Budget Cuts ? UNACCEPTABLE ANSWER

chris7375 · Jan 7, 2013

Protectionist said:
Just so YOU know, SSI means Supplemental Security Income, just as I said. It does NOT mean Social Security in general. You stand corrected.

http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/

Actually I don't Social security is an Insurance program.

In the United States, Social Security refers to the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) federal program.[1] The original Social Security Act (1935)[2] and the current version of the Act, as amended[3] encompass several social welfare and social insurance programs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

There is more if you care to read. SSI again is social security insurance if you would like a history lesson on when it started and the first person to collect it I can tell you all that if you like also.

Protectionist · Jan 7, 2013

myp said:
So what ended up happening to your business out of curiosity? Just because you paid what you thought was fair and others paid what they thought was fair and there was a divergence, does not mean you are inherently right. Isn't that a bit egotistical?

2. That was for one year... You said per year implying every year...

What happened to my business was I sold it when I moved from California to Florida.

I wouldn't imagine that those who paid minimum wage thought it was "fair". LOL. Such an idea is beyond wrong. It's quite funny.

What was for one year ? I paid the equivalent of $150/hour during the entire time that I ran the business >> 12 years.

Protectionist · Jan 7, 2013

chris7375 said:
Actually I don't Social security is an Insurance program.

In the United States, Social Security refers to the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) federal program.[1] The original Social Security Act (1935)[2] and the current version of the Act, as amended[3] encompass several social welfare and social insurance programs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

There is more if you care to read. SSI again is social security insurance if you would like a history lesson on when it started and the first person to collect it I can tell you all that if you like also.

You were CORRECTED in Post # 20 , and to perpetuate your error only compounds/magnifies it, and makes it worse. You should have quit while you were ahead >>> Your greater loss. Not my problem.

The link I supplied explains the difference between Social Security and SSI, in the very first sentence on the page. I need say no more.

myp · Jan 7, 2013

Protectionist said:
What was for one year ? I paid the equivalent of $150/hour during the entire time that I ran the business >> 12 years.

Depp made $100 million in 1 year (2010) according to your link. He doesn't make $100 mill per year- he would be a billionaire soon if that were the case.

chris7375 · Jan 7, 2013

Protectionist said:
You were CORRECTED in Post # 20 , and to perpetuate your error only compounds/magnifies it, and makes it worse. You should have quit while you were ahead >>> Your greater loss. Not my problem.

The link I supplied explains the difference between Social Security and SSI, in the very first sentence on the page. I need say no more.

SSI is an acronym correct

SSI alone has three meaning

Social Security Income
Supplemental Security Income
or Social Security Insurance

All three including what I call it are correct. Though I call it what it is Social Security Insurance because again that is what the program is if you want to keep correcting me go ahead though I am not wrong. You receive an insurance payment plain and simple.

I am no more wrong in what I call it then you are. It is known by all three again search it and you will see. If you want that history lesson on it let me know I will be happy to oblige.

Protectionist · Jan 7, 2013

myp said:
Depp made $100 million in 1 year (2010) according to your link. He doesn't make $100 mill per year- he would be a billionaire soon if that were the case.

Got a link to back that up ?

Protectionist · Jan 7, 2013

chris7375 said:
SSI is an acronym correct

SSI alone has three meaning

Social Security Income
Supplemental Security Income
or Social Security Insurance

All three including what I call it are correct. Though I call it what it is Social Security Insurance because again that is what the program is if you want to keep correcting me go ahead though I am not wrong. You receive an insurance payment plain and simple.

I am no more wrong in what I call it then you are. It is known by all three again search it and you will see. If you want that history lesson on it let me know I will be happy to oblige.

Go mention SSI to 5 people, and ask them what it means. Betcha they ALL say Supplemental Security Income, or income for disabled people. Betcha.

And they won't need a history lesson. Me neither.

chris7375 · Jan 8, 2013

Protectionist said:
Go mention SSI to 5 people, and ask them what it means. Betcha they ALL say Supplemental Security Income, or income for disabled people. Betcha.

And they won't need a history lesson. Me neither.

It's a shame because you assume that I want to get rid of the program. I call it exactly what the program is a Government Insurance Program. Which is what its name was when it was created by FDR Social Security Insurance. You again receive an Insurance payment from the government nothing more nothing less.

Protectionist · Jan 8, 2013

chris7375 said:
It's a shame because you assume that I want to get rid of the program. I call it exactly what the program is a Government Insurance Program. Which is what its name was when it was created by FDR Social Security Insurance. You again receive an Insurance payment from the government nothing more nothing less.

Problem here is you're talking to people in a computer forum, in 2013, not when something was created by FDR. If you want people to understand you, you have to talk in 2013 language, and in that language, SSI means a separate program from Social Security. So by the way you worded it, it looked like you were proposing to eliminate Social Security (for the elderly). This information is for YOUR benefit - no one else's. You're welcome.

Gottago · Jan 8, 2013

Protectionist said:
Aren't you tired of hearing some government worker telling you the reason your service has been reduced (or eliminated) is because of budget cuts ? They say it as if we are all supposed to say "Oh yeah, we understand. It's OK".

Well EARTH TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS: No, it's NOT OK. And budget cuts are not an acceptable reason for cutting back service. And the reason why they're not acceptable, is because there's no need for budget cuts. In fact, government budgets ought to be INCREASED, not decreased. All that is necessary is for taxes on the very rich to be raised to NORMAL levels as they have been over most of the past 95 years, when the top US tax rate was never less than 70%, and varied up to 94%. Close the loopholes, restore the normal taxation, and there will be plenty of money for Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, infrastructure repair, the military, ICE and border patrol agents, the Mexican border fence, and everything else.

There's no reason why a movie star with a gross income of $100 million/year has to have a unusually low tax rate of 35% (if he even pays that much). Stop coddling the spoiled brat super rich, and restore normalcy in this country. The whole country is going to the dogs. It's time for budget HIKES.

*sigh*
So, you think that taxing certain groups more because, well, they are a member of a certain group, and giving it all to other people is the answer to this country's economic woes?

Dollar for dollar, the 'rich' pay more into programs that they will never use, then a person more likely to use it. That sounds equitable.

How about EVERYBODY pays a flat rate, with an exclusion of the first $25,000. That way, those in dire need don't pay in much if at all, and everyone else pays in the same percent. THAT is equitable. But only after the government stops spewing dollars to those who can, but don't, work, foreign nations and lifelong benefits for that elite group in DC that aren't worth the salt they are preserved in.

Don't like having your 'programs' cut? Tell the government to stop pissing it away....

chris7375 · Jan 8, 2013

Gottago said:
*sigh*
So, you think that taxing certain groups more because, well, they are a member of a certain group, and giving it all to other people is the answer to this country's economic woes?

Dollar for dollar, the 'rich' pay more into programs that they will never use, then a person more likely to use it. That sounds equitable.

How about EVERYBODY pays a flat rate, with an exclusion of the first $25,000. That way, those in dire need don't pay in much if at all, and everyone else pays in the same percent. THAT is equitable. But only after the government stops spewing dollars to those who can, but don't, work, foreign nations and lifelong benefits for that elite group in DC that aren't worth the salt they are preserved in.

Don't like having your 'programs' cut? Tell the government to stop pissing it away....

I am hitting the like button a hundred times for this one.

Protectionist · Jan 8, 2013

Gottago said:
*sigh*
So, you think that taxing certain groups more because, well, they are a member of a certain group, and giving it all to other people is the answer to this country's economic woes?

Dollar for dollar, the 'rich' pay more into programs that they will never use, then a person more likely to use it. That sounds equitable.

How about EVERYBODY pays a flat rate, with an exclusion of the first $25,000. That way, those in dire need don't pay in much if at all, and everyone else pays in the same percent. THAT is equitable. But only after the government stops spewing dollars to those who can, but don't, work, foreign nations and lifelong benefits for that elite group in DC that aren't worth the salt they are preserved in.

Don't like having your 'programs' cut? Tell the government to stop pissing it away....

No need to tell me that. I've been telling there government to stop pissing away tax money for years, including right here in this forum. Now that that's settled, I wouldn't be so quick to say that the rich "will never use" the tax money that's being taxed. There's millions of rich people in southern California who would very well use the Billions for infrastructure - it would take to stabilize the California delta levees and stop a complete water shutoff to the whole southern half of the state for 2-3 years. There's millions more rich people in (and around) Nashville, TN who would use a repair of the Wolf Creek Dam which seriously threatens to put Nashville under 20 feet of water, killing thousands and wreaking Billions$$ in damages.

They can use the money going to the military and the war in Afghanistan to protect them from al Qaeda bomb-making training camps and nuclear warheads in Pakistan. They can use the tax money needed for natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy and Katrina, floods, earthquakes, tornados, etc. They can use the tax $$ for security from crazy killers like Holmes and Lanza.

And although they might not want to admit it, they can use the tax $$ for Obamacare if they were to incur a life-long severe illness of injury. Suppose they got in a car accident and were paralyzed from the neck down. Guess how long it will be before their private insurer drops them like a hot potato.

There are many more ways the rich gain from tax $$ (how do you think the interstate highway system got built ?) The rich paid for it, and they benefit from it, just like anyone else.

And chris7375: NOW you can press your like button 100 times. LOL

Gottago · Jan 8, 2013

Protectionist said:
No need to tell me that. I've been telling there government to stop pissing away tax money for years, including right here in this forum. Now that that's settled, I wouldn't be so quick to say that the rich "will never use" the tax money that's being taxed. There's millions of rich people in southern California who would very well use the Billions for infrastructure - it would take to stabilize the California delta levees and stop a complete water shutoff to the whole southern half of the state for 2-3 years. There's millions more rich people in (and around) Nashville, TN who would use a repair of the Wolf Creek Dam which seriously threatens to put Nashville under 20 feet of water, killing thousands and wreaking Billions$$ in damages.

They can use the money going to the military and the war in Afghanistan to protect them from al Qaeda bomb-making training camps and nuclear warheads in Pakistan. They can use the tax money needed for natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy and Katrina, floods, earthquakes, tornados, etc. They can use the tax $$ for security from crazy killers like Holmes and Lanza.

And although they might not want to admit it, they can use the tax $$ for Obamacare if they were to incur a life-long severe illness of injury. Suppose they got in a car accident and were paralyzed from the neck down. Guess how long it will be before their private insurer drops them like a hot potato.

There are many more ways the rich gain from tax $$ (how do you think the interstate highway system got built ?) The rich paid for it, and they benefit from it, just like anyone else.

And chris7375: NOW you can press your like button 100 times. LOL

What part of 'paying into programs' wasn't clear?
I'm not talking about infrastructure, or military. I'm talking about assistance programs... EBT, SNAP, medicaid, and the like.

The ACA is a whole nuther mess, a rediculous flag that the current administration was determined to plant come hell or high water. We can dissect that in another thread.

As to what the 'rich' use in the way of tax dollars is less than what the rest of the populace uses. No one said they shouldn't be taxed. But the progressive rates that exist now are being thrown about like a punishment for success. And loudest by those who contribute the least, unfortunately.

More people than ever are collecting from the system. Which means they are not paying in... and before you even drag out sales taxes, they are more than offset by the EIC which is received by low income earners. People who get more back than they paid in are complaining about those who aren't taking out, that they haven't paid in 'enough', by their judgement. The 'rich' have paid more than their fair share.

As to a 'rich' person being disabled in an accident, do you think they have made arrangements either through a disability insurance, or have enough money put by to get them through?

Money earns money, it's not locked up in a little safe under the bed. What, besides speculators, drives the markets? INVESTMENTS. Money earns money. Reasons why I laugh when people point and say 'the economy is doing well, the Market is up!'. Do people think that is not manipulated? And that's not a right-left thing.....

Any mone who feels they aren't being taxed enough, is welcome to write a check to the US Treasury.

myp · Jan 8, 2013

Protectionist said:
Got a link to back that up ?

He isn't on his way to becoming a billionaire. I don't need a link to back it up because I know (and I looked it up yesterday I think net worth is around $350M). Do you realize how much a billion is?

Protectionist · Jan 8, 2013

Gottago said:
What part of 'paying into programs' wasn't clear?
I'm not talking about infrastructure, or military. I'm talking about assistance programs... EBT, SNAP, medicaid, and the like.

The ACA is a whole nuther mess, a rediculous flag that the current administration was determined to plant come hell or high water. We can dissect that in another thread.

As to what the 'rich' use in the way of tax dollars is less than what the rest of the populace uses. No one said they shouldn't be taxed. But the progressive rates that exist now are being thrown about like a punishment for success. And loudest by those who contribute the least, unfortunately.

More people than ever are collecting from the system. Which means they are not paying in... and before you even drag out sales taxes, they are more than offset by the EIC which is received by low income earners. People who get more back than they paid in are complaining about those who aren't taking out, that they haven't paid in 'enough', by their judgement. The 'rich' have paid more than their fair share.

As to a 'rich' person being disabled in an accident, do you think they have made arrangements either through a disability insurance, or have enough money put by to get them through?

Money earns money, it's not locked up in a little safe under the bed. What, besides speculators, drives the markets? INVESTMENTS. Money earns money. Reasons why I laugh when people point and say 'the economy is doing well, the Market is up!'. Do people think that is not manipulated? And that's not a right-left thing.....

Any mone who feels they aren't being taxed enough, is welcome to write a check to the US Treasury.

1. What is ACA ?

2. I receive EBT (AKA SNAP) because my Social Security payment is to low to support buying food. And I'm an American born veteran, and taxpayer for 50 years. I've paid into this when I wasn't using it for half a century. Now that I'm no longer working and need it, you think I shouldn't get it ? That's absurd. If you were talking about someone who's never been out working or some illegal aliens, then sure THEY shouldn't get it, and for those who are rich (right now), they never know when they might need it someday.

3. The progressive tax rates enacted now (39.6%) you call "punishment" ? HA HA HA. You must be really young. Since Reagan was president, taxes on the rich have been ABNORMALLY LOW. Maybe those rates are the only ones you've ever known. Not me. I remember well when top tax rates were NORMAL (70%+). To say putting a rate at 40% "punishment" is hilarious. If there's any punishment going on, it's the American people who have been punished for the last 30 years, with much too low tax rates, and a corresponding shortage of services.

4. As to a 'rich' person being disabled in an accident, THERE ARE NO "ARRANGEMENTS" you can make if you (because of a life-long expensive aliment) become a big liability (LO$$) to an insurance company instead of the gain you once were. What do you think insurance companies are in business for ? To see that you're OK ? They don't give a rat's ass if you live or die, their motive is PROFIT, period. You become a high cost liability to them, and you're history. Then, you start paying out of your pocket. And if your medical/personal care is say $5 million/year, in 10 years, you're out $50 million. If you don't have it, you better hope medicaid is around.

Protectionist · Jan 8, 2013

myp said:
He isn't on his way to becoming a billionaire. I don't need a link to back it up because I know (and I looked it up yesterday I think net worth is around $350M). Do you realize how much a billion is?

Who said anything about a Billion $$ ? I didn't.

myp · Jan 8, 2013

Protectionist said:
Who said anything about a Billion $$ ? I didn't.

You said he is grossing $100M per year. He grossed $100M possibly in 1 year. But that's it. He isn't doing it per year. But this is a pointless conversation anyway

chris7375 · Jan 9, 2013

Protectionist said:
1. What is ACA ?

2. I receive EBT (AKA SNAP) because my Social Security payment is to low to support buying food. And I'm an American born veteran, and taxpayer for 50 years. I've paid into this when I wasn't using it for half a century. Now that I'm no longer working and need it, you think I shouldn't get it ? That's absurd. If you were talking about someone who's never been out working or some illegal aliens, then sure THEY shouldn't get it, and for those who are rich (right now), they never know when they might need it someday.

3. The progressive tax rates enacted now (39.6%) you call "punishment" ? HA HA HA. You must be really young. Since Reagan was president, taxes on the rich have been ABNORMALLY LOW. Maybe those rates are the only ones you've ever known. Not me. I remember well when top tax rates were NORMAL (70%+). To say putting a rate at 40% "punishment" is hilarious. If there's any punishment going on, it's the American people who have been punished for the last 30 years, with much too low tax rates, and a corresponding shortage of services.

4. As to a 'rich' person being disabled in an accident, THERE ARE NO "ARRANGEMENTS" you can make if you (because of a life-long expensive aliment) become a big liability (LO$$) to an insurance company instead of the gain you once were. What do you think insurance companies are in business for ? To see that you're OK ? They don't give a rat's ass if you live or die, their motive is PROFIT, period. You become a high cost liability to them, and you're history. Then, you start paying out of your pocket. And if your medical/personal care is say $5 million/year, in 10 years, you're out $50 million. If you don't have it, you better hope medicaid is around.

ACA or aka Obamacare.

You want to know what I would get rid of Welfare would be the first thing that goes. Why because it is a dependency program. Now which would encompass food stamps.

Why there are plenty of charities that do the same thing such as meals on wheels, Feed the poor. Alls one has to do is look and do the research. The run at around 20% percent administrative cost versus the government's 80% administrative cost.

So who would you say is more efficient at getting the people what they need I would have to say the charity.

I don't work though I get paid. I don't collect unemployment, nor do I collect SSID.

I don't collect food stamps, or any Welfare program. My wife and I have no Healthcare Insurance and I don't plan on using Obamacare. My wife has a pre-existing condition which makes here un eligible for medical insurance.

Rightfully so I must say it is not up to the majority to have to pay for the minority unless they so choose to pay for the minority. I have yet to see where we have been allowed to vote on any of these programs. So they are being crammed down our throats without us having a say in if they should be implemented.

The only healthcare program I am for is one that covers children of the nation because they have no voice and deserve to grow up and have one and be healthy while growing up.

Protectionist · Jan 9, 2013

chris7375 said:
ACA or aka Obamacare.

You want to know what I would get rid of Welfare would be the first thing that goes. Why because it is a dependency program. Now which would encompass food stamps.

Why there are plenty of charities that do the same thing such as meals on wheels, Feed the poor. Alls one has to do is look and do the research. The run at around 20% percent administrative cost versus the government's 80% administrative cost.

So who would you say is more efficient at getting the people what they need I would have to say the charity.

I don't work though I get paid. I don't collect unemployment, nor do I collect SSID.

I don't collect food stamps, or any Welfare program. My wife and I have no Healthcare Insurance and I don't plan on using Obamacare. My wife has a pre-existing condition which makes here un eligible for medical insurance.

Rightfully so I must say it is not up to the majority to have to pay for the minority unless they so choose to pay for the minority. I have yet to see where we have been allowed to vote on any of these programs. So they are being crammed down our throats without us having a say in if they should be implemented.

The only healthcare program I am for is one that covers children of the nation because they have no voice and deserve to grow up and have one and be healthy while growing up.

1. You may NEED that welfare (and food stamps) some day. Maybe sooner than you think.

2. I've DONE the research. By getting food stamps (and do now), and I've gone to Church food banks. The food stamps is less than the quantity needed, but a lot more than the food pantries. Have you DONE the research ?

3. if your wife has a pre-existing condition which makes here un-eligible for medical insurance then you NEED Obamacare and you should be at the front of the line in favor of it.

4. As far as who pays for what, I've been paying into these things for 50 years while I was working, and never received a dime back from it. Now that I'm old, I get Social Security, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Assurance Wireless, and whatever else I can get. I paid for it and now I;m collecting on it. That's how we work it in America. It's not 100% perfect, but we like it. And it is supported by Congress who is elected by the people. A democratic republic. A pretty good system. Would you rather live in Syria ?

5. Old people are just as deserving of govt healthcare as kids, since they can longer work (please no examples of 90 yr old lumberjacks, OK ?), and they've been paying into the system for a long time while the people much older than them were getting the benefits. Get it ?

chris7375 · Jan 9, 2013

Protectionist said:
1. You may NEED that welfare (and food stamps) some day. Maybe sooner than you think.

Actually no I won't because we would not qualify for it anyway. I maybe out of work though I was not stupid. I lost my job to an accident that almost paralyzed me. I had accident insurance so I still get paid.

Protectionist said:
2. I've DONE the research. By getting food stamps (and do now), and I've gone to Church food banks. The food stamps is less than the quantity needed, but a lot more than the food pantries. Have you DONE the research ?

Yes I have done quite a bit of research. How about you? Answer me this if Government should run it why such a high overhead? Why is it only 20 cents on every dollar makes it to the public? Why is a charity's overhead so much less then the government? Oh I can go into all the research I have on this subject if you so want me too.

Protectionist said:
3. if your wife has a pre-existing condition which makes here un-eligible for medical insurance then you NEED Obamacare and you should be at the front of the line in favor of it.

There is a down turn to Obama care he failed to implement it correctly. You go all in on Universal Healthcare or you don't. Obama went sort of kinda into Universal Healthcare. Not only did he do that but he passed the cost on to the healthcare companies which in turn raise the rates of those who have healthcare. The other downfall is employer like my wife's former employer is force to provide insurance for their workers if they are full time. So what do they do cut people to part time to solve the problem. Then Obama tell the people if you so choose not to have healthcare coverage you will be penalized for it. Hey that sort of sounds close to a Socialist type Government to me.

Protectionist said:
4. As far as who pays for what, I've been paying into these things for 50 years while I was working, and never received a dime back from it. Now that I'm old, I get Social Security, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Assurance Wireless, and whatever else I can get. I paid for it and now I;m collecting on it. That's how we work it in America. It's not 100% perfect, but we like it. And it is supported by Congress who is elected by the people. A democratic republic. A pretty good system. Would you rather live in Syria ?

That is the problem with dependency programs and that mentality. I paid into also and still do and I am not for those programs.

Protectionist said:
5. Old people are just as deserving of govt healthcare as kids, since they can longer work (please no examples of 90 yr old lumberjacks, OK ?), and they've been paying into the system for a long time while the people much older than them were getting the benefits. Get it ?

Since you like to talk down to me I will do the same. Maybe you should take your memory meds I have stated to you before I am for Social Security for the retired. I am for Medicare for the retired. I am more app to go along with Food Stamps and some welfare if it was used only for the retired older Americans. Though as a whole I am no for this:

[YOUTUBE]rPRtIOmPOD0[/YOUTUBE]

Why should I have to pay to feed her fifteen kids. She is quite capable of working yet she don't. So the system has quite a bit of failure where charities excel. A charity would work to get this woman working and less dependent. The government does nothing to get you working and allows people like this to stay dependent.

Budget Cuts ? UNACCEPTABLE ANSWER

Similar threads