I guarantee you it will. The only reason the ACA is here is so the government has an excuse to put in some form of rationing. There will still be 2 different levels of quality in the healthcare system, those on the public plan and those with private coverage. They will not be able to legislate a private option out of existence.

BTW, a large part of the reason that healthcare is so expensive is because the government payor plans do not reimburse enough to cover the cost of treasting those patients.

[pphilfran]

The ACA will increase cost. I guarantee you it will. The only reason the ACA is here is so the government has an excuse to put in some form of rationing. There will still be 2 different levels of quality in the healthcare system, those on the public plan and those with private coverage. They will not be able to legislate a private option out of existence.

BTW, a large part of the reason that healthcare is so expensive is because the government payor plans do not reimburse enough to cover the cost of treasting those patients.

If the government paid more then those in the private sector would pay less...but the overall cost, as a percent of GDP, for healthcare in the US would still be the same and would still be significantly higher than other countries...

[FaninAma]

If the government paid more then those in the private sector would pay less...but the overall cost, as a percent of GDP, for healthcare in the US would still be the same and would still be significantly higher than other countries...

The only way to control costs is through rationing.

[pphilfran]

The only way to control costs is through rationing.

Maybe so...

[Midtowner]

The only way to control costs is through rationing.

--or charging less like other countries do.

[Midtowner]

The ACA will increase cost. I guarantee you it will. The only reason the ACA is here is so the government has an excuse to put in some form of rationing. There will still be 2 different levels of quality in the healthcare system, those on the public plan and those with private coverage. They will not be able to legislate a private option out of existence.

BTW, a large part of the reason that healthcare is so expensive is because the government payor plans do not reimburse enough to cover the cost of treasting those patients.

A good friend of mine is a billing consultant for small medical practices and says basically the same things. The problem is, y'all don't really know how this is going to shake out. In Oklahoma, yeah, we're kind of screwed because Fallin turned down the Medicaid money which would have added a lot more to the SoonerCare roles and been a bit of a bonanza for medical practices.

The other side of things is that a lot of your mom 'n pop practices are not very efficient, have a huge amount of unnecessary overhead and are terrible at collecting their A/R. Hire a professional to look at your A/R and I'll bet you can find a lot of additional revenue.

[Soonerjeepman]

If there's some way to perhaps force the poor to save more money for themselves, financed perhaps by a corresponding hike of the minimum wage to boost income and dull the blow,

jeeze and you say pro life, anti gay marriage is gov intrusion? but telling a business they MUST PAY MORE than the job actually is worth and telling people they have to save...wow. You guys kill me~

Why not cut a bunch of entitlements out? problem is the urban folks WANT what everyone else has and wants, and won't take no. They live FOR THE MOMENT because the see no future...or DON'T WANT to see it.

[Midtowner]

jeeze and you say pro life, anti gay marriage is gov intrusion? but telling a business they MUST PAY MORE than the job actually is worth and telling people they have to save...wow. You guys kill me~

Not surprising that you're against minimum wage laws... wow. How about child labor laws? How about workplace safety laws? Oh emm gee FORCING employers not to kill their employees. We have all kinds of rules about employers treat employees, minimum wage laws are just another.

Like I said, with folks at a certain income level, they're going to end up on the dole one way or the other. Why not collect some of that money directly from them over their lifetime, buy some sort of government supported annuity and decrease welfare costs.

I always hear the gnashing of the teeth when minimum wage goes up, jobs are lost... never see it. If an employer has too many employees, they lay 'em off.


Why not cut a bunch of entitlements out? problem is the urban folks WANT what everyone else has and wants, and won't take no. They live FOR THE MOMENT because the see no future...or DON'T WANT to see it.

What's an "urban" person?

[Soonerjeepman]

brother is a doc in Mississippi, a fellow doc didn't give a medicare patient his script because his drug test came back with coke/pot in the system. The doc told the patient that and the patient said he wanted his $3 CO PAY BACK...

I asked about just refusing service....he said the gov will just pass a law saying in order to get licensed you'll have to.

[Soonerjeepman]

I NEVER said I was against min wage laws, not sure if you've noticed but I teach in urban KC. Have for 23 yrs, I've done a ton of giving over my 23 yrs....just some FYI. Have seen the abuse of the welfare system ALL THE TIME, throwing money at it won't work. People are greedy.

Just don't think forcing businesses to raise the wage for someone flippin burgers is right. If the demand is there great. If the business WANTS to pay that great.

Let me ask you...being a lawyer...your fee "cheap" or in line with the business rate? If not, why do you charge your rate? Do you charge people less if they can't pay?

[Midtowner]

Just don't think forcing businesses to raise the wage for someone flippin burgers is right. If the demand is there great. If the business WANTS to pay that great.

The demand won't ever be there for unskilled labor. The working poor can't afford to have money taken out of their checks, you have to push that off onto everyone else. Businesses will just raise prices and we'll all end up paying into the poor folks' retirement, but at some point, we need to make sure there's some incentive to work rather than live life on the dole.


Let me ask you...being a lawyer...your fee "cheap" or in line with the business rate? If not, why do you charge your rate? Do you charge people less if they can't pay?

I charge the same rate to all of my family law and civil clients except in some situations where it's a case I'm particularly interested in and will charge a nominal fee because the person is in dire straits and really in need of help (I do this for battered women, for example, who need to get a protective order... it's usually not a lot of work, and you could be saving a life). I also do volunteer work representing children in juvenile deprived cases, I charge them nothing. I do, however, manage to remain mostly in the black.

[LiveLaughLove]

You do realize that raising minimum wage never get's people out of poverty? Right? It was never meant to be a living wage, it was meant to be for beginning jobs.

When you raise minimum wage it simply creates inflation. When minimum wage was $3.75/ hour, a fast food value meal was about $3.50. Now they are around $7.00.

If the cost of labor goes up, one of two things has to happen. Either the product being sold is raised in price, or they cut staff. If everyone raises prices, the cost of living goes up and the new minimum wage doesn't give a living wage once again.

It's the circle of life. :)

Currently welfare spending per day is $168 for every household in poverty. The average workers income is $137 per day. The average per hour rate for the poverty households is $30.60/ hour. The average worker income is $25.03.

http://budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=760eefda-3613-438b-a3f2-d73f8b003454

So we are spending more on poverty than an average household makes. How much is enough? If this isn't being funneled down to the poverty stricken, then how inefficient is our government and why should we be throwing MORE good money after bad?

I know those in poverty aren't receiving that $30 bucks an hour, so where is it all going?

How much should minimum wage be? Who are the brilliant people that should decide that? The same ones that are running us in to the ground now?

Do you think a hike in the minimum wage would spur economic activity by business owners? Or would it further slow it down?

Show me where it would actually help everyone and I'm all for it. $50/hour? $25/hour? $15/hour? More? Less? Whatever you decide, why not more? Why not less?

You see when you cease to let the market decide, it's all just speculation by policy wonks that haven't worked in the private sector for the most part.

[cleller]

The demand won't ever be there for unskilled labor.

You hear that, Mexico and Central America?

It all goes back to the same refrain. Some feel the government should have a hand in, and oversee most aspects of our lives. Others don't.
In this case, they think should decide how much is too much to save, and how much is too little, adjusting the rules whenever they need more money. The Dems are so intent on getting the cash from the high earners they're willing to sock it to the low earners, too.

[yermom]

save all you want, but why do i need to foot the bill?

[cleller]

save all you want, but why do i need to foot the bill?


I can't see how you'd need to. These people trying to save money aren't asking.

[yermom]

401k is a tax break to save money. it's a government program that you are whining about someone might maybe change.

it's kinda hilarious, really.

[soonercruiser]

living for today is so much easier than planning for the future.

It's all about redistributionist liberals getting control of more of our money.
They can't just wait until we withdraw it upon retirement.....they need the tax dollars now to make Obama's redistributionist theories look more credible to the lemmings. :heart-borken:
That is all!

[soonercruiser]

A good friend of mine is a billing consultant for small medical practices and says basically the same things. The problem is, y'all don't really know how this is going to shake out. In Oklahoma, yeah, we're kind of screwed because Fallin turned down the Medicaid money which would have added a lot more to the SoonerCare roles and been a bit of a bonanza for medical practices.

The other side of things is that a lot of your mom 'n pop practices are not very efficient, have a huge amount of unnecessary overhead and are terrible at collecting their A/R. Hire a professional to look at your A/R and I'll bet you can find a lot of additional revenue.

NO! Mr. Lawyer!
The other side of the issue is really that if Fallin would have taken the $$, the state would have been tied into a fed gobment system that would have obligated much more money in the future of OKlahoma's economy, without Oklahoma being ablew to say "Boo" about it. It called the "strings that are attached" to accepting the funds!
Stick to you field of interest.

[LiveLaughLove]

401k is a tax break to save money. it's a government program that you are whining about someone might maybe change.

it's kinda hilarious, really.

Only if you believe that ALL money is the governments to start with, and they just graciously allow us to keep some of it.

A tax break is not a subsidy, it is a savings. It's already your money.

Upside down world.

[diverdog]

It's all about redistributionist liberals getting control of more of our money.
They can't just wait until we withdraw it upon retirement.....they need the tax dollars now to make Obama's redistributionist theories look more credible to the lemmings. :heart-borken:
That is all!

No we need it to pay folks like you who have federal retirements, gummit health care and SS.

I just do not get why all the folks on here who have worked for the government or work for the government don't get that if we do not tax the rich they will be SOL.

[SCOUT]

No we need it to pay folks like you who have federal retirements, gummit health care and SS.

I just do not get why all the folks on here who have worked for the government or work for the government don't get that if we do not tax the rich they will be SOL.
I am equally confused by those who suggest that only a small portion of the populace are the solution to the problem.

[diverdog]

Only if you believe that ALL money is the governments to start with, and they just graciously allow us to keep some of it.

A tax break is not a subsidy, it is a savings. It's already your money.

Upside down world.

401k's we are a gift to mutual fund companies and Wall Street. When they were devised they were never intended to replace retirement plans. They are one of the biggest hoaxes ever laid on the citizens of this nation. Retirement is the next big crisis and we will all pay for it.

[diverdog]

I am equally confused by those who suggest that only a small portion of the populace are the solution to the problem.

They are part of the solution. This whole class warfare bull**** the Republicans have been laying out there for years has finally been exposed. Only the fringe right believes it. The majority of us realized we got screwed.

Speculation should be taxed at the same rate as labor. When people saw that Romney had an effective tax rate lower than theirs they decided it is time to fix the tax code.

[LiveLaughLove]

401k's we are a gift to mutual fund companies and Wall Street. When they were devised they were never intended to replace retirement plans. They are one of the biggest hoaxes ever laid on the citizens of this nation. Retirement is the next big crisis and we will all pay for it.

I'm no champion of 401k's. Don't know much about them. I'll take your word for it.

I have a problem with tax cuts being considered the equivalent of welfare though. A tax cut allows me to keep MY money that I earned. It's not a government handout.

A government handout would be if I get back in tax refunds more than I put in. THEN, we could say I'm getting subsidized by the government. Before that point, it's my money and nobodies giving me anything.

[cleller]

They are part of the solution. This whole class warfare bull**** the Republicans have been laying out there for years has finally been exposed. Only the fringe right believes it. The majority of us realized we got screwed.

Speculation should be taxed at the same rate as labor. When people saw that Romney had an effective tax rate lower than theirs they decided it is time to fix the tax code.

When do we get to the point that we realize that simply looking for income to tax is not going to be enough to fix the mess we are in?

[Midtowner]

NO! Mr. Lawyer!
The other side of the issue is really that if Fallin would have taken the $$, the state would have been tied into a fed gobment system that would have obligated much more money in the future of OKlahoma's economy, without Oklahoma being ablew to say "Boo" about it. It called the "strings that are attached" to accepting the funds!
Stick to you field of interest.

Yep, we would have had to match 'em $1 for every $9. What a horrible blow.

And the simple fact is that the every $9 would have grown the economy enough to pay for the $1, but that's beside the point, right?

[LiveLaughLove]

They are part of the solution. This whole class warfare bull**** the Republicans have been laying out there for years has finally been exposed. Only the fringe right believes it. The majority of us realized we got screwed.

Speculation should be taxed at the same rate as labor. When people saw that Romney had an effective tax rate lower than theirs they decided it is time to fix the tax code.

You actually think its the republicans that play the class warfare?!

Abso-freaking-lutely unbelievable. I get speechless very seldom at the stuff said here, but that rendered me speechless for a moment.

Democrats sir, invented it, perfected it, and have been using it at every opportunity. I can't even comprehend the upside down bazaaro leftist claptrap world you have to live in to actually believe the republicans are the ones that play that game.

The leftist demagogues that use it at every stinking opportunity are legion, starting with the current resident of the white house. After him, oh just about every elected democrat on capital hill, every msm journalist, every union head, every professor, and every forum board poster of liberal persuasion.

Jeez Louise.

[Soonerjeepman]

What's an "urban" person?

ummm, ya know suburban...urban...someone who lives more in a "downtown" environment....in education it mainly talks of inner city schools, poverty.

That is great you do legal work for those at a reduced rate for those that can't pay.

Unfortunately the school system is rewarding those parents that don't try and better themselves, how? ALL the blame for scores, violence, dropout rate becomes the "schools" issues. When in reality it's family, no drive to get better, no desire to have your kids do better than you. Guess I see the gov as part of the problem with the welfare/entitlements. Yes, there are truly needy folks that need a hand UP not out. Obviously people differ on HOW that is done. I'm sure everyone on this forum has helped someone out or receive some kind of help themselves.

I just find it ironic that most dems and liberals argue the less gov intrusion in SOME parts but not all. If the dems and libs argue stay out of everything, fine, but they don't. I see forcing a mandated wage as part of that intrusion. You can charge what you charge because folks pay it. If all the sudden everyone said not paying a lawyer $200 an hour or whatever you make then you couldn't charge that. If I didn't make a decent living teaching I wouldn't. I really enjoy working with the "urban" (low income) kids, but reality is I enjoy living as well.

I'd say you are one of lawyers that got into law to help people, justice, not just the $ or prestige. That's great. I definitely didn't go into education for the $ either but I do see everyday how the gov welfare system is continuing to put generations after generations on the gov plan with no end in site.

[LiveLaughLove]

ummm, ya know suburban...urban...someone who lives more in a "downtown" environment....in education it mainly talks of inner city schools, poverty.

That is great you do legal work for those at a reduced rate for those that can't pay.

Unfortunately the school system is rewarding those parents that don't try and better themselves, how? ALL the blame for scores, violence, dropout rate becomes the "schools" issues. When in reality it's family, no drive to get better, no desire to have your kids do better than you. Guess I see the gov as part of the problem with the welfare/entitlements. Yes, there are truly needy folks that need a hand UP not out. Obviously people differ on HOW that is done. I'm sure everyone on this forum has helped someone out or receive some kind of help themselves.

I just find it ironic that most dems and liberals argue the less gov intrusion in SOME parts but not all. If the dems and libs argue stay out of everything, fine, but they don't. I see forcing a mandated wage as part of that intrusion. You can charge what you charge because folks pay it. If all the sudden everyone said not paying a lawyer $200 an hour or whatever you make then you couldn't charge that. If I didn't make a decent living teaching I wouldn't. I really enjoy working with the "urban" (low income) kids, but reality is I enjoy living as well.

I'd say you are one of lawyers that got into law to help people, justice, not just the $ or prestige. That's great. I definitely didn't go into education for the $ either but I do see everyday how the gov welfare system is continuing to put generations after generations on the gov plan with no end in site.

He was calling you a racist. He just didn't have the balls to come out and say it.

According to the left you used a "code word", like incompetent when you mention a black liberal politician.

It was ok for their side to call Condi Rice a "House Nigga", that wasn't racist, but incompetent in regard to Susan Rice is racist.

Once more, upside down bazaaro world.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

There's no way that passes. What a clustereff that'd be anyway. No way in Hell.
Bull****! Everything that is communist has come to pass, more to come. You bet!!

[TheHumanAlphabet]

It could be phased in. I'm just explaining the framework of something I could support. Commandeering my IRA? Hell to the no. I save 20% of every dollar I earn and will hopefully have a nice nest egg for retirement.
With your fiscal diligence. I am shocked you are a lib. I would expect you to be paycheck to paycheck. Why do you want Obama in your business?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Uffda

[diverdog]

You actually think its the republicans that play the class warfare?!

Abso-freaking-lutely unbelievable. I get speechless very seldom at the stuff said here, but that rendered me speechless for a moment.

Democrats sir, invented it, perfected it, and have been using it at every opportunity. I can't even comprehend the upside down bazaaro leftist claptrap world you have to live in to actually believe the republicans are the ones that play that game.

The leftist demagogues that use it at every stinking opportunity are legion, starting with the current resident of the white house. After him, oh just about every elected democrat on capital hill, every msm journalist, every union head, every professor, and every forum board poster of liberal persuasion.

Jeez Louise.


Ah no. We don't buy off on your bull****. The simple fact is that guys like Romney pay income taxes at a much lower effective rate than folks who are on a W2. It is high time that we start taxing labor at a lower rate than speculation....ie investment income.

BTW how many of you righties have sat here and labeled workers thugs?

Here is some homework for you. Look up Son Of Boss or the use of variable prepaid forward contracts to mitigate taxes.

[okiewaker]

Poor been voting Dem since the fifties and them dumb sumbee's still can't figure out how to get ID. Thay also still too stupid to recognize what they're voting for.

[SCOUT]

They are part of the solution. This whole class warfare bull**** the Republicans have been laying out there for years has finally been exposed. Only the fringe right believes it. The majority of us realized we got screwed.

Speculation should be taxed at the same rate as labor. When people saw that Romney had an effective tax rate lower than theirs they decided it is time to fix the tax code.
I can't comprehend how you think the Republicans are the class warfare perpetrators. I am hoping you are being facetious.

Speculation is also called investment. You know, how businesses grow. Growing the economy is our only hope in this mess. I don't understand why you would want to do something that would slow that.

[diverdog]

I can't comprehend how you think the Republicans are the class warfare perpetrators. I am hoping you are being facetious.

Speculation is also called investment. You know, how businesses grow. Growing the economy is our only hope in this mess. I don't understand why you would want to do something that would slow that.

So you don't think the comment about the 48% is not class warfare?

Look I do not have a thing against the rich. My problem is the Republican policy that is almost exclusively aimed at providing more and more tax cuts to the so called job creators when there are no jobs being created and the debt is soaring. Taxing the rich is not the solution but it is part of the solution. I believe in shared sacrifice. And yes the Dems also engage in class warfare. The results of both these policies is that families with incomes between $75,000 a year and $500,000 per year on W2's get screwed.

There is very little evidence that top marginal tax rates effect economic growth.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/tax-cuts-and-economic-growth/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/do-tax-cuts-lead-to-economic-growth.html?_r=0

The best way to grow the economy is to make stuff and export it. We have got to get back to being a manufacturing giant.

[cleller]

Ah no. We don't buy off on your bull****. The simple fact is that guys like Romney pay income taxes at a much lower effective rate than folks who are on a W2. It is high time that we start taxing labor at a lower rate than speculation....ie investment income.

BTW how many of you righties have sat here and labeled workers thugs?

.

Its the non-workers that I sit around calling thugs.

It the same old routine. If Romney takes uses policies put in place by the government to encourage investment and growth, he's an elitist. If its Obama's Costco buddy borrowing money to pay himself a dividend before Obama raises taxes, he's just being a good businessman, and looking out for his shareholders.

[diverdog]

Its the non-workers that I sit around calling thugs.

It the same old routine. If Romney takes uses policies put in place by the government to encourage investment and growth, he's an elitist. If its Obama's Costco buddy borrowing money to pay himself a dividend before Obama raises taxes, he's just being a good businessman, and looking out for his shareholders.

I understand. Neither one is wrong. It is the tax code that I have an issue with and it is not a fair tax code.

[Soonerjeepman]

I understand. Neither one is wrong. It is the tax code that I have an issue with and it is not a fair tax code.

BUT even you have to admit 95% of those voting for obama don't see it that way...THAT is the problem.

[diverdog]

BUT even you have to admit 95% of those voting for obama don't see it that way...THAT is the problem.

Maybe not 95% but it is probably high. :)

[BermudaSooner]

Ah no. We don't buy off on your bull****. The simple fact is that guys like Romney pay income taxes at a much lower effective rate than folks who are on a W2. It is high time that we start taxing labor at a lower rate than speculation....ie investment income.

BTW how many of you righties have sat here and labeled workers thugs?

Here is some homework for you. Look up Son Of Boss or the use of variable prepaid forward contracts to mitigate taxes.

Romney made $13.7 million in 2011 and gave $4 million away to charity. I guess what you are saying is he shouldn't have given away $4 million to charity. That evil bastard...he lowered his tax rate to 14.1% because he gave 30% of his income to charity. Oh, what an evil, evil, man.

Any of you libs give 30% of your income to charity...oh right, you just want us to...you don't actually want to yourself. Got it.

[Midtowner]

Bull****! Everything that is communist has come to pass, more to come. You bet!!

Name something communist which has come to pass.

[yermom]

Romney made $13.7 million in 2011 and gave $4 million away to charity. I guess what you are saying is he shouldn't have given away $4 million to charity. That evil bastard...he lowered his tax rate to 14.1% because he gave 30% of his income to charity. Oh, what an evil, evil, man.

Any of you libs give 30% of your income to charity...oh right, you just want us to...you don't actually want to yourself. Got it.

if by "charity" you mean the mormons. that shouldn't even count.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwindurgy/2012/05/17/an-inside-look-at-the-millions-mitt-romney-has-given-away/

why aren't they taxed again? spreading your garbage all over the world isn't exactly humanitarian aid. this whole thing in Russia is pretty funny

[BermudaSooner]

I understand. Neither one is wrong. It is the tax code that I have an issue with and it is not a fair tax code.

You are exactly right...any tax code where 47% pay nothing is completely unfair!

[BermudaSooner]

if by "charity" you mean the mormons. that shouldn't even count.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwindurgy/2012/05/17/an-inside-look-at-the-millions-mitt-romney-has-given-away/

why aren't they taxed again? spreading your garbage all over the world isn't exactly humanitarian aid. this whole thing in Russia is pretty funny

Actually, it seems Romney may agree with you...he only deducted $2.5 million--which basically means the charitable donations that weren't to the church--like the Tyler Foundation for kids with epilepsy.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/index.html

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Name something communist which has come to pass.

The Socialistcare...

[yermom]

you keep using that word, i do not think it means what you think it means

[diverdog]

You are exactly right...any tax code where 47% pay nothing is completely unfair!

They pay no income taxes but they do pay payroll taxes which maybe as high (if they are a very small business owner) as a percentage as what Mitt paid.

i think the price of living in this nation is that you pay income taxes as well as payroll taxes.

[BermudaSooner]

i think the price of living in this nation is that you pay income taxes as well as payroll taxes.

OK, so when do we start? I'm ready for us all to pay our "fair share." All I hear from the left is how I have to carry more and more of the burden, not how we are all going to pitch in and pay our fair share.

[pphilfran]

They pay no income taxes but they do pay payroll taxes which maybe as high (if they are a very small business owner) as a percentage as what Mitt paid.

i think the price of living in this nation is that you pay income taxes as well as payroll taxes.

DD, I am sick of hearing about the payroll tax..everyone gets a direct benefit...the lower pay scales get a much higher rate of return because some to the money payed in by the high wage earners is transferred to the lower income folks...

How about this...we should just get rid of SS and make it fair to all...

[Midtowner]

The Socialistcare...

Do you know what communism is?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Do you know what communism is?

Instead of asking like some arrogant plonker, why don't you tell all of us what it means...

[8timechamps]

For anyone interested, should this happen, it probably won't really be felt by most. I can't say that I am in favor of this, but at this point, everything needs to be looked at. The first thing that needs to be slashed is the Earned Income Credit, then move right on to interest deductions on second mortgages. Then I'd fold the Railroad Retirement System into Social Security. After those three things were gone, I'd take a long look at Social Security Disability, and so on.

Faninama hit the nail on the head, collecting more money on pre-retirement fund savings is not going to avoid issues for future generations. It's a quick-fix, that is neither quick, nor a fix.

When will the folks in D.C. start looking at foreign aid? Why are we pouring money into countries while ours goes to hell in a hand-basket?

[MR2-Sooner86]

Name something communist which has come to pass.

You obviously haven't studied. Let's see of the 10 Pillars of Communism...

- Income Tax
- Abolition of all rights of inheritance (Death Tax)
- Confiscation of the property of all rebels (Patriot Act gives the state the power to confiscate the land of "suspected" terrorist)
- Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose (Endangered Species Act is just one bill in the long list of many showing you that you really don't "own" your land)
- Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly (Federal Reserve)
- Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state (FCC, SOPA, PIPA)
- Free education for all children in government schools

Please, do your homework next time.

Next please.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Do you know what communism is?
Obviously more than you do...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

The moment those yahoos in Washington start to live life like the "governed" is the day I will respect them. We need term limits, now! Just to mute their power.

They need to be under SS, they need to have our medical plans, they need to live under OSHA rules, they need to have a retirement system that is similar to wnat most Americans have. Once they do that, they will earn respect, now they are elitist crap that live like monarchy... In a country that formed a government based on citizen respresentatives...

[Midtowner]

You obviously haven't studied. Let's see of the 10 Pillars of Communism...

- Income Tax
- Abolition of all rights of inheritance (Death Tax)
- Confiscation of the property of all rebels (Patriot Act gives the state the power to confiscate the land of "suspected" terrorist)
- Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose (Endangered Species Act is just one bill in the long list of many showing you that you really don't "own" your land)
- Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly (Federal Reserve)
- Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state (FCC, SOPA, PIPA)
- Free education for all children in government schools

Please, do your homework next time.

Next please.

And how is ObamaCare communist?

Instead of answering like some ignorant toolbag and showing you really are some sort of right wing wingnut who doesn't even share a common dictionary with the rest of the English speaking world, why not engage in some meaningful dialog? Find some actual source where Karl Marx, not some rightwing hackery website which misrepresents the 10 steps needed to achieve real communism, none of which we've taken.



Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.

Let's go through your absurd parentheticals:

"Death Tax" -- this is not "abolition of all rights of inheritance," this is an effective rate of about 17% after deductions on estates in excess of $5 million dollars. This tax only affects less than 1% of estates. Further, the policy here is different. Whereas Marx wanted to eliminate wealth, we're seeking to raise revenue for the federal government. Your logic is flawed and tin-foil-hatted. The policy aims are entirely different.

"Patriot Act"-- Are you referring to the part where with a warrant, the feds can seize funds of suspected terrorists engaged in money laundering? God how ignorant.. And you don't think if the feds wrongfully seized money, there's no recourse? This is a key part of our war on terror--attacking their finances, many of which used to be here and are now not here because of these sorts of provisions. Again, this is self preservation, not Karl Marx you silly Glen Becker.

"Endangered Species Act"-- Again, we're talking about <1% of land being impaired for something which is a compelling governmental interest. You really do "own" your land, but in the U.S. and with every sovereign, you always own your land subject to the allodial fee (you own your land in fee simple), that is legal tradition going back to before 1200 A.D. in our English legal tradition. The concept there is that the Lord, the sovereign has primary title to use all of the sovereign's land in any way he sees fit. This concept, however, was limited by the U.S. Constitution's 5th Amendment which prescribes a public use for anything taken and that the landowner must be compensated. Also, we do have laws in this country and you have to follow them. In that vein, the sovereign can impose building codes, can insist on noise and pollution controls and can insist that your land not be developed in order to protect an endangered species. You are entitled to no more than notice and a hearing, and this is not seizure any more than it would be a seizure if the government said you can't kill any mothereffer who sets foot on your property including the mail man.

"Federal Reserve"-- you mean to say there is no credit anywhere else in the United States? You'd be objectively, factually wrong.

"FCC, SOPA, "PIPA," how about Fox News, MSNBC and the Huffington Post? We have this thing called the 1st Amendment which protects free speech. It is not free speech, however, to violate copyrights. Further, the FCC exists to govern our limited airwaves, which are public property rented to various for-profit companies or allocated to things like police radio.

It must be awfully scary with the Muslim Marxist in charge who is coming for all your guns any day now. It appears you fundamentally do not understand the world you live in. Perhaps you should address that.

[Midtowner]

The moment those yahoos in Washington start to live life like the "governed" is the day I will respect them. We need term limits, now! Just to mute their power.

They need to be under SS, they need to have our medical plans, they need to live under OSHA rules, they need to have a retirement system that is similar to wnat most Americans have. Once they do that, they will earn respect, now they are elitist crap that live like monarchy... In a country that formed a government based on citizen respresentatives...

Term limits have been an unmitigated disaster in Oklahoma. The downside of a lack of term limits, is of course the little fiefdoms built up by those in power. There is a big downside to term limits though--that the entity lacks an institutional memory, or actually, that the institutional memory is possessed by the former legislators, i.e., the lobbyists. In Oklahoma, we have seen just that--the only permanent institutions in our legislative process are the lobbyists, and any way you slice it, those folks don't have the voters' best interests in mind.

[diverdog]

Term limits have been an unmitigated disaster in Oklahoma. The downside of a lack of term limits, is of course the little fiefdoms built up by those in power. There is a big downside to term limits though--that the entity lacks an institutional memory, or actually, that the institutional memory is possessed by the former legislators, i.e., the lobbyists. In Oklahoma, we have seen just that--the only permanent institutions in our legislative process are the lobbyists, and any way you slice it, those folks don't have the voters' best interests in mind.


Mid:

Can you give any examples?

[FaninAma]

When you take away the imprtance of getting re-elected in perputuity you have done a lot to weaken the power of lobbyists. Of course a politician can always accept a blatant bribe but at least then he runs the risk of prosecution.'

Term limits decrease the quid-pro-quo incentive of the lobbyist-politician relationship.

[Midtowner]

When you take away the imprtance of getting re-elected in perputuity you have done a lot to weaken the power of lobbyists. Of course a politician can always accept a blatant bribe but at least then he runs the risk of prosecution.'

Term limits decrease the quid-pro-quo incentive of the lobbyist-politician relationship.

It's actually the other way around. Long-term incumbents really don't have to worry about lobbyists foisting up some far-right or far-left challenger for a primary challenge. They have the name and the donors to stand pat..

And quid pro quo is alive and well with our term-limited legislators. My goodness, you had the anti-government Randy Brogden appointed just after he was out of the legislature, you have these guys like Ray Vaughn setting up fiefdoms at the county level and you have gentlemen like Bill Graves who use their campaign war chests and name recognition to score judgeships. Where the quid pro quo becomes much more corrupting is when it determines post-term limit employment as it almost did with the whole Debbie Leftwich/Randy Terrill situation.

Aside from elected office, the lobbyists themselves are basically all former legislators and some lobbies, e.g., the Chamber have almost dictatorial power over the legislature. If they want something done, it's not only set aside by the Oklahoman as the most important thing of the term, it happens. Heck, we had an embarrassing go-round with tort reform, I want to say in either the 09 or 10 session where the legislator presenting the legislation to the committee couldn't even answer questions about it because he didn't write it--a Chamber lobbyist did.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Ah, the ad hominem and the hasty generalization all rolled up into one last desperate attempt of a statist to save face from his flawed position.

You made a claim, got called on it, and got mad because you have no argument to counter. Just admit it and go on.


Instead of answering like some ignorant toolbag and showing you really are some sort of right wing wingnut who doesn't even share a common dictionary with the rest of the English speaking world, why not engage in some meaningful dialog? Find some actual source where Karl Marx, not some rightwing hackery website which misrepresents the 10 steps needed to achieve real communism, none of which we've taken.

You really have no idea what you're talking about do you? I figured you weren't the intellectual superhero you claim to be but this is just you spilling unneeded f*ckdumb all over the place.

I didn't need to go to any sites. It's in the Communist Manifesto. I know it's in there because I've read it. Unlike some people, I did my homework.

Again, do yours and maybe you too can talk with the big kids about big kid subjects.

Also, these "misrepresent" what "real" communism is? You really are a silly little statist. Reading between the lines it sounds like you're one of those hopelessly lost in the flawed view of utopian big, compassionate, "fair" statism.

There is no misrepresenting. Even anarcho-communist, who disagree with Marx on several issues (like vanguardism), hold these views. Those views are to kill the individual.

Don't believe me?

- “For too long in this society we have celebrated unrestrained individualism over the common community.”
- "At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism...we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice for the greater good."
- “We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”
- "We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."
- "All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person."
- “There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between the State and the Individual; between the State, which demands, and the individual, who attempts to evade such demands.”
- “The main plank...is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood.”

These quotes were made by the following:
- Adolf Hitler
- Hillary Clinton
- Benito Mussolini
- Ted Kennedy
- Vladimir Lenin
- Joe Biden
- Nikita Khrushchev

I won't tell you who said what. You'll have to figure that one out but when asking "what communist thing has come to pass?" I give you the American Left. They're an enemy of the individual. Sadly, your post shows how far their corruption of the innocent has gone.

I could go over all the points but if you don't even know the basic source material or philosophy then what's the point? You were all over the place with no understanding of what I was saying. That and the fact it was "blah blah big government is good blah blah." That and you "skipped" the income tax part. Hard to defend that one huh?

Not to mention in another thread on death taxes you were arguing on why certain "well off" people deserve to have their property and wealth seized by the state.

I know your stance and I know where you're coming from. You hate individuality and love the glorious state and all the "good" it does. So there's really no need to argue on why you're so gung-ho to give up your personal liberty.

There are only really two types of societies: Those that recognize and uphold individual and civil rights and those that don't. If, at the heart of it, you see the desire to control, purify, cleanse, protect, contain, steer, monitor and herd individuals in the name of "society" or "the state," does it really matter if they're fascist, communist, socialist, theocrats, or dictators? Statism is statism.

And unfortunately I see much of the above in your post that are "needed" for the "greater good."

Maybe one day you'll take the red pill.

TL;DR
Statist gonna state.

[Midtowner]

And you have yet to show how any of the 10 planks has been accomplished.

17% of amounts over $5MM is not the confiscation of all wealth no matter how you whine about it. A few out of context quotes prove nothing. ObamaCare is not a state takeover of private services. No matter what hyperbole you come up with, your facts come up short.

[cleller]

Good ole Drunkard Whore-chasing Ted Kennedy. You really have to wonder at the mindset of a party that would support and revere this man through so many deadly mistakes.
I hadn't heard until recently that in 1983 he sent fellow Dem Senator John Tunney to Moscow to deal with the KGB and Yuri Andropov. Their mission: trade favors to try to defeat Reagan in 1984. Cold war communists were his allies of choice.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Good ole Drunkard Whore-chasing Ted Kennedy. You really have to wonder at the mindset of a party that would support and revere this man through so many deadly mistakes.
I hadn't heard until recently that in 1983 he sent fellow Dem Senator John Tunney to Moscow to deal with the KGB and Yuri Andropov. Their mission: trade favors to try to defeat Reagan in 1984. Cold war communists were his allies of choice.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

Did Tunney set up the KGB with 401K's?

[Midtowner]

Good ole Drunkard Whore-chasing Ted Kennedy. You really have to wonder at the mindset of a party that would support and revere this man through so many deadly mistakes.
I hadn't heard until recently that in 1983 he sent fellow Dem Senator John Tunney to Moscow to deal with the KGB and Yuri Andropov. Their mission: trade favors to try to defeat Reagan in 1984. Cold war communists were his allies of choice.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

Kennedy reverence makes about as much sense as Reagan reverence. None whatsoever. They were both flawed figures and are held out as being much different than they actually were. You have to remember the 80s was a time of great uncertainty and certainly dealing with the USSR to try and calm things down probably looked like a viable way to save the world from a nuclear holocaust.

[cleller]

Kennedy reverence makes about as much sense as Reagan reverence. None whatsoever. They were both flawed figures and are held out as being much different than they actually were. You have to remember the 80s was a time of great uncertainty and certainly dealing with the USSR to try and calm things down probably looked like a viable way to save the world from a nuclear holocaust.

I remember the 80s very well. I also remember the 70s and late 60s. You couldn't trust the USSR any further than you could throw them. Reagan dealt with them in a way they understood, and through established channels in public view -- and got results. He left office 25 years ago, trying to blame him for something today is a low down desperate strategy. Kennedy was doing back door dealing with an enemy regime to try and help himself get elected. If it was something noble, he didn't need to keep it a secret.

So far, the lefties and media have this wan little campaign to discredit Reagan going on, that only appeals to their sect. If they cared to turn their spotlight toward Kennedy, and the skeletons in his closets, you'd be up to your eyeballs in bones, booze, and whores.

Kennedy did have an ace in the hole, no matter what happened, he could always claim:
a. I can't remember, it was traumatic
b. I can't remember, I was drunk

He'd then get yet another pass.

[cleller]

Did Tunney set up the KGB with 401K's?

Prostitutes and Canadian booze.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Did Tunney set up the KGB with 401K's?

NO but he murdered a woman and his money is drug running money...

[Midtowner]

I remember the 80s very well. I also remember the 70s and late 60s. You couldn't trust the USSR any further than you could throw them. Reagan dealt with them in a way they understood, and through established channels in public view -- and got results. He left office 25 years ago, trying to blame him for something today is a low down desperate strategy. Kennedy was doing back door dealing with an enemy regime to try and help himself get elected. If it was something noble, he didn't need to keep it a secret.

So far, the lefties and media have this wan little campaign to discredit Reagan going on, that only appeals to their sect. If they cared to turn their spotlight toward Kennedy, and the skeletons in his closets, you'd be up to your eyeballs in bones, booze, and whores.

Kennedy did have an ace in the hole, no matter what happened, he could always claim:
a. I can't remember, it was traumatic
b. I can't remember, I was drunk

He'd then get yet another pass.

And just the same--that Kennedy was trying to get elected President 25 years ago is pretty darn irrelevant. None of those 10 planks have been accomplished or are being worked on with the intent of completing a Marxist policy. If the best you can do is show some conspiracy between Ted Kennedy, who was basically a power-hungry sociopath and the USSR 25 years ago which did nothing to advance any of these policies, you lose the argument.

It comes back to the fact that since the feds haven't attempted to confiscate all private property and all wealth, we still aren't communist or even heading that direction.

[cleller]

And just the same--that Kennedy was trying to get elected President 25 years ago is pretty darn irrelevant. None of those 10 planks have been accomplished or are being worked on with the intent of completing a Marxist policy. If the best you can do is show some conspiracy between Ted Kennedy, who was basically a power-hungry sociopath and the USSR 25 years ago which did nothing to advance any of these policies, you lose the argument.

It comes back to the fact that since the feds haven't attempted to confiscate all private property and all wealth, we still aren't communist or even heading that direction.

I wasn't the one with the 10 planks thing, that was the MR-2 guy.

I was just dogging Kennedy, and the folks that voted for him for 30+ years despite his unfit moral compass. Avoiding confrontation with Reagan by dealing with the Commies, what a guy.