Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
29. Congress and senate will not care as long as they get campaign fundng from Exxon, United, ect...
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 05:31 PM
Mar 2013

So those that make their income from stocks investments with have to pay a little more SS ...while they enjoy the 14.9% fed rate. Am I suppose to care? Would there be any real threat to jobs here? They are not creating jobs here anyway IMO. Any jobs that might be created for American citizens are mostly service jobs which are subsidized by tax breaks for the corporations and food stamps for their workers ...example Wallmart. The tech jobs here mostly go to "more and better educated" persons from overseas or in other words subsidies to other countries work force. Why should it matter to the common little person and voter what problems the overly spent rich people have? I understand after you allocate your income for 300k that additional expenditures may cause some hardship but that pales in comparison to the plight of the 15-20k a year worker. It's not the fault of the poor that people who make more money spend more and end up in a jam when things go south. Where do they spend that higher income and on what? Bigger home ...better boat ...golf club ...yacht club ...5 star restaurants ...fancy cars ...college for the kids ...health insurance ...all of which the poor could never hope to attain. The Heritage Foundation propaganda is free market capitalism and that is really only for them and not people who make 15-20k a year. I find no excuse for anyone making 10 times as much to complain about their financial problems for any reason ...except maybe health problems which can and does bankrupt just about everyone except the extreme rich. You have to be rich enough to pay for lawyers to get bad faith insurance to pay up on a legit claim anyway. Certainly IMO having the cap limit did not and will not assist job creation. I am tired of the anti American pro unrestricted free market capitalistic Reagan lies ...and the stupid people who believe them.

It seems that this weekend you are obsessed with SS Angry Dragon Mar 2013 #1
All the people insisting it not be touched. dkf Mar 2013 #2
I'm concerned, if a bunch of money was borrowed from the SS trust fund, can we pretend that patrice Mar 2013 #3
Here is my take on SS Angry Dragon Mar 2013 #5
Agreed about CPI, even for someone who'd be willing to consider a slow down in the patrice Mar 2013 #12
I am still waiting for dkf to respond to any questions I have asked them over the last two days Angry Dragon Mar 2013 #14
If CPI includes medical costs then decreasing medical costs decreases CPI based payments Progressive dog Mar 2013 #28
Thanks for this. nt patrice Mar 2013 #31
Why chained CPI instead of CPI-E then? AnnaLee Mar 2013 #36
The payroll tax holiday was paid for by adding the cost to the federal budget. dkf Mar 2013 #15
Re: your header... ljm2002 Mar 2013 #16
Honestly I didn't understand the mechanics back then. dkf Mar 2013 #18
No, silly... ljm2002 Mar 2013 #25
Which is the mechanics of it. dkf Mar 2013 #26
I wonder why you refuse to answer the questions put to you?? Angry Dragon Mar 2013 #17
Depends if the angry dragon savings account holds savings or... dkf Mar 2013 #21
What a bunch of bull Angry Dragon Mar 2013 #22
What a bunch of malarkey Progressive dog Mar 2013 #27
I think that is precisely what they want to confuse people into believing. AnnaLee Mar 2013 #37
I for one would rather have 20 years of certainty in NO CAT FOOD Progressive dog Mar 2013 #30
Silence? = Those $110K-? incomes are too marginal to take the hit? patrice Mar 2013 #9
Why would raising the cap be a problem? Why not? patrice Mar 2013 #4
I never said that the cap should not be raised Angry Dragon Mar 2013 #8
Well, I think all of us agree about that. Does raising the cap assume that it is part of the budget patrice Mar 2013 #10
A large part of the problem is that republicans want to include anything about SS to be Angry Dragon Mar 2013 #11
True, SS doesn't have anything to do with the discretionary budget management end of it and it patrice Mar 2013 #20
It is smart politics. AnnaLee Mar 2013 #38
Lift the SS earnings cap altogether. Will solve several problems simultaneously. leveymg Mar 2013 #6
When he was campaigning, Obama pandered that he wanted to raise the cap brentspeak Mar 2013 #7
"Today"? "Only"? Not so. riqster Mar 2013 #13
Ok, then link us to where Obama has said otherwise. brentspeak Mar 2013 #23
Done. riqster Mar 2013 #32
That's it? brentspeak Mar 2013 #33
You said that all Obama was talking about was chained CPI riqster Mar 2013 #35
I'm sure the rich will pass the bills. PHFFFFFFFFTT (sound of large long fart in the key of F major) L0oniX Mar 2013 #19
Tell me that raising the cap doesn't have anything to do with incomes that, while you and I would patrice Mar 2013 #24
Congress and senate will not care as long as they get campaign fundng from Exxon, United, ect... L0oniX Mar 2013 #29
The Cap should be eliminated. That is the only fair solution. nt bluestate10 Mar 2013 #34
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»There are bills in the ho...»Reply #29