New CBO numbers: Obamacare will cost the US 2.5 million jobs

They could have been ... had folks not thought it was a slush fund for discretionary spending .. and listening to Senator Moynihan could have helped also.

The problem is goof-balls like you look at them as "retirement" plans with benefits.

They were NEVER intended to be that ..

.... nor was the fund intended to provide for a growing population of lazy asses who want to sop up on the government tit and get insurance rather than work for a living. Originally Posted by LexusLover

the fund is supported by people paying into their account, ie, their money. being a lazy ass has nothing to do with it

They could have been ... had folks not thought it was a slush fund for discretionary spending .. and listening to Senator Moynihan could have helped also.

The problem is goof-balls like you look at them as "retirement" plans with benefits.

They were NEVER intended to be that ..

.... nor was the fund intended to provide for a growing population of lazy asses who want to sop up on the government tit and get insurance rather than work for a living. Originally Posted by LexusLover

They need to be adjusted from time to time due to any number of factors. One we are living longer and there are way more people leaving the system than coming in to keep it viable. What your generation did was spend that SS surplus on war and now you want the younger generation to pay for your cowardice of not paying for wars like Vietnam and Iraq. SS should have never been combined in to budget. LBJ fucked us on that one and Ronnie doubled down by changing the Taxing dynamic.

They need to be adjusted from time to time due to any number of factors. One we are living longer and there are way more people leaving the system than coming in to keep it viable. What your generation did was spend that SS surplus on war and now you want the younger generation to pay for your cowardice of not paying for wars like Vietnam and Iraq. SS should have never been combined in to budget. LBJ fucked us on that one and Ronnie doubled down by changing the Taxing dynamic. Originally Posted by WTF

So did WTF finally figure out that SS was going broke?

Its hilarious when WTF gets cornered he hijacks the thread with
1. Paying for grandma's last days
2. "Bush's Wars"
3. TEA Wipes!

When he really get's cornered - which happens often due to his lack of reading comprehension and ability to draw logical conclusions - he projects his homosexuality on his victors.

But at least gone are the days when he defended his sad arguments by misusing the terms "nuanced" or "slippery slope". And he finally learned how to post a working link after 5 years. And he admitted he was a racist.

the fund is supported by people paying into their account, ie, their money. being a lazy ass has nothing to do with it Originally Posted by CJ7

What "account"? I have an "account" at the bank (actually a number of them). So what?

Hypothetical: The guy next door pays in 50% less per quarter than I do. Eventually he gets the same benefit I would be entitled to receive. Since I have regularly paid the maximum since I graduated from part-time college era employment ... that is not a "good deal' for me. I'm being "taxed" for his benefits. Moynihan had it right. Private accounts.

They need to be adjusted from time to time due to any number of factors. One we are living longer and there are way more people leaving the system than coming in to keep it viable. What your generation did was spend that SS surplus on war and now you want the younger generation to pay for your cowardice of not paying for wars like Vietnam and Iraq. SS should have never been combined in to budget. LBJ fucked us on that one and Ronnie doubled down by changing the Taxing dynamic. Originally Posted by WTF

"my generation" ... aren't you telepathic.

So you believe the Vietnam and Iraq wars were paid out of the SS fund?

Since you were around and voted for LBJ ....

..... you should know that LBJ spent on programs other than military spending.

You are obsessed with defense spending. Unless we "export" defense contracts that puts money back into the U.S. economy (of course Clinton had the Chinese make "lids" for the Army... part of his "surplus" creation program?).

You should get obsessed with welfare programs that perpetrate fraud ...

.............. and benefit Walmart!@

Hiccup, eh, LLIdiot?

Funny how lustylady and LexusLover cut and run when they paint themselves in a corner.

Ladyboy with his lack of understanding Reagan's slight (sic) of hand with the tax rate and LexusLover with his hypocrisy on wanting to take out more than he is putting in... Originally Posted by WTF

but but but, at least the simpleton was able to remind people how he handed them their ass before he dove back in the gutter head first .. Originally Posted by CJ7

Huh? Ya tawking to me, tranny boys? Hey, I gave you a break last week so you could nurse your tender stretched-out buttholes back to health. Are you ready for more reaming? Ok, get out the vasoline and bend over...

Let's see... Federal tax revenues in 1980 were $517 bn. Eight years later they were $909 bn. Looks like revenues went up as rates went down, doesn't it? But hey, I would never make the claim that lower tax rates ALWAYS bring in higher revenues. Neither would Art Laffer. So who are these "dumb fucks" you are referring to? Originally Posted by lustylad

Tea Turkeys that's who. Originally Posted by WTF

Wrong, dickhead. Tea Party activists want to lower our taxes as a matter of principle. TEA = "Taxed Enough Already!" They don't need to claim we can ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE reap a revenue bonanza from it. Since they believe in smaller government, many of them don't give a fuck if tax revenues GO DOWN. That's how we starve the beast. Got any names or quotes from these Tea Turkeys you claim are misconstruing the Laffer Curve?

Legislation
Billions of Dollars

Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act

57.3

Highway Revenue Act of 1982

4.9

Social Security Amendments of 1983

24.6

Railroad Retirement Revenue Act of 1983

1.2

Deficit Reduction Act of 1984

25.4

Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

2.9

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986

2.4

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986

0.6

Continuing Resolution for 1987

2.8

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987

8.6

Continuing Resolution for 1988

2.0

Total cumulative tax increase

132.7

Originally Posted by CJ7

Wow, this is really special! CBJ is actually spitting out numbers! Perhaps there is hope yet for the tranny boy. Too bad there's no explanation or narrative. Is that because CBJerkoff copy-pasted the numbers from an essay he doesn't understand?

So CBJizzhead, are you telling us that big hypocrite Ronnie raised our taxes 11 times? I thought you told me it was only 7 times. Oh well, the more the better, right? Did you know the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 was a temporary increase in the federal gas tax? Did you know your list includes hikes in cigarette taxes? Lots of nickel and dime stuff to jack up the numbers.

I'm still a little confused, though. Aren't you doing exactly what you insisted couldn't be done – putting figures on Ronnie's tax increases?

bla bla bla ... put $ figures on Reagans tax increases huh. it can't be done... quit wasting time asking for the impossible. Originally Posted by CJ7

LL quips ..
"Put dollar amounts next to each of his tax cuts/hikes and we'll net them all out. If you can't do that, then STFU. You're just wasting everyone's time."
he can't do that, you cant do that, I can't do that ... it's a sophomoric question from a freshman trying to look somewhat intelligent ... Originally Posted by CJ7

Who looks stupid now, CBJackass?

My not-so-sophomoric question to you in this thread was - “are you saying Ronnie snookered everyone into thinking he was reducing their taxes when in reality he ended up raising them, net/net?”

Your table only gets you halfway there, tranny boy. Now go put some numbers next to Ronnie's tax CUTS and maybe you can answer the question.

But we have not paid in as much as we are taking out...that seems to be an ''entitlement".

There is no difference between someone taking out 40k of a program they put nothing into and a person taking out 40k more than they put into the program. It is still a net loss of 40k per person. Yet you defend those that put in and take out more....yet slam those that can not afford to put anything in. Originally Posted by WTF

Not that simple, dipshit. Do you understand the time value of money? The power of compound interest? If I put a dollar in 20 years ago, it is worth much more than a dollar today, because it had 20 years to grow. Over time the accrued interest is far greater than just the sum of the contributions.

the fund is supported by people paying into their account, ie, their money. being a lazy ass has nothing to do with it Originally Posted by CJ7

How about the SS disability fund? Any lazy asses draining that fund by falsely and fraudulently claiming to be disabled well before they reach retirement age?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/ny...ty-scheme.html

Not that simple, dipshit. Do you understand the time value of money? The power of compound interest? If I put a dollar in 20 years ago, it is worth much more than a dollar today, because it had 20 years to grow. Over time the accrued interest is far greater than just the sum of the contributions. Originally Posted by lustylad

That would depend if the interest earned kept up with inflation. You still haven't acknowledged that Reagan lowered federal income tax and then raised SS tax. You do understand that that would create the illusion of paying your bills when in fact it is just borrowing against your retirement. You are smart enough to understand right?

That would depend if the interest earned kept up with inflation. Originally Posted by WTF

Since I am still "putting in" you are blowing out your ass again, and it stinks.

It appears you have stopped "putting in" ... but if your communistic government wasn't "cutting" lending rates they would get a better return on the FICA investments being made.

If the financial institution wants to "borrow" money from "us," it has to raise its rates to attract "our" money .......... so it can turn around and loan it to you. In the meantime "our" business plan is to remain debt free so "we" don't have to pay unnecessarily inflated interest on credit accounts ... "we" borrow only on a temporary basis for record keeping purposes ... and quarterly make sure we pay off any lingering account balances from "our" income stream while at the same time making sure "we' have liquidity for six months to cover "our" overhead to assure we remain in business, even if we have no new income or customers.

"Our" theory is those who come out of this current recession tunnel debt free (or with sufficient liquidity to instantly pay off the debt with a surplus remaining) will be far ahead of folks like you who stick their faces in books and regurgitate bullshit.

How about the SS disability fund? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/ny...ty-scheme.html Originally Posted by lustylad

Have you found the "SS disability fund" yet?

You are smart enough to understand right? Originally Posted by WTF

May be this will help you .... your smartass remarks are uninformative.


http://www.socialsecurity.gov/espano...utmk=210710357

Regan didn't raise any SS taxes. Dumbshit. (And I try to avoid calling names in here!)