Cheating is OK

[Belthazor]

Realizing that humans are flawed creatures that succumb to sometimes dark inclinations is not being "effed up".

Your point was:

"One party admits it. The other does not."

My point was/is:

it maters not at ALL to "admit" ones faults if one has no intention of changing/trying to do better with actions.

and

You are saying your party admits it, but you haven't yet, you are still arguing against Dem's being part of our financial fiasco....

[CowboyX]

Your point was:

"One party admits it. The other does not."

My point was/is:

it maters not at ALL to "admit" ones faults if one has no intention of changing/trying to do better with actions.

You're trying to change the subject. We were talking about the "character counts" mantra of the republicans who, when it comes to your president, doesn't seem to "count" anymore.

That's the republican's standard, not the democrats.

Why should the democrats be held accountable to a republican standard that the republicans don't seem to care about?

[Belthazor]

You're trying to change the subject. We were talking about the "character counts" mantra of the republicans who, when it comes to your president, doesn't seem to "count" anymore.

That's the republican's standard, not the democrats.

Why should the democrats be held accountable to a republican standard that the republicans don't seem to care about?

I have stated numerous times the Donald is an ass and a nut and without a positive character and I don't support him other than he IS president. I wasn't all that happy with Obama either, but he was president and I support the presidency. The Rep party holds great hypocrisy.
Ok?

Now back to my point, both parties have put us in financial peril (just a for instance), certainly not just one of the near worthless Rep or Dem parties.
Both parties (for instance) have supported taking surplus funds from SS for the general fund.

What are we to do when SS, Medicare, Medicaid can only pay a portion of what is owed (like about $0.74 on the dollar for SS by about 2030)?

[CowboyX]

Now back to my point, both parties have put us in financial peril (just a for instance), certainly not just one of the near worthless Rep or Dem parties.
Both parties (for instance) have supported taking surplus funds from SS for the general fund.

Support please {challenge thingy}

---------- Post added at 11:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 PM ----------

What are we to do when SS, Medicare, Medicaid can only pay a portion of what is owed (like about $0.74 on the dollar for SS by about 2030)?

Raise the cap on withholding.

[Belthazor]

Support please {challenge thingy}[COLOR="Silver"]

You want me to support both parties have had control of congress and the presidency and the debt goes on unabated and rarely discussed by either party (except when the barrowing limit is reached, and then only how much to raise the limit, not how to balance the budget)?

---------- Post added at 08:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 PM ----------

Raise the cap on withholding.

Here once again the little guy gets screwed. The lower the wage the more affect it will have., but raise payroll/income taxes by a couple percent (or whatever number) and that means a reduction in wages of that same couple percent. Less wages, less buying power, lower standard of living just to support out of control spending by both parties in WA DC.

[CowboyX]

You want me to support both parties have had control of congress and the presidency and the debt goes on unabated and rarely discussed by either party (except when the barrowing limit is reached, and then only how much to raise the limit, not how to balance the budget)?

No support what I asked you to support.

---------- Post added at 12:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 PM ----------

Here once again the little guy gets screwed. The lower the wage the more affect it will have., but raise payroll/income taxes by a couple percent (or whatever number) and that means a reduction in wages of that same couple percent. Less wages, less buying power, lower standard of living just to support out of control spending by both parties in WA DC.

No, the cap on withholding. Currently it is somewhere around $119,000. Make all incomes susceptible.

Repeal the Trump tax cuts also.

[Belthazor]

No support what I asked you to support.[COLOR="Silver"]
.

That is what you asked or I am confused??

---------- Post added at 06:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 PM ----------

No, the cap on withholding. Currently it is somewhere around $119,000. Make all incomes susceptible.

While I don't necessarily disagree in concept:

How much money would that extract ("generate")?
Would it be sustainable?

[CowboyX]

That is what you asked or I am confused??[COLOR="Silver"]

You are confused.

---------- Post added at 02:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:32 AM ----------

While I don't necessarily disagree in concept:

How much money would that extract ("generate")?
Would it be sustainable?

It would solve the problem.

[Belthazor]

You are confused.

Helpful comment?

I presume you wanted support that both parties have raped SS and spend money like "drunken sailors".

Both parties have had control of congress and the presidency. No attempts have been made to limit the growth of spending vs taxation (extraction) revenue and the debt continues unabated. You may note that the limited surplus under Clinton was because the economy grew faster than expected, not because of Fed policy (businesses generally succeed in spite Fed policy, not as a product of it [unless you are a defense contractor]).

---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 PM ----------

It would solve the problem.

Show me the support (thingy) please?

How could you know this if you don't know how much money we need and how much money this would "generate" (extract)?

[CowboyX]

Show me the support (thingy) please?

How could you know this if you don't know how much money we need and how much money this would "generate" (extract)?

"In the past, the tax cap has been set at a level that covered about 90 percent of all earnings paid in covered employment. Currently, only about 83 percent of earnings are subject to the Social Security payroll tax. This erosion in covered earnings largely stems from the fact that wages for the highest paid 6 percent of workers have been rising faster than wages for the majority of people who make less than the cap.

Raising the payroll tax cap needn’t be an elusive goal. There is already legislation in Congress to do just that. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) Social Security Expansion Act would subject earned income over $250,000 to the Social Security payroll tax.

Rep. John Larson’s (D-Conn.) Social Security 2100 Act would apply the payroll tax to wages above $400,000, then phase out the cap altogether. Both bills would modestly increase Social Security benefits and keep the system solvent for most of this century. We believe that if the payroll tax cap is lifted, wealthier Americans who pay more into the system should see their benefits increase, as well." https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...-payroll-taxes

[Belthazor]

"In the past, the tax cap has been set at a level that covered about 90 percent of all earnings paid in covered employment. Currently, only about 83 percent of earnings are subject to the Social Security payroll tax. This erosion in covered earnings largely stems from the fact that wages for the highest paid 6 percent of workers have been rising faster than wages for the majority of people who make less than the cap.

Raising the payroll tax cap needn’t be an elusive goal. There is already legislation in Congress to do just that. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) Social Security Expansion Act would subject earned income over $250,000 to the Social Security payroll tax.

Rep. John Larson’s (D-Conn.) Social Security 2100 Act would apply the payroll tax to wages above $400,000, then phase out the cap altogether. Both bills would modestly increase Social Security benefits and keep the system solvent for most of this century. We believe that if the payroll tax cap is lifted, wealthier Americans who pay more into the system should see their benefits increase, as well." https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...-payroll-taxes

Not that I don't trust a politician to tell the truth or anything.....but not everyone agrees:

https://www.bankrate.com/financing/r...cial-security/

" She says that if the cap were removed altogether in 2016 and everyone paid what they pay now on all the income they made, this would be the outcome:
The trust fund reserves would be extended through 2055 (an additional 21 years).
Money would accumulate quickly in the trust funds and it would earn significant interest over time.
All workers would feel the pain of increased payroll taxes because employers would reduce wages across the board to compensate for their share of the increase.
Raising the wage cap would reduce other federal income tax collections because people would earn less money. But overall — adding together payroll and income taxes — the government still would collect more.
The impact of high earners paying more into Social Security would be mitigated by increases in Social Security payments to them after they retire."

Everyone's SS taxes are going up (due to Gov't mismanagement by both parties):

"How much increase in the payroll tax is required from the current 12.4% — half paid by workers and half paid by employers? Smith writes in her report:
A 1-point rate increase to 13.4%, phased in over 10 years beginning in 2016, would extend trust fund reserves an additional 5 years.
A 2 percentage-point increase to 14.4% would extend reserves an additional 18 years.
A 3 percentage-point increase to 15.4% would extend reserves through 2087."

There is no magic bullet. The Nat'l debt is rising and we will not be able to barrow over $1 trillion /yr for ever! We can no longer steal (barrow) from SS and the rest of the world will likely quit loaning us money when our interest payment on that debt (since we never pay any principle - thank you BOTH parties!!!) is the largest item on the budget!

[CowboyX]

Did Obama cheat at golf?

[Belthazor]

Did Obama cheat at golf?

LOL!!…..
Please don't take my "LOL" comment as insulting. Your comment did make me laugh


Um, I'm not sure. I'm not a golf spectator and don't pay much attention to presidents free time activities, but I will say:
I believe it was you that said the Donald moved some one else's golf ball so it would be an easier shot and everyone watched/talked about it as he did it. This isn't the kind of "skull doggery" that I would personally worry too much about cause he let everyone know when he was cheating (in this case for the another person). The game really meant nothing. they were playing for fun and he cheated for one of the other players.
Um, ...so?

There are many, many reasons to not agree with the Donald. Why pick such a petty/meaningless (even if they were actually competing) example?

General conversation aside, since you offered no rebut to post #31, I can only assume you agree or can not adequately rebut it?

[CowboyX]

Um, I'm not sure. I'm not a golf spectator and don't pay much attention to presidents free time activities, but I will say:
I believe it was you that said the Donald moved some one else's golf ball so it would be an easier shot and everyone watched/talked about it as he did it. This isn't the kind of "skull doggery" that I would personally worry too much about cause he let everyone know when he was cheating (in this case for the another person). The game really meant nothing. they were playing for fun and he cheated for one of the other players.
Um, ...so?

Why pick such a petty/meaningless (even if they were actually competing) example?

You must not know much about golf or sports and athletic competition in general. I only read the first chapter of the book and there were myriad examples...not just "playing for fun". Perhaps look up how Trump claims to have won something like 18 championships and see if it is something he just takes as a leisure activity. If it was why would he lie? Hilarious.

---------- Post added at 12:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 PM ----------

General conversation aside, since you offered no rebut to post #31, I can only assume you agree or can not adequately rebut it?

Not sure if there's anything to rebut.

"All workers would feel the pain of increased payroll taxes because employers would reduce wages across the board to compensate for their share of the increase." Does she have a crystal ball? What if a high earning business owner just takes a lower salary...maybe invests more into their business.

"The trust fund reserves would be extended through 2055 (an additional 21 years).
Money would accumulate quickly in the trust funds and it would earn significant interest over time." She doesn't mention how long after 2055 the program would be solvent for.

[CowboyX]

So there's plenty of theories how Jeffrey Epstein originated and how he made his money including possibly blackmailing those who may have been involved in his disgusting activities.

It's related enough to post here since it falls in line with the typical reasoning that equates wealth (or maybe money) as being good. Perhaps even being morally good, but maybe not.

For example, during the 2016 campaign when Hillary accused Trump of not paying taxes and he retorted "that makes me smart."

If that type of "business" is seen as the same as the local carpet store owner/operator who buys and sells carpet, makes a profit, but on a grander scale is it then easier to overlook bad (even reprehensible) behavior?

[CowboyX]

Morally, there is no difference in walking over the border or lying to get a green card, right?


Melania’s ‘Einstein Visa’ Was Based on Her Having a College Degree — Which She Lied About Having

Back in 2000, Melania Knauss, a Slovenian model dating Donald Trump, began petitioning the government for the right to permanently reside in the United States under a program reserved for people with “extraordinary ability.”

Knauss’ credentials included runway shows in Europe, a Camel cigarette billboard ad in Times Square and – in her biggest job at the time – a spot in the swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated, which featured her on the beach in a string bikini, hugging a six-foot inflatable whale.

She also claimed to be a college graduate.

In March 2001, she was granted a green card in the elite EB-1 program, which was designed for renowned academic researchers, multinational business executives or those in other fields, such as Olympic athletes and Oscar-winning actors, who demonstrated “sustained national and international acclaim.”

Melania Trump also claimed to be a college graduate, but that has turned out to be a lie.

Melania claimed to have competed a degree in design and architecture at an unspecified university in Slovenia, her country of birth.

According to Snopes.com:

There is no “University in Slovenia,” nor is there a “University of Slovenia.” The country contains several colleges, including the University of Ljubljana, which other news outlets have reported (without citation) was where Melania obtained her degree. But while the claim that she possesses a degree in Architecture and Design appears on several web sites, these reports lack specific details, such as the year she graduated.

CBS News looked deeper into Melania’s degree after her appearance at the Republican National Convention:

Melania Trump didn’t receive a college degree in design and architecture at the university in Ljubljana, Slovenia, which her biography in the Republican National Convention program claims she had obtained.

CBS News has checked the official public records of the university, and Melania Trump is not listed as having graduated from there with a degree.