|
|
Clinton says this as if.... it's a good thing???? Via Instapundit...... Daily Times - Site Edition Friday, October 30, 2009 Al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan: Hillary Clinton LAHORE: The leadership of Al Qaeda is in Pakistan, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday. ?I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn?t get them if they really wanted to,? she added. ?Maybe that?s the case; maybe they?re not gettable. I don?t know... As far as we know, they are in Pakistan,? Clinton told senior Pakistani newspaper editors in Lahore, AFP reported. ?The percentage of taxes on GDP (in Pakistan) is among the lowest in the world... We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn?t move, and that?s not what we see in Pakistan,? she said. ?You do have 180 million people. Your population is projected to be about 300 million. And I don?t know what you?re going to do with that kind of challenge, unless you start planning right now,? she said. ?If we are going to have a mature partnership where we work together? then ?there are issues that not just the United States but others have with your government and with your military security establishment?. Separately, Clinton also met army chief General Ashfaq Kayani and exchanged views on a host of security-related issues. link
|
Posts:
4,503
Registered:
7/15/07
|
|
(598 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 12:24 AM
|
> > > > For your 6.5%, you are guaranteed
> benefits
> > if
> > > you
> > > > need them later. Basically, it'd be
> > insurance
> > > > against not planning for your
> retirement.
> > >
> > > That would be rewarding bad behavior, and
> > > discouraging responsiblity, no?
> >
> > No. It'd be insurance. You don't drive through
> a
> > forest because you have car insurance and if you
> hit
> > a tree you're covered.
>
> If you get a check for not saving, but don't if you
> do, what does that drive?
By paying your 6.5%, you are saving.
The problem is that its government mandated. Its not a choice. Which is why in my perfect world it'd be optional. If you opted in, you are making a choice to save should you ever need the help. If you opt out and end up old and broke, sorry about your luck.
Sounds cold, I know but decisions should have consequences. And they should be decisions not government mandate.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,280
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(597 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 12:22 AM
|
> > > Apparently what was missing from that
> sentence
> > was
> > > your comprehension.
> > >
> > > Adjust payouts to remain constant.
> > > Adjust paying in downwards.
> > > What happens?
> >
> > It isn't my reading comprehension, your wording
> is
> > fragmented.
>
> Perhaps you are right. You is permitted to be
> understood however. Meanwhile you are just running
> away from the issue.
Define the "issue" clearly, and I'll answer.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,280
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(596 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 12:21 AM
|
> > > For your 6.5%, you are guaranteed benefits
> if
> > you
> > > need them later. Basically, it'd be
> insurance
> > > against not planning for your retirement.
> >
> > That would be rewarding bad behavior, and
> > discouraging responsiblity, no?
>
> No. It'd be insurance. You don't drive through a
> forest because you have car insurance and if you hit
> a tree you're covered.
If you get a check for not saving, but don't if you do, what does that drive?
|
|
|
Posts:
4,327
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(595 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 12:06 AM
|
|
Were you wanting to ignore the rest of the SSA? Just look at the SSI? *shrug* Ah well.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,327
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(594 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 14, 2009 12:05 AM
|
...
--
Edited by JaredP at 11/13/2009 9:07 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
4,327
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(593 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:59 PM
|
Doubletake, reality check:
Social Security is NOT a retirement fund. It was built to take care of those UNABLE to care for themselves. As in UNABLE to save for themselves.
--
Edited by JaredP at 11/13/2009 9:17 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
4,503
Registered:
7/15/07
|
|
(592 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:59 PM
|
> Although if you want to discuss SSI, I'm game. So far
> I've been assuming you are ignorant that there is a
> seperate program called SSI and mean SSA (aka social
> security).
I'd respond to that but I'm in genuine awe.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,503
Registered:
7/15/07
|
|
(591 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:57 PM
|
> > At risk of sounding like a commie, need.
> >
> > I think everyone should be taxed the same rate.
> If
> > the poorest pays 6.5%, the richest should pay
> 6.5%.
> >
> > For your 6.5%, you are guaranteed benefits if
> you
> > need them later. Basically, it'd be insurance
> > against not planning for your retirement.
>
> 
>
> Don't look now, Frank, but I think we agree again.
>
> Remove the cap, and don't pay out to the rich that
> don't need it.
>
> Problem solved. What shall we tackle next, Frank?
> 
I'd say global warming but it looks like mother nature is taking care of that for us. God damn its cold out tonight.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,503
Registered:
7/15/07
|
|
(590 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:57 PM
|
> > For your 6.5%, you are guaranteed benefits if
> you
> > need them later. Basically, it'd be insurance
> > against not planning for your retirement.
>
> That would be rewarding bad behavior, and
> discouraging responsiblity, no?
No. It'd be insurance. You don't drive through a forest because you have car insurance and if you hit a tree you're covered.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,327
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(589 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:55 PM
|
> > Apparently what was missing from that sentence
> was
> > your comprehension.
> >
> > Adjust payouts to remain constant.
> > Adjust paying in downwards.
> > What happens?
>
> It isn't my reading comprehension, your wording is
> fragmented.
Perhaps you are right. You is permitted to be understood however. Meanwhile you are just running away from the issue.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,280
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(588 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:55 PM
|
> Let's face it, that 6.5% is a whole lot more
> important to the poor man than the rich man. That's
> even before we start counting in all the improved
> opportunities and products money affords.
> Realistically, it doesn't make sense to bleed stones.
The gov't wouldn't have a need to take it in the first place if they believed that individuals would save on their own. Too many won't. The nanny state is alive and well.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,327
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(587 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:51 PM
|
> > Frankly though you guys are off your rockers.
> Crying
> > about the wealthiest giving a tiny fraction of
> their
> > income to keep the nation's most at risk alive
> and
> > well.
>
> Are you speaking of the thread in general or the SSI
> discussion specifically?
Forum in general and SSA specifically.
Although if you want to discuss SSI, I'm game. So far I've been assuming you are ignorant that there is a seperate program called SSI and mean SSA (aka social security).
|
|
|
Posts:
11,152
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(586 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:49 PM
|
> At risk of sounding like a commie, need.
>
> I think everyone should be taxed the same rate. If
> the poorest pays 6.5%, the richest should pay 6.5%.
>
> For your 6.5%, you are guaranteed benefits if you
> need them later. Basically, it'd be insurance
> against not planning for your retirement.
Don't look now, Frank, but I think we agree again.
Remove the cap, and don't pay out to the rich that don't need it.
Problem solved. What shall we tackle next, Frank?
|
|
|
Posts:
3,280
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(585 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:49 PM
|
> > Not sure I follow. What do you mean by an equal
> part
> > of their pay? I would guess you mean everyone
> would
> > pay the same percentage of their income(?). When
> you
> > say you don't think benefits should be
> proportional
> > (to contribution), what should it be based on?
> >
>
> At risk of sounding like a commie, need.
>
> I think everyone should be taxed the same rate. If
> the poorest pays 6.5%, the richest should pay 6.5%.
>
> For your 6.5%, you are guaranteed benefits if you
> need them later. Basically, it'd be insurance
> against not planning for your retirement.
That would be rewarding bad behavior, and discouraging responsiblity, no?
> > >
> > > But then, I'd let people opt out and if
> they did
> > opt
> > > out and ended up old a broke, they get to
> live
> > off
> > > government cheese.
> >
> > Allowing opting out would be a disaster. We've
> > created a monster- too many people would not
> act
> > responsibly.
>
> That's the problem. Things like SSI encourage
> irresponsibility. Within our ability,we've removed
> consequence.
true-
|
|
|
Posts:
3,280
Registered:
11/5/02
|
|
(584 of 613)
Re: H Clinton: "We tax everything that moves..."
Nov 13, 2009 11:46 PM
|
> Apparently what was missing from that sentence was
> your comprehension.
>
> Adjust payouts to remain constant.
> Adjust paying in downwards.
> What happens?
It isn't my reading comprehension, your wording is fragmented.
|
|
|
|
|
