What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

I'm confident you know Americans have to participate in--pay their tax money to--Social security and Medicare whether they draw any payments from them or not.

I haven't heard your protests against socialism, re: Medicare. Please begin.

1 Reply

@okie,

Jef Mallett wrote:

An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, I'm sure you won't be participating in social security and Medicare, because they are fascist programs. Or are you just another hypocrite who loves to jerk off here on a2k?

I have been paying large sums into it for years, so yes, maybe some of it will come back, and count on this, I will also have a supplemental insurance policy.

1 Reply

@okie,

You haven't been paying "large sums" into social security and medicare.

It's another one of your ignorance like all the others that you know very little about, but seem to shout BS no matter what the subject matter.

Here's a simple task for you; figure out all the social security and Medicare payments you made since they began payroll deduction on your earnings, come back and report how much you paid into it.

I'll show you why you are 100% wrong.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

It is large sums, I know what it is, it is actually more than what is paid to income tax. When I retire, I will receive virtually the maximum amount possible from social security, which will exceed a couple grand per month, because I have paid in the maximum for many many years. I am not going to give you numbers, it isn't your business to get into details.

2 Replies

@okie,

well okie, if you are 66 and retire this year, the max benefit you could get would be $2323 per month. I don't get that much mostly because most of my career I worked for the state government and was exempt from SS.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Here's a simple task for you; figure out all the social security and Medicare payments you made since they began payroll deduction on your earnings

Whence the money to pay them with?

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra,

For federal income taxes, I recommend:

(1) the current federal tax system be replaced by a flat tax on each and every dollar of personal gross income.

(2) there be no taxes on businesses or bequests, and no deductions, exemptions, paybacks, et cetera.

For Medical Insurance, I recommend:

(1) all medicare and medicaid health insurances be replaced by private insurance paid by the insured.

(2) the privately insured be permitted to deduct up to 30% of their annual federal income taxes to help pay for their medical insurance.

(3) any excess not required to buy an individual's medical insurance, up to 30% of total annual flat income taxes, must be donatable to private charities to help those for whom 30% of their income taxes are insufficient to buy their own medical insurance.

For Social Security I recommend hereafter:

(1) all currently required social security income deductions be annually reduced by a factor of 0.966 so that over 20 years those deductions will be reduced by 50%.

(2) all currently required social security retirement payments be annually reduced by a factor of o.966 so that over 20 years those payments will be reduced by 50%.

(3) Individuals be required annually to invest 5% of their flat gross federal income tax in treasury notes paying 3% per year, such that the value of an individual treasury note will have doubled in value within 24 years.

(4) 20% of an owner's accumulated federal treasury notes may be cashed annually by their owner, or by their owner's heirs, 66 years after their owner's birth date, so that at the end of those 20 years about 11.5% of an individual's treasury notes remain uncashed.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

well okie, if you are 66 and retire this year, the max benefit you could get would be $2323 per month. I don't get that much mostly because most of my career I worked for the state government and was exempt from SS.

I think everyone gets a statement every year, I haven't looked at mine recently, but I remember it was more than 2 grand, but I am not 66 yet, so have not retired. You won't get as much, and you shouldn't because you did not pay in, you had your own state retirement fund. Thats another discrimination, government workers get exempted because they have their own retirement fund, but employees with companies that have retirement programs do not get exempted, they still have to pay into Social Security, and yes it is twice as much as they deduct from the paycheck, because if the employer did not have to pay their matching share, they could increase your paycheck. Also, self employed pay the entire bite out of their net earnings.

So I would love it if government employees also had to pay into Social Security, then the retirement funds could be lowered a great deal to compliment each other. I think this could save taxpayers money, after all, how many federal and state employees are there, the amount could be huge? I know people that worked for a state that ended up getting a retirement virtually equal to 100% of their wages when they retired, and this seems a little extreme in my opinion.

If politicians applied the same programs to themselves that they make everyone else abide by, things would be different I believe. They have a double standard.

0 Replies

Back to the dictator subject, I think people need to be reminded of this. Kind of a weird statement by a presidential candidate in my opinion. I don't want to believe the worst, but the weirdness of his words continue to bug me, and it should bug every citizen of the United States, and every citizen needs to take a step back and ask themselves, what motivates this guy, who is he, and what is he about. We are all left to our own theories and guesses, some want to trust the guy, some don't know, some think like he does, others don't care, and some of us care about the country enough to try to face the truth of his words, and their implications.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Back to the dictator subject, I think people need to be reminded of this.

Okay, we are back to the ruthless dictator Obama.

Actually, that's where should be all the time - without using excursions to your history, isn't it?

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Okay, we are back to the ruthless dictator Obama.

Actually, that's where should be all the time - without using excursions to your history, isn't it?

Your discussion of USA history about USA transgresssions ought to be balanced with your country's history about your country's transgressions.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Your discussion of USA history about USA transgresssions ought to be balanced with your country's history about your country's transgressions.

Okay. To which of how many are you referring here?
Do I have to include a disclaimer about that any time when I respond here? Only on this thread?
Only when it's a topic about US history?
Or about history in general?
Or ...

For the start: confiteor icam omnipotenti, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione verbo, et opere: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:

Back to the dictator subject, I think people need to be reminded of this.

Okay, we are back to the ruthless dictator Obama.

Actually, that's where should be all the time - without using excursions to your history, isn't it?

Actually Walter, Obama is not a ruthless dictator. I think he may have visions of being a dictator, not a ruthless one. I have in fact concluded the guy must have visions of some central state with him at the helm, because how else can you explain the weirdness of his civilian security force as large and well funded as the military? How else can you explain such an un-American idea and proposal? It is very bizarre, it simply makes no sense, and so his words beg an explanation, and that is what my interpretation is. I have no clue what you might think, or if you have even thought of one? Remember, I am not making this up, I am only quoting Obama himself.

Remember, I also think Obama is going to have a tough time achieving his dreams, but who knows, but hopefully we have enough sane people using the checks and balances to keep the guy in check. He is testing the limits even now however, by nationalizing industries or companies and trying to do more.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Actually Walter, Obama is not a ruthless dictator. I think he may have visions of being a dictator, not a ruthless one.

I just thought you mentioned what I quoted above to go back to your topic.

(Leaving out any disclaimer before I know for sure what I have to write here according to ican.)

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:

Back to the dictator subject, I think people need to be reminded of this.

Okay, we are back to the ruthless dictator Obama.

Actually, that's where should be all the time - without using excursions to your history, isn't it?

Actually Walter, Obama is not a ruthless dictator. I think he may have visions of being a dictator, not a ruthless one. I have in fact concluded the guy must have visions of some central state with him at the helm, because how else can you explain the weirdness of his civilian security force as large and well funded as the military? How else can you explain such an un-American idea and proposal? It is very bizarre, it simply makes no sense, and so his words beg an explanation, and that is what my interpretation is. I have no clue what you might think, or if you have even thought of one? Remember, I am not making this up, I am only quoting Obama himself.

Remember, I also think Obama is going to have a tough time achieving his dreams, but who knows, but hopefully we have enough sane people using the checks and balances to keep the guy in check. He is testing the limits even now however, by nationalizing industries or companies and trying to do more.

Would you agree with me, that GWB wanted to be a dictator? After all, we can go by his direct quote:

Quote:

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

" Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

I find your contention that Obama is 'nationalizing' industries to be rather laughable. He has in fact passed up on the opportunity to do exactly that to our banking sector, even though those of us on the Left pushed him to do so. He has spoken many times about the need to maintain a free market. Your rhetoric doesn't match up with reality - again.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Baloney, George Bush was no dictator, the man was joking in the quote you used, and you know it. George Bush is a good man, and count me as one that is sick of the lefts lying about this man for years. Bush was glad to go back to Texas, glad to leave the Whitehouse. He served his country honorably.

As you drone on with your defense of Obama, nobody as yet has ever successfully explained Obama's visions of a security force, and most people don't even try, they just ignore it. Thats the problem, Obama's history and associations, and his true beliefs have all been ignored.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Baloney, George Bush was no dictator, the man was joking in the quote you used, and you know it. George Bush is a good man, and count me as one that is sick of the lefts lying about this man for years. Bush was glad to go back to Texas, glad to leave the Whitehouse. He served his country honorably.

Honorably? Amazing to me that you consider continual and constant lying to be 'honorable.' He was shown to have lied about many subjects - that's not an opinion, that's a fact. You seem to have forgotten all that.

Amazing how you guys revise history in your minds, to forget the failures of your sainted heroes.

Quote:

As you drone on with your defense of Obama, nobody as yet has ever successfully explained Obama's visions of a security force, and most people don't even try, they just ignore it. Thats the problem, Obama's history and associations, and his true beliefs have all been ignored.

Perhaps you should ask Obama about it.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Has there ever been a free market where there is an established government.

At the very height of laissez faire capitalism the government controlled anything it wished to do.

In the early 1800's coal was transported from the N.E. of England to London. Coal was found in Kent which could have been sold in London at half the price of Newcatle coal. But because the coaster traffic was the basic training for young lads wanting a naval career in warships the government stopped those mines being opened.

There is no free market in anything that's legal nowadays except at some trivial local level. It is a semblance kept up in order that amateur economists can pontificate in its name and always to no effect.

The US government suspended a number of trucking regulations at the time of Katrina. Price gouging is free marketeering.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo- Lying is perfectly honourable if it is in the national interest.

1 Reply

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know