It's time!

[John Smith]

I want to live in a world with no taxes and nearly no government interference in my life. Where what I earn I keep I can defend my home with automatic weapons and we have no illegal immigration problem as well as no national health care or retirement system, and to heck with the rest. I think I'll call it Somalia.

[ikol]

The figure is actually 15.3% and you are absolutely not putting out 15% of your own money, you are 100% off from what you actually pay out. You pay out 7.65%. Of that 6.2% is SS and 1.45 is medicare. The other half of the 15% figure you toss out there is paid by the employer as their match. Thhat is not your money. Stop taking what you do not earn yourself. It is against your principles. Ditto for unemployment insurance since it is paid 100% by the employers.

 

So you're saying the employer match doesn't come out of what would have been your pay?

 

if by "throwing away" you mean making sure old ladies can eat then yeah.

 

Those old ladies could be eating a lot better if their contributions had gone to IRAs and 401Ks instead of George Bush.

[Guest Jules]

The Hitler analogies are overstating it a bit, but, I often wonder what sort of leaders Bush and Cheney would have become if they took the helm of a less democratic country, one in which the executive branch

[Gobias Industries]

Do you think they all do that? Who do you think is washing the dishes in the restaurant you ate in last night, and sending most of their (taxed) paychecks back to Mexico?

 

And plus, working illegal immigrants provide, as far as I remember, at least 1-2 billion dollars to the SS per year through the taxes they pay. Because their SS numbers are fake, the illegal immigrants don't see a damn penny of what they put in there. So maybe paying for their health care is how we can pay them back for paying for our old people.

[Good Old Neon]

Jesus Christ.

 

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.

(Governing Magazine 7/98)

 

-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"

 

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.

 

-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000

 

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [bush] said.

 

-- Business Week, July 30, 2001

[caliber66]

So you're saying the employer match doesn't come out of what would have been your pay?

So you're saying your employer would actually give you that extra 7.whatever percent instead of keeping it?

 

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.

(Governing Magazine 7/98)

[snip]

So George Bush repeating the same stupid (but true) joke about how it would be easier to get his policies enacted if he were a dictator means that he wants to be a dictator?

[embiggen]

So George Bush repeating the same stupid (but true) joke about how it would be easier to get his policies enacted if he were a dictator means that he wants to be a dictator?

 

well duh!

[Good Old Neon]

So George Bush repeating the same stupid (but true) joke about how it would be easier to get his policies enacted if he were a dictator means that he wants to be a dictator?

 

No, but couple those statements with what we have witnessed throughout his tenure as president and it starts to sound less ridiculous - secret prisons, extraditions, breaking international and domestic law, torture, illegal wire tapping, phony wars, being a war criminal and all - little things like that.

[Edie]

I give many immigrants free healthcare every year.

 

Huh?

[Mr. Kinsley]

Those old ladies could be eating a lot better if their contributions had gone to IRAs and 401Ks instead of George Bush.

 

This is kind of a sticky area. Some little old ladies like my grandma in Omaha (who is barely able to squeak by) didn't really have the investing savvy to go beyond their husband's pension and soc sec/medicare type stuff, because at one point in time that would have been enough. Nowadays we know better and make the necessary investments like the IRAs and 401Ks that you mentioned, because that's all we'll need, right? Well, what if time moves on (like it always does) and things change in unforseen ways (like they always do) and our IRAs and 401Ks don't cover basic necessities when we're all 90? Maybe it'll be because President Hillary ran us into the ground, or maybe the obscene debt that W racked up will finally catch up to us, or something else completely that we won't know about for years to come. But whatever the reason for 'it' is, we can't just assume that everyone has the know-how and/or the funds to invest properly. Saving for the future is hard to do when you're scraping by today.

 

Someone once said (who it was escapes me at the moment) that 'the measure of a society is not how it treats its upper class, but rather how it treats its most vulnerable.' And this is why I called this a sticky area - we need that safety net that soc sec provides our seniors, but yeah, they'd be better off without having to pay into that safety net. It's the type of conundrum that requires creative problem solving of a non-ideological sort, reaching across party lines or forgetting that those lines exist at all. There is some truth in 'trickle-down' economics and there is an inescapable moral imperative in helping our neediest citizens, regardless of how they got that way. The question is this - do we as the wealthiest nation on earth have the intelligence, intestinal fortitude, and lack of ego to make the necessary changes to our system?

 

The sad answer is no. The reason is that 'they' will always be to blame. For the conservatives it will be the little old ladies and illegal immigrants and flag burning homosexual atheist ACLU lawyers, and for the liberals/progressives it will be the corporations and the Bible-thumping redneck election cheats. I guess the answer on this and other problems that we face is in how we percieve the other, how well we can listen without judging because they just might have a nuggett of truth in whatever they're saying.

 

So go ahead and give me your ideas. I'm ready to listen. Unless you're one of them.

[ikol]

So you're saying your employer would actually give you that extra 7.whatever percent instead of keeping it?

 

Depends on the employer. I think most small businesses would. Where do you think the extra 6% came from when employers first had to make the contribution?

[John Smith]

So you're saying the employer match doesn't come out of what would have been your pay?

 

No it does not come out of your pay at all.

 

And no I do not think employers would pass along that amount to their employees unless forced to by law, especially small business owners. Why do I think that? I live in Illinois and used to do taxes for many small business owners. The Unemployment Compensaion tax (UC) is paid by the employers. The tax rate is always based on a formula involving wages paid and claims made. As you go with less and less claims you pay a lower rate. I have seen time and time again where the employers rates have dropped and they have never in my experience paid those savings to employees as additional wages. Ditto for when they save on Employee health insurance (Sometimes premiums do go down as companies add more employees to the rolls) Ditto for when minimum funding requirements for pensions are met. Example: I work for a huge multi national. Last year our company stock price increase allowed he company to meet the minimum funding requirements so they contributed no cash whereas the previous few yeas they had been contributing $100million or so er year. I did not see one penny of that benefit savings passed along as salary. So I really have no faith in any company to pay out any savings on employee benfits be those benefits the employer match for FICA or insurance savings. Why would a business owner cut his own profits? Ceretainly a few might be somewhat altruistic, but generally they will keep it for themselves.

[ShuckOwens]

phony wars, being a war criminal and all - little things like that.

Dang, this is the first I've heard of this! Any word on when Bush is scheduled to be handed over to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes?

 

Hey... wait a minute. Is this just a cool slogan you heard Eddie Vedder drop?

[John Smith]

Depends on the employer. I think most small businesses would. Where do you think the extra 6% came from when employers first had to make the contribution?

 

That match did not cme from the employees at all ever. It always came from the employers and it has been required by law. Where do you think it came from?

[Good Old Neon]

Dang, this is the first I've heard of this! Any word on when Bush is scheduled to be handed over to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes?

 

Hey... wait a minute. Is this just a cool slogan you heard Eddie Vedder drop?

 

Aw, how cute - you made a funny.

[MattZ]

That match did not cme from the employees at all ever. It always came from the employers and it has been required by law. Where do you think it came from?

 

And employers hate paying it and do what they can to structure what they can to avoid paying it. They view it as another tax that they pay, not comp otherwise earned by the employee. If the employer didn't have to match, the employer would keep it. I'm with John Smith.

[ShuckOwens]

Aw, how cute - you made a funny.

Nothing funny about war crimes... if you're privy to some info, you need to share, bro.

[IRememberDBoon]

Dang, this is the first I've heard of this! Any word on when Bush is scheduled to be handed over to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes?

 

Hey... wait a minute. Is this just a cool slogan you heard Eddie Vedder drop?

 

Fuck the President. Hes a blood soaked maniac. 4000 dead. Six yesterday and noone gives a FLYING SHIT. NOONE. It was barely reported and their names will never be known all for some pie in the sky bullshit plan.

[ShuckOwens]

Fuck the President. Hes a blood soaked maniac. 4000 dead. Six yesterday and noone gives a FLYING SHIT. NOONE. It was barely reported and their names will never be known all for some pie in the sky bullshit plan.

[aricandover]

Fuck the President. Hes a blood soaked maniac. 4000 dead. Six yesterday and noone gives a FLYING SHIT. NOONE.

 

[Good Old Neon]

Nothing funny about war crimes... if you're privy to some info, you need to share, bro.

 

Here's an interesting little read for starters:

 

The Torture Tape Fingering Bush As a War Criminal

by Andrew Sullivan

 

Almost all of the time, the Washington I know and live in is utterly unrelated to the Washington you see in the movies. The government is far more incompetent and amateur than the masterminds of Hollywood darkness.

 

There are no rogue CIA agents engaging in illegal black ops and destroying evidence to protect their political bosses. The kinds of scenario cooked up in Matt Damon

[ikol]

This is kind of a sticky area. Some little old ladies like my grandma in Omaha (who is barely able to squeak by) didn't really have the investing savvy to go beyond their husband's pension and soc sec/medicare type stuff, because at one point in time that would have been enough. Nowadays we know better and make the necessary investments like the IRAs and 401Ks that you mentioned, because that's all we'll need, right? Well, what if time moves on (like it always does) and things change in unforseen ways (like they always do) and our IRAs and 401Ks don't cover basic necessities when we're all 90? Maybe it'll be because President Hillary ran us into the ground, or maybe the obscene debt that W racked up will finally catch up to us, or something else completely that we won't know about for years to come. But whatever the reason for 'it' is, we can't just assume that everyone has the know-how and/or the funds to invest properly. Saving for the future is hard to do when you're scraping by today.

 

There is some risk with retirement investments, but for the most part, your money's pretty safe as long as you invest conservatively. The problem with the current system is that it is going to run our country into the ground if it isn't drastically changed. When it was first conceived, the retirement age was close to the life expectancy. Now, people are living and collecting benefits for 20-30 years after they retire. With the ratio of old to young people shifting as it is, there's no way that workers are going to be able to cover retirees. At the very least, the retirement age is going to have to be raised. While I'm in favor of complete privatization, I think it would still be beneficial to partially privatize it. You could have a portion (say 75%) of the payroll tax go to an IRA of the employee's choice, while the rest goes into a government fund insuring against bad investments.

[Elixir Sue]

[caliber66]

Now I'm no genius, but what happens when all these people who have their retirement $$ in mutual funds start selling? Won't that affect the price of the funds, and therefore affect the value of everyone else's retirement? If every American's nest egg is invested in the stock market, it's gonna be hard to keep them growing at some point, seems to me.

[ShuckOwens]

Here's an interesting little read for starters:

 

The Torture Tape Fingering Bush As a War Criminal

by Andrew Sullivan

The information you're privy to is a commentator's blog entry? I'm not sure that Andrew Sullivan, Billie Joe Armstrong or Keith Olbermann, however sagacious they may be, could make these charges stick.