80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
Lash
 
  -2  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 04:29 am
@izzythepush,
Izzy, actually, you're more conservative than I am.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 05:16 am
@Lash,
Says the person who voted for George Bush and was opposed to Universal Health Care.

I'll take your comments, and your Damascene conversion, with a JCB full of salt.
korkamann
 
  2  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 09:46 am
@Lash,
Quote:
...the race doesn't spell it out for Hillary-lickers.


Excuse me! Ms. Lash, I am a Hillary admirer but do not consider myself a "hillary-likcer." I don't know you except from what I read contained in your demeaningly spiteful and disgusting posts against Hillary and her supporters, but let me tell you this, I resent being referred to as a Hillary-likcer which is the equivalent of "arse-likcer"! You're entitled to your description of Hillary but when it takes aim at me, a poster who holds this woman in great esteem, then you've got a problem!
bobsal u1553115
 
  4  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 09:59 am
@Lash,
Ahhhhh, I don't think so.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  4  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 10:00 am
@Lash,
Ahhh, I know that's wrong. You're pretty progressive for a conservative, I'm sure I appreciate your posts more than most here do, but you're pretty darn conservative.
bobsal u1553115
 
  4  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 10:05 am
@Baldimo,
I don't gamble and I certainly don't gamble against a house with "evolving" house rules. And I'd NEVER, EVER bet my insurance proceeds with the same twats that almost brought down the house with their speculation/gambling with other peoples money, who when bailed out took a huge cut off the top and spread it around as "bonuses".
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  5  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 10:10 am
@hawkeye10,
You keep saying that **** like its fact. It isn't. That point might happen in thirty years if Congress doesn't stop using SSI fund as a piggy bank.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/benefit.asp

Claim: Item criticizes various aspects of the Social Security security system.

image: http://www.snopes.com/images/content-divider.gif

image: http://www.snopes.com/images/mostlyfalse.gif
MOSTLY FALSE

image: http://www.snopes.com/images/content-divider.gif

Example: [Collected via e-mail, March 2012]

SOCIAL SECURITY NOW CALLED 'FEDERAL BENEFIT PAYMENT'/ENTITLEMENT

Have you noticed, your Social Security check is now referred to as a "federal benefit payment"?

I'll be part of the one percent, to forward this, our government gets away with way too much in all areas of our lives, while they live lavishly on their grossly overpaid incomes! KEEP passing THIS AROUND UNTIL EVERY ONE HAS READ IT.....

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THIS CALCULATION IS THEY FORGOT TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY COLLECTED THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY!!!! WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO?????????????

This was sent to me, I am forwarding it because it does touch a nerve in me.

This is another example of what Rick Perry called "TREASON in high places"!!! Get angry and pass this on!

Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500.

If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% (less than what the government pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98.

If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.

The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madhoff ever had.

Entitlement my butt, I paid cash for my social security insurance!!!! Just because they borrowed the money, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!

Congressional benefits — free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days, now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social security retirement entitlements?

We're "broke" and can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless.

In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile, and Turkey . And now Pakistan ......home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!

Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$'s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries!

They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives and now when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries.

Sad isn't it?

99% of people won't have the guts to forward this.

I'm one of the 1% — I Just Did.



Origins: It's true that Social Security retirement payments are classified as "federal benefit payments," but that's about the only bit of information the author of this item got right — and even at that he errs in mistakenly assuming this terminology to be new and in misconstruing what it means.

The word "benefits" has been applied to Social Security retirement payments since the Social Security program was enacted in the 1930s. The terminology is also not unique to Social Security, as the phrase "federal benefit payments" applies to a broad class of payments made to (or on behalf of) individuals under federal government programs — everything from Social Security Disability Insurance to Medicare to
farm subsidies are considered "federal benefit payments." The fact that workers themselves contribute much of the money that goes into the Social Security retirement fund doesn't affect its classification as a benefit.

Likewise, the word "entitlement" has long been the standard terminology for payments made under government programs that guarantee and provide benefits to particular groups. Persons who have demonstrated their eligibility to claim such payments are entitled (i.e., "qualified for by right according to law") to receive them. The usage has nothing to do with pejorative connotations associated with the word (e.g., "a sense of entitlement") which are often applied to denote people expecting or demanding something they do not merit.

As for the calculations about savings detailed in the latter half of the above-quoted example, they're far off the mark for a number of reasons:

Assuming the aggregate Social Security contributions for any individual to be equal to 15% of his lifetime income is a flawed approach, because the required levels of Social Security contributions have varied across time, and Social Security contributions from individuals and employers combined have never "totaled 15% of your income before taxes." The current contribution level is 12.4%, and historically the contribution rates have been significantly less. (Many people confuse Federal Insurance Contributions Act [FICA] payments, which are currently assessed at a 15.3% rate, with Social Security, but they are not the same thing. FICA payments include both Social Security and Medicare taxes.)

Assuming the Social Security contributions for any individual to be equal to a percentage of his average lifetime income is a flawed approach, because Social Security contributions have a yearly cap (i.e., contributors never pay more than a specified maximum amount, no matter how much money they make in a given year). A person who earned $80,000 in 2001 would have paid just as much into Social Security as a person who made $750,000 in 2001, so assuming that the Social Security contributions for each equalled 12.4% of their income that year would produce a grossly inflated figure in the latter case.

The dollar figures provided are a mish-mash that take neither past nor future conditions into account. It's wrong to assume that Social Security contributions equal "15% of your income before taxes" because (as already noted), Social Security contribution levels have varied across time, they have never been as high as 15%, and there's no guarantee of what they will be in the future. It's wrong to assume that a typical current retiree (i.e., someone who started his working life 40+ years ago) earned an average of $30,000 per year across his lifetime, as the median household income in the U.S. didn't even reach that level until 1993. And it's wrong to assume that a current wage earner could safely see a 5% return on his money if it weren't paid into Social Security, as the average interest rates for savings accounts and certificates of deposit have been well below that figure (typically under 1% or 2%) for several years now.

Additionally, the statement that "our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they get any breaks, while our government pours hundreds of billions of $$$$$$'s to foreign countries" reflects a common but grossly inaccurate perception of how the federal government spends taxpayer monies. In fact, the bulk of the federal budget (by far) goes towards providing for retirees and low-income households: 20% of the budget pays for Social Security, 21% pays for health insurance programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP), and another 13% pays for financial safety net programs. By contrast, only about 1% of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid.

Finally, although the anonymous author of this piece uses the term "Social Security insurance," he doesn't seem to understand that's exactly what Social Security is. Social Security isn't a savings plan or an investment scheme; it's an Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program intended to ensure that Americans are guaranteed a minimum monthly payment in their non-working years. As with all insurance programs, some people will eventually receive less than they paid in, and others will receive more.

Last updated: 11 February 2013

Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2015 by snopes.com.
This material may not be reproduced without permission.
snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/benefit.asp#x45FUEbVI7SzZchh.99
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  4  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 10:11 am
@hawkeye10,
Say the right wing blog quoter.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  3  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 10:21 am
@izzythepush,
I guess that nobody on a2k ever gets to modify, even fully change their viewpoints on religion or politics. Two people who have met Lash, myself and Roger, and spent time with her, speak to her straightforwardness (re changing, in this case, but she's always been straightforward). But no, you folks cling to her old posts. Bush was a while ago, people.

Maybe none of you have ever changed in life.
snood
 
  1  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 10:25 am
I just watched an excerpt from a recent interview with Hillary Clinton by Andrea Mitchell. I've gotta say, the things that always have creeped me out about the Clintons still creep me out. Mitchell asked Clinton three times "Are you sorry?" (referring to the email debacle - which I think is kind of a 'gotcha'/ 'stopped beating your wife' question that presumes something wrong has been done which needs an apology) Clinton answered verbatim all three times "It wasn't the best decision". It's too lawyery, too practiced, too plastic. She always couches her answers in a way that seems to try to make the questioner look like an idiot. It is not an endearing quality. She is not likable, and she never seems to be at ease. None of which affects the fact that I'd still support her over a republican, but she creeps me out.
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 10:27 am
@ossobuco,
People do evolve. I've evolved over health care and gun control in the last eight years almost 180.

In the last year I evolved from Republican (I've always been a progressive Republican except for the unfortunate support for Barry Goldwater I haven't voted for a GOP Presidential Candidate since Nixon except for George H.W. Bush) to solid Green.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 10:32 am
@bobsal u1553115,
I changed very radically after high school and then through into my middle twenties. A bit tumultuous at the time re religion and politics both. I've modified on this and that since, but not as entirely as that period.

In Lash's case, she sought out some of us with differing opinions than hers several years ago; I'm guessing her change was gradual, but it's none of my business. She did tell about her changing in one particular post here that I didn't save, and attributed the change to talking with some of us over the years. I'll assume reading and watching things on her own was all part of it.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 10:36 am
@bobsal u1553115,
In what way? Specifically.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 10:37 am
@snood,
Nods.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 10:37 am
@korkamann,
Really? I don't feel as though I have a problem.
Lash
 
  -1  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 10:39 am
@izzythepush,
Currently, what are your views on immigration, BLM, and minimum wage?
korkamann
 
  2  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 11:12 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Really? I don't feel as though I have a problem.


If you keep referring to Hillary's supporters as Hillary-likcers aka arse-lickers, I promise you, I disagree, vehemently!!
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 11:21 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Really? I don't feel as though I have a problem.


I think one of your problems...is that you do not feel as though you have a problem.

It might be the most serious of your problems.
0 Replies
 
korkamann
 
  2  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 11:32 am
@snood,
Quote:
None of which affects the fact that I'd still support her over a republican, but she creeps me out.


I understand where you're coming from. Because of Hillary's very closed personality, she gives the impression she is constantly on the defensive. I can understand her need to act this way; I remember the Clinton administration and the White Water scandal. This time, the political attacks seem staunchly aimed at her and there seemingly is no let-up. This is one of the reasons I admire Hillary. She is not wilting under the political attacks from the GOPers. She has her dedicated backers, and I believe in the finality, she will win.

I loathed seeing one person being attacked over and over and over. Like you, I would vote for Hillary before voting for a Republican candidate. One may not like her overly cautious attitude under questioning, but she will fight for the Democratic platform, and that's all I want from someone I vote for. For what it's worth, there is no such thing as the perfect candidate and they all are left wanting in one capacity or another. Hillary Clinton is the only person standing between the Republicans and the average American. I admire Sanders but feel he does not have the ground organization that Obama or Hillary has. It's one thing to have crowds come out to hear the man speak, but voting for him is a different scenario.
Ragman
 
  2  
Fri 4 Sep, 2015 11:40 am
@korkamann,
Quote:
I admire Sanders but feel he does not have the ground organization that Obama or Hillary has.

In the beginning , Obama (and his nascent organization) while running his first campaign, took time to develop what it eventually took to get elected. Can't Sanders develop this over the next 16 months?
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/06/2021 at 04:00:27