dagblog - Comments for "Paul Ryan Says You're Lazy"

I don't think I can adquately

Orlando — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 13:16:12 +0000

In reply to Paul Ryan Says You're Lazy

I don't think I can adquately express my utter contempt for Paul Ryan. But I tried to during the health care debate. He is a ridulously misinformed lightweight who would serve society better if he resigned from Congress and made Tony Robbins-like infomercials.

Great analogy to compare the

miguelitoh2o — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 01:57:32 +0000

In reply to Paul Ryan Says You're Lazy

Great analogy to compare the $63k extra spent in taxes here to the cost of living in a Bannana Republic that is fully out of the closet Destor. Start factoring in the personal bodyguards and armored limos the rich will soon find indispensable given our current societal trajectory, and paying $63k/yr begins to look like a rational decision in their own self interest.

Ryan is right, you know.

CVille Dem — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 23:01:03 +0000

In reply to Paul Ryan Says You're Lazy

Ryan is right, you know. Because "competition" between insurance companies is working out so well. They compete amongst themselves over healthy 20 - 30 year-old employed people, and charge an arm and a leg to everyone else.

They"ll all be fighting over the 80 year-olds who are on 15 different medications. Right. This is so sick, I don't know where to start.

Compare our costs to countries that have full health coverage AND ALSO BETTER OUTCOMES than ours, and their BS is exposed. But NOOOOOOOOOO, That is elitist!

The utter shit that they put out about health care is insulting to anyone who can read at a 5th grade level.

When they really start losing the argument, they cite stories about Canadians streaming over our borders for health care. I like to respond that I went to the doctor the other day, and I must have gotten there just in time, because I didn't have to wait behind a bunch of canucks!

LIARS ALL!, and with the goal of ruining our country! It is shameful.

(No subject)

Richard Day — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 22:06:32 +0000

In reply to So the GOP and Ryan want to

hahahahaah

Richard Day — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 22:04:03 +0000

In reply to Whatever, I say Paul Ryan is

hahahahaah

So the GOP and Ryan want to

NCD — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:36:34 +0000

In reply to Oh and look... since Ryan

So the GOP and Ryan want to 'save the children' by sending their Medicare tax dollars straight to Wall Street and for-profit health insurance companies, and ending Medicare. Then the GOP wants to top it off by slapping a 10% income tax (VAT) increase on the poor and middle class, or anyone who spends most of their income, which the rich do not.

Oh and look... since Ryan

Michael Maiello — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 17:41:52 +0000

In reply to On the general topic of

Oh and look... since Ryan prefers some sort of VAT tax, which will disproportionately affect people with less money who have to spend more of their incomes, his plan is actually a tax cut for anyone making over $127,000 a year.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/04/will-paul-ryan-propose-a-giant...

On the general topic of

NCD — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 17:14:14 +0000

In reply to Good math sleuthing, NCD!

On the general topic of Social Security and taxes, Robert Reich discussed the issue of how as incomes of the rich suck more and more income above the SS tax limit ($106k-which doesn't include capital gains, just wages) then the receipts of SS tax fall, and those with high incomes pay less and less as a % of their income. This along with the fact that when Reagan 'saved' SS in the 80's by raising the SS rate on wage earners, and the retirement age, while at the same time giving huge taxcuts for the rich.

The government then used the increased SS wage taxes to fill in for the taxcuts on the wealthy and to fund operations, stealthily putting "IOU's in a drawer' (Bush-2005, West Virginia) - known as the SS Trust Fund, which they have no intention of paying back from general revenues.

It was the biggest bait and switch on American workers in history.

Reich from link above:

Back in 1983, the ceiling was set so the Social Security payroll tax would hit 90 percent of all wages covered by Social Security. That 90 percent figure was built into the Greenspan Commission’s fixes. The Commission assumed that, as the ceiling rose with inflation, the Social Security payroll tax would continue to hit 90 percent of total income.

Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84 percent of total income (my note-and has never hit capital gains which in other western nations is taxed the same as wages)
If we want to go back to 90 percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000.

Presto. Social Security’s long-term (beyond 26 years from now) problem would be solved.....

Good math sleuthing, NCD!

Michael Maiello — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:31:47 +0000

In reply to Stardust had this link to "Of

Good math sleuthing, NCD!

Stardust had this link to "Of

NCD — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:07:04 +0000

In reply to Paul Ryan Says You're Lazy

Stardust had this link to "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%" by Joseph Stiglitz recently. It pretty well explains what is going on with the GOP today, I support Obama, as weak as he is at times, dealing with the nutcases on the other side and the ignoramus US voters is challenging to say the least.

As to 'the rich' and taxes, since the (1) federal income tax receipts, and (2) social security/medicare payroll tax receipts, are nearly the same % of federal tax receipts (38-41%), and since low and middle wage earners pay the bulk of SS tax, and do so on 100% of their income, and the rich don't pay SS on income above around 100k, and since all the money is spent immediately, the fact is the upper 10% with 40% of the income, in fact pay only about 18% or so of federal tax receipts (while getting 40% of the income). I calculated this with links on another post, anyone interested can look into it for themselves.