LJ;1161457 wrote:CABLE tv is not a basic. If anything, OTA is. Why do you go from saying "cable" to now saying "TV" in general?

because early in the thread he was talking about owning tv sets. the fact that a poor family might have two tvs. two tvs can cost very little.

isadore;1161442 wrote:gosh I guess you didnt' really mean any of this
gee whiz lets see how we can save it. I got it. Let remove the regressive feature of the Social Security Tax. Gosh they only take the tax from the first $110,100 dollars of your income. Anything above that is free. What a free ride for the rich. I bet if we continued the same tax rate over all their income that would do wonders for system. Maybe we wouldn't have to make all those draconian cuts you are hoping for. And gosh you guys like a flat tax, lets try it on social security.

You do realize that it is NOT a 'free ride' for the rich since they do NOT get any added benefit when they retire for anything they make over that $110,000.

There is a maximum benefit amount in SS depending on how much you put in (read how much you made each year) therefore there should be (and is) a maximum contribution amount (aka only the first $110k).

I wouldn't expect you to understand the basics of a 'retirement plan' (I use that term loosely with SS) but like all of them you get out what you put in.

If they make the contribution levels 'infinite' then they better do the same on the distributions out the back end...but that would drive you leftists crazy since the retired rich people would be getting more money.

QuakerOats;1161168 wrote:There is nothing more noble than getting somone off of welfare and making them self-sufficient. There is nothing in perpetual handouts that achieves this noble goal. The left would do well to stop preaching about 'heart' and start to actually THINK about real solutions that will cause the 'downtrodden' to reach their capabilities. But that will probably not happen because the left has made a profitable industry for itself in keeping people jailed in the dependency state. Congrat's.

gosh a ruddies I thought alot about it. And checked a few things and found out that those nations with the more extensive welfare systems, more entitlements and a more progressive tax system are the ones that are more socially mobile, more opportunity to rise. Americawith attitudes like your is way down the opportunity list.

isadore;1161458 wrote:my statement on that is just based on local consideration, it is hard here to pick up stations in this rural area without cable or satelitte

Then they get what they can get...

isadore;1161468 wrote:gosh a ruddies I thought alot about it. And checked a few things and found out that those nations with the more extensive welfare systems, more entitlements and a more progressive tax system are the ones that are more socially mobile, more opportunity to rise. Americawith attitudes like your is way down the opportunity list.

Easier to rise because once you become successful you drop back down again after giving all your money to the government.

Do you really want to make America strong but making success a bad word?

isadore;1161453 wrote:what a load, all you want to do, is find ways to punish people who have fallen on hard times. To deprive them of basics to have any quality of life in our society. Maybe we can have them and their kids where a scarlet P so we can shun them. A TV, a PC, a cellphone are basics in our society. Depriving people of them is just an exercise in demeaning the poor for the personal pleasure of those that have. Land lines are disappearing and cell phones are often a less expensive alternative. That makes no difference, you prefer your pound of flesh.

You might not realize but I have been there, below the poverty level. I had a wife, 2 kids, and was in college working on my masters.

You know what?

I had over the air TV, I had a land line only, and I had a single TV in the house. I had a microwave (came with the apartment) but I did NOT have A/C.

You know what? I lived within my means and came out of that time nearly debt free (had a car payment).

So don't give me this load of horsecrap, I've been on both ends as I am doing quite well right now and when I was poor I did NOT expect the government to hand me cable TV, a cell phone, etc.

jmog;1161467 wrote:You do realize that it is NOT a 'free ride' for the rich since they do NOT get any added benefit when they retire for anything they make over that $110,000.

There is a maximum benefit amount in SS depending on how much you put in (read how much you made each year) therefore there should be (and is) a maximum contribution amount (aka only the first $110k).

I wouldn't expect you to understand the basics of a 'retirement plan' (I use that term loosely with SS) but like all of them you get out what you put in.

If they make the contribution levels 'infinite' then they better do the same on the distributions out the back end...but that would drive you leftists crazy since the retired rich people would be getting more money.

why should we make it infinite. We tax everyone for national defense and the rich pay more as they should but we dont provide the rich more national defense. a communtiy taxes everyone for the public schools and the rich pay more as they should but we dont provide more education for the richest kids more education within the school system. Society benefits from national defense, public education and social security.

LJ;1161470 wrote:Then they get what they can get...

in your opinion.

isadore;1161477 wrote:why should we make it infinite. We tax everyone for national defense and the rich pay more as they should but we dont provide the rich more national defense. a communtiy taxes everyone for the public schools and the rich pay more as they should but we dont provide more education for the richest kids more education within the school system. Society benefits from national defense, public education and social security.

This is a good point. We need to lower taxes so that everyone pays the same amount or raise taxes so everyone pays the same amount.

Good call isadore.

Honestly, the govt had a phone subsidy program for a long time, I think they just replaced it with reloadable cell phones rather than landlines. A landline is like $30/month these days.

sleeper;1161432 wrote:I don't have any sympathy for the lazy people who don't want to work and just want to take from those that do.

obviously not, some people are born without compassion and for others it is a learned fueled by greed and selfishness.

isadore;1161479 wrote:in your opinion.

If cable was a life staple basic, people wouldn't cut it just to save money and end up going about their lives as if nothing was different.

LJ;1161481 wrote:Honestly, the govt had a phone subsidy program for a long time, I think they just replaced it with reloadable cell phones rather than landlines. A landline is like $30/month these days.

cheaper?

jmog;1161476 wrote:You might not realize but I have been there, below the poverty level. I had a wife, 2 kids, and was in college working on my masters.

You know what?

I had over the air TV, I had a land line only, and I had a single TV in the house. I had a microwave (came with the apartment) but I did NOT have A/C.

You know what? I lived within my means and came out of that time nearly debt free (had a car payment).

So don't give me this load of horsecrap, I've been on both ends as I am doing quite well right now and when I was poor I did NOT expect the government to hand me cable TV, a cell phone, etc.

lol when I was in college. Yeh and I made minimum wage when I was in HS. Give me a break. WHEN I was finishing my Master's LLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLL. Your situation is so similar to those living in poverty.

isadore;1161477 wrote:why should we make it infinite. We tax everyone for national defense and the rich pay more as they should but we dont provide the rich more national defense. a communtiy taxes everyone for the public schools and the rich pay more as they should but we dont provide more education for the richest kids more education within the school system. Society benefits from national defense, public education and social security.

Then you want to rewrite what SS is described as and was described as in the beginning? SS is/was NOT supposed to be a social safety net. SS was/is a retirement plan. It was originally designed because the average person is too stupid to think about saving for retirement.

It is a SUPPOSED to be a retirement plan ran by the government. It is not a safety net for the poor. It is setup like a retirement plan, you pay in a certain % of your wages with a capped amount of how much you are 'allowed' to put in (just like 401ks and IRAs have maximums that you can put in each year...pretax). And you get paid back when you retire an amount proportional to how much you paid in.

I realized that SS has been bastardized from this original premise, but that is what it is billed as being by the US Government. If you want to redefine it as a welfare program (aka taking from the rich to help the poor) then write your Congressman. Until then, if you raise the caps in payments in, you have to raise the caps on payments out as well.

Sorry to use facts about the program to spoil your rhetoric laden diatribe, but you are wrong.

isadore;1161483 wrote:obviously not, some people are born without compassion and for others it is a learned fueled by greed and selfishness.

Then let those people live the lives they want to live. Let the people who care about the POS who don't want to work pay more taxes to support them. Shut up and write a check. That solves everything.

isadore;1161493 wrote:lol when I was in college. Yeh and I made minimum wage when I was in HS. Give me a break. WHEN I was finishing my Master's LLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLL. Your situation is so similar to those living in poverty.

I had a wife, 2 kids, and our income for the whole year was around $12k...please tell me how that was NOT similar?

sleeper;1161480 wrote:This is a good point. We need to lower taxes so that everyone pays the same amount or raise taxes so everyone pays the same amount.

Good call isadore.

gosh a ruddies I realize your lack of reading comprehension does not slow down your commentary If you read it over, maybe a little more slowly, my comments justify higher taxes on the rich. But can continue with your fictionalized account.

jmog;1161497 wrote:I had a wife, 2 kids, and our income for the whole year was around $12k...please tell me how that was NOT similar?

was your Masters in French Poetry

Otherwise it much like the experience of many people in college, finishing an advanced degree with the promise of greater reward in the near future.
And not much like the situation of the single parent families living in poverty today who are not finishing off a Master's degree.

isadore;1161498 wrote:gosh a ruddies I realize your lack of reading comprehension does not slow down your commentary If you read it over, maybe a little more slowly, my comments justify higher taxes on the rich. But can continue with your fictionalized account.

But the rich and the poor receive the same level of national defense, shouldn't they pay the same in taxes?

You can't even keep your story straight.

sleeper;1161496 wrote:Then let those people live the lives they want to live. Let the people who care about the POS who don't want to work pay more taxes to support them. Shut up and write a check. That solves everything.

I do write checks, but I also vote for people who will continue to make you and I pay a fair share of our income for the benefit of those in need in our society.

isadore;1161501 wrote:was your Masters in French Poetry

Otherwise it much like the experience of many people in college, finishing an advanced degree with the promise of greater reward in the near future.
And not much like the situation of the single parent families living in poverty today who are not finishing off a Master's degree.

Who's fault is that? If they don't want to go to school to better themselves and a get a job, they can work at McDonald's. If they don't want to work, then they don't get anything.

It's EZ.

sleeper;1161502 wrote:But the rich and the poor receive the same level of national defense, shouldn't they pay the same in taxes?

You can't even keep your story straight.

no they shouldn't. those with the most should contribute the most.

isadore;1161504 wrote:I do write checks, but I also vote for people who will continue to make you and I pay a fair share of our income for the benefit of those in need in our society.

I already pay more than my fair share. I will vote for people who want to give me more of my money back and make the non-producers start producing.

isadore;1161506 wrote:no they shouldn't. those with the most should contribute the most.

Why?