"the poorest person pays 15% when you include social security and employer's contribution"

Come on Jerry, compare apples to apples. Theoretically people get their SSI back. 2012 rates are 10.4% meaning in your example they are paying 4.6%

ha, ha, ha,... sucked Nick in : )

Social security and medicare are insurance, not investment.

People pay SS and Medicare and that money goes to paying seniors, disabled people, and minor children of people that died.

You don't get your money back

I forgot, you're right, they reduced the rates for a couple years to stimulate the economy.

"Social security and medicare are insurance, not investment.

People pay SS and Medicare and that money goes to paying seniors, disabled people, and minor children of people that died.

You don't get your money back"

Jerry, you're right, we don't get our money back. We get some one else's money back. Kinda like a ponzi scheme ;)

"Kinda like a ponzi scheme ;)"

In a Ponzi scheme, you pay the interest for past investors with new investors. You need geometrically more investors over time to pay off previous investors, plus the lavish lifestyle of Mr. Ponzi. Eventually the scheme crashes.

In insurance, you collect payments and make distributions and hopefully they balance. You have a trust fund to make payouts in case there are more than anticipated. This can go indefinitely without crashing.

My conspiracy theory is that the people that have bought off our government want social security killed, because it's wasted taxes going to middle income people. They have planted this idea that social security is a Ponzi scheme so we'll agree to let them kill it.

Social security has gone for 80 years so far and will continue for many years. It has accomplished it's goal of reducing poverty of senior citizens.

apply the Social Security tax to ALL income with no upper limit on the amount of income taxed? AND fence it off for real from Congressional raiders of the future intent on using it for deficit financing?

I know there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the right, but it sure would guarantee the system.

You may flame away when ready, all you Gridleys out there. ;0)

or

have a semi flat tax

30% (or 35%?) total of income tax, social security, medicare, and employer's contribution as a percent of adjusted gross income

for the first $20,000 of income, just tax 7.5% - the employer's contribution to SS and Medicare

for income above $250,000 have it 5% higher

"for income above $250,000 have it 5% higher"

Now that oughta make 'em froth at the mouth. ;=)

Why not just let the Bush tax cuts expire. Everybody talks about the balanced budget during Clinton's time and how much better things were, I vote just let them expire. Now let's move to cutting some expenses back to the Clinton days. Because the tax revenue of the Clinton days surely will not support the spending of the Obama days. However I'm still on the record for all that will happen is to delay the "fiscal cliff" cuts for 1 more year....kick the can down the road. Last minute decision while the markets go wild for the next 45 days.

Bunch of idiot politicians from both parties....

Good idea Brad - let Bush tax cuts expire.

If you just eliminate tax cuts on rich people, it doesn't add up to enough to solve the problem, but it is a fairness thing, some people should not be allowed to pay politicians and then get their taxes cut.

As long as capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15%, we'll know the super-rich are still in control of things.

The "spending of the Obama days" is actually the "spending of the Bush days".

Very little extra spending has been put through while Obama has been president. Mostly just fiscal stimulous which was a one time thing and is now expiring regardless.

Well, if I may repeat myself, ahem...

DOWN WITH CITIZENS UNITED!

That said my take on "drone warfare" and the killing of al-Awlaki is... meh. (Which shouldn't be surprising, since I have described myself as conservative on foreign policy, defense, etc.) The torture of Gitmo prisoners is a sin for which Cheney et al will burn in hell, but I have no problem with killing an American citizen who has taken up arms against the United States. He was waging war (if you want to call terrorism that) against the U.S., so whether he was a citizen or not he was a valid target, just like the Americans who served in the Heer or SS during World War II. I might go so far as to call him a C2 target.

That's also my reaction to the people who get bent that the SEAL team that went after Bin Laden shot him instead of risking their lives trying to capture him... meh.

Edited by acrosome on 11/13/2012 13:39:13 MST.

I agree - DOWN WITH CITIZEN'S UNITED

and our best chance is that moderate Republicans like you, and Brad retake your party

Cheney should be incarcerated behind a glass window. People should walk by with their children, pointing to him saying "don't do that or you'll end up like him".

Individual drone strikes against bad guys are okay, but I worry it will make war too easy. Better to use diplomacy. Unintended consequences of drones, like more terrorist acts, could be worse.

Dean,
The problem with cases like Al-Awaki is you have a single entity acting as Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Is it really so hard to see the danger in that? Your words make it sound like such evidence was provided and his guilt proven. No one in an unbiased role was ever allowed to review the evidence. Even after he was dead, no evidence was provided. In this clip, ABC reporter Jake Tapper takes WH press secretary Jay Carney to task for it.
Jake Tapper, Jay Carney

Its really hard to find Republicans around these parts that are as moderate as Brad or Dean. "let the Bush tax cuts expire" will get you kicked out of the party around here. Or at least keep you from having a chance to be nominated for anything. Grover Norquist pledging is required. And don't even try to be socially moderate around here. Its good to hear from a different mindset.

"Which shouldn't be surprising, since I have described myself as conservative on foreign policy, defense, etc"

What distinguishes conservatives from the rest of the citizenry on foreign policy and defense? Serious question with no ulterior motives, Dean.

Edited by ouzel on 11/13/2012 16:53:06 MST.

"The problem with cases like Al-Awaki is you have a single entity acting as Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Is it really so hard to see the danger in that?"

Personally, I would hope we would extend the same degree of discretion to killing any human, regardless of their citizenship.

But that said, can't you raise the same point (single entity being Judge, Jury, and Executioner) for nearly every person killed in combat? I'm not too sure there's a whole lot of evidence left for the Judge and Jury after a 500 pound bomb levels half a city block.

At the end of the day, aren't those of us that aren't there left to blindly trust that the "right" people are being killed for the "right" reasons?

"At the end of the day, aren't those of us that aren't there left to blindly trust that the "right" people are being killed for the "right" reasons?"

Unfortunately, yes, because you can be sure that, in the fog of war, a lot of the wrong people are going to get killed to get at the "right" people. Call it collateral damage or whatever, it is inevitable. And then there are those troubling incidents like the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden, or carpet bombing in Vietnam, where a lot of the wrong people were killed in cold blood. Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Best not go there. For the "right" reasons? Lest I be accused of being anti US, it is also worth mentioning Nazi Germany's behavior nearly everywhere they went, the Japanese Army's behavior in China, Burma, Malaysia, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Every bit as barbaric, perhaps more so. My point is that it is best to think long and hard before drawing the sword, because once it is out of the scabbard, the red shades come down, and there will be blood, lots of it, most of it that of the innocent. The only real distinction that I make between my own country and the rest of the developed world is that we seem to stand alone in being almost continually engaged in a war somewhere abroad, with all the predictable consequences, beginning with Vietnam. The sole exception I can think of is the Soviets in Afghanistan. I find that deeply troubing, and ascribe it in considerable measure to "blind trust" that the populations of those countries who have experienced the terrible destruction of war up close and personal no longer accord to their leaders. They have finally learned the hard lessons that we have yet to face. I hope we learn them without paying the same terrible price.

So is this the new approach:

1. Rumor has it Obama asking for 1.6 Trillion in add'l tax revenue over the next decade. Double what he was discussing in 2011 with Reps.
2. Pushing hard for Susan Rice to replace Hillary as Sec of State

If these are actually true it will be evident that he is full of horse crap when saying he wants to reach across the align. Again just rumors floating around, but that is how he usually does business before committing to anything

"Again just rumors floating around, but that is how he usually does business before committing to anything"

That is known as floating trial balloons, Brad, and has been SOP for administrations for a long time now. Obama didn't invent the procedure.

"2. Pushing hard for Susan Rice to replace Hillary as Sec of State"

What do you have against Susan Rice?

"1. Rumor has it Obama asking for 1.6 Trillion in add'l tax revenue over the next decade. Double what he was discussing in 2011 with Reps."

Might it be staking out a beginning negotiating position?

Edited for spelling.

Edited by ouzel on 11/13/2012 20:27:34 MST.

yeah, what do you have against Susan Rice?

Intelligent

Calm/diplomatic - as opposed to that awful John Bolton, for example

Black and a woman - if we had more diversity we would have better ideas, for example getting into fewer wars

"That is known as floating trial balloons, Brad, and has been SOP for administrations for a long time now. Obama didn't invent the procedure."

Didn't say it was new, something he invented or not something others use. However if you step back and take an objective approach do you want your political representative floating trial balloons to see what supports approve before acting or do you want them to make the right decisions and fix the problems. This approach is only used to not upset your supporters. I guess he could take the Romney approach and just state his position and then flip flop when his supporters get upset. However don't really see how it is any different.

"What do you have against Susan Rice?"

Did you really ask that question? Purely just her poor job of handling the Libya embassy situation. Regardless of timeline, who knew what, etc. She didn't need to hit the talk show circuit stating things that were not true. She was trying to deflect attention from US and blame in on someone else. Kinda reminds me of the Olympic bombing in Atlanta. Why not just say we are investigating and do not have all the information at this time.

"Might it be staking out a beginning negotiating position?"

When you are truly trying to negotiate an agreement with another party you do it in private and not in the public. Plain and simple. When you involve the media/public then things go in the crapper pretty quick. However this will be the approach both parties take on the fiscal cliff, so I don't really believe either is serious about fixing the problem. Again odds are they will push things out a year and kick the can down the road.

My point is four more years of the same from both parties.