Gov Etch-a-Sketch Proves again he's "in touch"...

LadyJazzer understands African Americans better than all of us.....she's enslaved by her liberal mindset. If Obama Campaign would offered her early retirement with Obamacare....she would be outta here and living on food stamps and social security - and enjoying those riches off the backs of the rich.

residenttroll wrote: LadyJazzer understands African Americans better than all of us.....she's enslaved by her liberal mindset. If Obama Campaign would offered her early retirement with Obamacare....she would be outta here and living on food stamps and social security - and enjoying those riches off the backs of the rich.

So not only a sad little troll, but a sad little racist troll.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

residenttroll wrote: LadyJazzer understands African Americans better than all of us.....she's enslaved by her liberal mindset. If Obama Campaign would offered her early retirement with Obamacare....she would be outta here and living on food stamps and social security - and enjoying those riches off the backs of the rich.

So not only a sad little troll, but a sad little racist troll.

He's also an ignorant, stupid "sad little racist troll."

He still thinks that someone who takes retirement is somehow being subsidized by "the backs of the rich"....Moron...

Let's put that to the test...

1) The "rich" are subject to the same maximum limit for SS & Medicare that everyone else is: $106,800 maximum. So,

a) Let's take Mitt Romney. His estimated income from his offshore bank accounts, Cayman Islands accounts, and investments is approximately $20 million/year, according to the TWO tax-returns that he's actually furnished. So, the maximum amount he will pay as a "self-employed" "rich" person is: $16,340.40/year. (12.4% on $106,800 = $13,243.20 for SS; 2.9% on $106,800 = $3,097.20 for Medicare). That works out to .00082 of $20 million, or .082%. (That's 8/100ths of 1% for the challenged...)

b) Let's take a person who earns $1-million; (still considered one of the "1%'ers). They're subject to the same amount as Mitt Romney and his $20-million. If they pay the same $16,340.40/year, then that is .0163 of their income, or 1.63%.

c) Let's take someone who is "middle-class", and for the sake of argument, let's say they make $80,000/year, and they're self-employed. They will pay $12,240 for SS ($9,920) & Medicare ($2,320), which is .153 or 15.3% of their income.

Hmmmmm... Who pays MORE as a percentage of their income?....

So, tell me again, how this falls "on the backs of the rich?"

2) Oh, and if one is retired, one does not get "Obamacare"...One gets the Medicare that you paid into for 50+ years, and the Social Security that you paid into for 50+ years. NONE of it comes out of the pockets of the "rich."

Now, I did a quick lookup on my own account. It shows that I paid in roughly $228,058 in SS & Medicare payments total over the last 50 years. At the rate that I am eligible to receive benefits when I retire, I will be 94 before I hit the point where I'm taking out more than I put in. And I don't NEED "food stamps."

So, you miserable, ignorant, stupid "sad little racist troll" piece of human excrement.... Tell me again how it is that I would need food stamps, Obamacare, and "live off the backs of the rich"?

Oh, I remember... YOU'RE A LIAR. Duh. rofllol

LadyJazzer wrote: He's also an ignorant, stupid "sad little racist troll."

There goes the King (maybe Queen) of Hate - spouting off again by calling others names.

LadyJazzer wrote: He still thinks that someone who takes retirement is somehow being subsidized by "the backs of the rich"....Moron...

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah - you pay your taxes because your livelihood depends on the government projects/contracts. So, you,re nothing but a socialist in disguise.

By the way, in case you missed the memo....the U.S. Government is bankrupt. Obama and his socialist vote buying machine continues to move the debt to almost 16 trillion....not to mention the unspoken liabilities. Therefore, it's safe to say.... Social Security is bankrupt because US Government has to borrow money to pay back the IOUs to the Social Security. The only solution the real morons come up with is ---- tax the rich instead of --- cut the budget/spending

LadyJazzer wrote: Let's put that to the test...

1) The "rich" are subject to the same maximum limit for SS & Medicare that everyone else is: $106,800 maximum. So,

a) Let's take Mitt Romney. His estimated income from his offshore bank accounts, Cayman Islands accounts, and investments is approximately $20 million/year, according to the TWO tax-returns that he's actually furnished. So, the maximum amount he will pay as a "self-employed" "rich" person is: $16,340.40/year. (12.4% on $106,800 = $13,243.20 for SS; 2.9% on $106,800 = $3,097.20 for Medicare). That works out to .00082 of $20 million, or .082%. (That's 8/100ths of 1% for the challenged...)

b) Let's take a person who earns $1-million; (still considered one of the "1%'ers). They're subject to the same amount as Mitt Romney and his $20-million. If they pay the same $16,340.40/year, then that is .0163 of their income, or 1.63%.

c) Let's take someone who is "middle-class", and for the sake of argument, let's say they make $80,000/year, and they're self-employed. They will pay $12,240 for SS ($9,920) & Medicare ($2,320), which is .153 or 15.3% of their income.

Hmmmmm... Who pays MORE as a percentage of their income?....

So, tell me again, how this falls "on the backs of the rich?"

Hey knucklehead, who cares about the percentage of taxes paid into the government. In all of your scenarios, no single person would be able to GET MORE than the OTHER who put in the SAME amount of $. In fact, you point out the fallacy in the all of the government programs.

If you are really good at math, Le Loon Jerkee.... perhaps you should try this scenario:

An 25 year old person who makes $ 25,000 per year until the age of 65. There employer puts in 7.5 and he/she puts 7.5 into a retirement account (social security) over the 40 years. If they invested that money (roughly 15 of their income) over the 40 years in 30 year T-bills how much would the person have at the age of 66?

To that point, would they be able to pull a monthly amount out of their fund up to 100 years greater than what social security is currently projecting? The answer is YES. What if the unused portion of this fund could be rolled over to the next generation to give them a head start on their retirement next egg.

NOPE....the socialist in America....want to control other peoples money....and they want to have strings attached for you to earn it back from the socialist control. There is no doubt --- by the time the baby boomers exhaust the Social Security funds ....the social security program will be needs based....and guys like Romney would not receive a single dime back of their OWN MONEY that SOCIALIST used.

LadyJazzer wrote:
2) Oh, and if one is retired, one does not get "Obamacare"...One gets the Medicare that you paid into for 50+ years, and the Social Security that you paid into for 50+ years. NONE of it comes out of the pockets of the "rich."

Medicare is fiscally bankrupt. It will become Obamacare or funded by Obamacare. Does it really matter...Medicare is bankrupt.

LadyJazzer wrote: Now, I did a quick lookup on my own account. It shows that I paid in roughly $228,058 in SS & Medicare payments total over the last 50 years. At the rate that I am eligible to receive benefits when I retire, I will be 94 before I hit the point where I'm taking out more than I put in. And I don't NEED "food stamps."

Don't worry...I'm sure you and the other cuddled baby boomers will get more than your share out of Medicare....it's happening now.

LadyJazzer wrote: So, you miserable, ignorant, stupid "sad little racist troll" piece of human excrement....

Oh, yeah, did I mention..... she's the QUEEN OF HATE..... (see above)

Alright, let's take your points one by one...

LadyJazzer wrote: Let's put that to the test...

1) The "rich" are subject to the same maximum limit for SS & Medicare that everyone else is: $106,800 maximum. So,

Very misleading and not accurate, that limit only applies to SS. There is no limit for Medicare. Most people do not meet that maximum limit for SS. They are well below it. Depending on what source you want to look at, the median US income is around $27K. So yes, they pay a percentage of all their income, but they don't pay nearly as much as someone making $100K who also pays a percentage of all his income.

a) Let's take Mitt Romney. His estimated income from his offshore bank accounts, Cayman Islands accounts, and investments is approximately $20 million/year, according to the TWO tax-returns that he's actually furnished. So, the maximum amount he will pay as a "self-employed" "rich" person is: $16,340.40/year. (12.4% on $106,800 = $13,243.20 for SS; 2.9% on $106,800 = $3,097.20 for Medicare). That works out to .00082 of $20 million, or .082%. (That's 8/100ths of 1% for the challenged...)

b) Let's take a person who earns $1-million; (still considered one of the "1%'ers). They're subject to the same amount as Mitt Romney and his $20-million. If they pay the same $16,340.40/year, then that is .0163 of their income, or 1.63%.

c) Let's take someone who is "middle-class", and for the sake of argument, let's say they make $80,000/year, and they're self-employed. They will pay $12,240 for SS ($9,920) & Medicare ($2,320), which is .153 or 15.3% of their income.

Hmmmmm... Who pays MORE as a percentage of their income?....

Yeah, but that same arguement applies to other near necessities like purchasing clothing, an automobile or buying gas for it. Lower income people pay a higher percentage of their income. Are you proposing those items get subsidised by the government? Well, there are other necessities that do get subsidised like food and sometimes shelter. The fact is that low income people have it tougher to make most all purchases than high income people do. They most always pay a higher percentage of total income. Duh. What's the point?

So, tell me again, how this falls "on the backs of the rich?"

2) Oh, and if one is retired, one does not get "Obamacare"...One gets the Medicare that you paid into for 50+ years, and the Social Security that you paid into for 50+ years. NONE of it comes out of the pockets of the "rich."

True the retired do not get Obamacare and get Medicare instead (well, I could point out many retire before 65 so it's not technically true), but you are 100% WRONG that none of it comes out of the pockets of the rich.

As I already mentioned, there is no income limit on the Medicare payroll tax. So the rich pay far more. In addition, Obamacare will double the Medicare tax for those making over $200K/$250K. In addition to that, higher income people pay higher premiums for Medicare once they reach age 65. And finally, Medicare has been taking in much less in taxes and premiums than it's been paying out for some time now. High income people pay for that in their income taxes at a FAR higher rate than low income people do (if they pay any income tax at all). So yes, very much of Medicare comes out of the pockets of the rich.

You started this topic inaccurate, and you are still inaccurate.

Yeah, that 2.9% really adds up, don't it?

Lessee, for a person making $20-million, that would come to: $580,000... I wonder how far that would go toward upkeep on 5 houses, 2 Cadillacs, and a car elevator?



You're funny... And you're lying through your teeth about the "burden on the rich."

Next thing you're going to tell me is that "Social Security" is bankrupt... (Standard talking-point, that is a lie.)

LadyJazzer wrote: Yeah, that 2.9% really adds up, don't it?

Lessee, for a person making $20-million, that would come to: $580,000... I wonder how far that would go toward upkeep on 5 houses, 2 Cadillacs, and a car elevator?



You're funny... And you're lying through your teeth about the "burden on the rich."

Next thing you're going to tell me is that "Social Security" is bankrupt... (Standard talking-point, that is a lie.)

Who are you responding to? You don't mention anything about the points I made.

Before I respond to your "lying through your teeth" comment or your strawman Social Security claim, I just want to make sure you are responding to me.

pineinthegrass wrote: Are you proposing those items get subsidised by the government?

No, that's YOUR red herring. I'm not proposing anything of the sort. I just pointed out the lies about "I would need food stamps, Obamacare, and 'live off the backs of the rich'".

Gee, if Medicare doubled for people making over $250,000, that would come to 5.8%... For someone making $250,000, let me see if I can work up a crocodile tear. That would come to: $14,500 (instead of $7,250)... Oh, the horror....

And since the "rich" will never pay any more than $16,340.40/year--(or $19,437.60, if Medicare were to double)--I stand by my statement that in the grand scheme of things, that is pocket-change. Social Security is solid for the next 28 years. I'm tired of hearing this crap about it being "bankrupt." It's a great talking-point, but it's a lie.

Gee, at $19,437.60, on an income of $20-million that would represent a total tax liability for SS/Medicare of: .00097, or .097%... (9.7 / 100ths of a percent....) Poor Mitt. He might not have enough to buy a new pet-carrier for Seamus this year...

She's the liar....

Let's say you let your spend addicted brother borrow $100,000,000,000. He spent the money like mad ...when he needed more he just went to bank accounts and withdrew it and gave you an IOU. Over the past several years, you didn't need the $ 100,000,000,000 because you had enough cash coming in to pay your liabilities. So no big deal. After a several years, your cash flow isn't enough to pay all of your liabilities that you have a fiduciary trust responsibility to pay.... you have to call your brother and tell him you need cash. But your brother doesn't have the cash. He has to borrow from foreign neighbor to pay back your $ 100,000,000.

Welcome to the BANKRUPT SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM. Social Security may not be bankrupt ....but the entity that has borrowed all of its cash is. By the way, if the social security exhausts in 28 years...it's bankrupt....because it has currently liabilities out for 50 years. Welcome to liberal word twisting.