Paul Ryan "OMG"

[ronchamblin]

Curious, I looked on the net for the availability of guillotines.  There are some for sale, although their design is for industrial paper cutting etc.  The size and shape would however allow for use on any humans deemed deserving by the upcoming consensus of revolting masses.

The guillotines offered for sale are rather expensive, but of a size which would allow for a cut upon perhaps three humans per drop.  I would prefer using the classic type one can see in the old photographs of the 18th century, as they are quite simple, and therefore beautiful.  None of this type being available in the quantity needed, it would be fun to design and build some of these classics as used by the French to settle the differences between the oppressed and the oppressors.

Why am I talking of the guillotine and its use on such a beautiful Sunday morning?  How foolish to do so, as in a fantasy.  Is all well in this country?  Are there none deserving of its use upon their necks?  Any thoughtful individual concerned about the suffering of the masses, about the little folk, the hard workers, the unemployed, the hungry, the unfortunate, the unjustly imprisoned, the ill, the old, and those who, by no effort of their own, have found themselves homeless, should realize that if all would be fair, and justice was to be sought and gained, then its use would be placed upon the necks of many deserving individuals in this country.  Be assured that the individuals forced to accept the blade would not be in the middle class or the poor, and not in the unfortunates as above mentioned, but upon the necks of those who, by their greed and indifference, and obsession with wealth and power at the expense of all that is good, all that is of integrity, proper, and genuine, have brought our economy to its knees.     

Why is it that people who talk like this are apparently folks that my 14 year old granddaughter could take in a bar fight.  Revolutions always eat there own just check out the jacobians

I enjoy, civil42, the idea that the current scenario of privilege and power to a few cannot continue.  The possibility of change via the political process and maneuvering is there, but will it happen? 

By their very nature, revolutions eat everything and everybody at times, which is sometimes necessary to recover from decades of abuse, indifference, and even cruelties by the comfortable ensconced in positions of control and privilege.  A revolution, or the threat of it, might spread the suffering to the one percent so that positive change is forced.

Whereas now, only the working class, the innocent and poor are suffering, a revolution, or the threat of one, will force the elites, the comfortable abusers of the system, as mentioned in my above post, to endure the consequences of their wrongs, which might include some suffering for them too, or even death.  Complacency is not an option any longer.

[NotNow]

Personally, I think it's a living document, and we did what we had to do to avoid a potential revolution in the 1930s and early 40s. You can't just have half the country starving. Every time that happens, history shows us they don't go home and starve quietly, they revolt. There's a false sense of security with the military, they'll fire on civilians once or twice, but that only has the effect of polarizing the portion of the population that hadn't yet joined the revolution, snowballing things further. And by and large most soldiers won't go to war with members of their own society and race on home soil, regardless of what nationality we're talking about. Plenty of examples of all this happening all through history, and also lately, all over the world.

To answer what I know your question to be though, I guess this comes back to our old friend the general welfare clause, and you and I have hashed that out pretty thoroughly before. I suppose at the end of the day there is support for both of our viewpoints, it just depends on which founding father you want to quote and how literally you interpret their writings. The decision is what we want to do in the present, and living by a rigid literal interpretation of 300 year old document is probably not going to work out in the long-term. Those have been rather a flexible set of ideals from the beginning anyway, the founding fathers themselves didn't even practice their own preaching, the author of "all men created equal..." in the declaration of independence was a slave owner at the time he wrote it. If Hamilton's own 1st Bank of the United States was constitutional, then surely social security is.

I can't argue with your logic.  And you are probably right about the eventual outcome.  Eventually it will come to an economic crash though.  Perhaps that is when our leaders will finally sit down and discuss the issue like adults.  Or maybe even Ron will get what he is asking for, although I fear that outcome will result in great suffering and an unsatisfactory result.

[Charles Hunter]

What would it do for the Trust Fund to raise the cap on wages that are taxed?  I just looked at the SSA site, and the cap is $110,100. No matter how much (in wages) you make above that, only the first $110,100 is taxed.

[civil42806]

What would it do for the Trust Fund to raise the cap on wages that are taxed?  I just looked at the SSA site, and the cap is $110,100. No matter how much (in wages) you make above that, only the first $110,100 is taxed.

That has been argued over on this site before.  If the benefits continue to increasedepending on how much you pay in thats fine. But If you benefits are frozen regardless how much you pay in, the there are issues.  It goes from a retirement fund to a welfare fund, changes the fundamental nature of ssi

[JFman00]

What would it do for the Trust Fund to raise the cap on wages that are taxed?  I just looked at the SSA site, and the cap is $110,100. No matter how much (in wages) you make above that, only the first $110,100 is taxed.

That has been argued over on this site before.  If the benefits continue to increasedepending on how much you pay in thats fine. But If you benefits are frozen regardless how much you pay in, the there are issues.  It goes from a retirement fund to a welfare fund, changes the fundamental nature of ssi

As it stands SS is much more of a generational income transfer than a retirement fund. Young people today will almost certainly put more into Social Security than they will receive in benefits. Since it already is for all intents and purposes welfare for the elderly, I don't see any downside to eliminating the cap. On the other hand, I also have no problem turning Social Security into a mandatory savings account. At least those of us putting money in now will get money out at the end.

[tufsu1]

I think Ryan is a pretty smart guy and I applaud his bold ideas......BUT....he isn't exactly the staunch less government person many think he is...I wonder how many hard-core Repubs know these things about him.

1. He has said many times that there are things government is very good at and we need to keep funding those

2. He had no problem advocating for and accepting budget earmarks for his District during his first 5 terms in Congress

3. When his father died, Ryan as a minor, was able to use Social Security to supplement the family income....social safety net anyone?

[civil42806]

What would it do for the Trust Fund to raise the cap on wages that are taxed?  I just looked at the SSA site, and the cap is $110,100. No matter how much (in wages) you make above that, only the first $110,100 is taxed.

That has been argued over on this site before.  If the benefits continue to increasedepending on how much you pay in thats fine. But If you benefits are frozen regardless how much you pay in, the there are issues.  It goes from a retirement fund to a welfare fund, changes the fundamental nature of ssi

As it stands SS is much more of a generational income transfer than a retirement fund. Young people today will almost certainly put more into Social Security than they will receive in benefits. Since it already is for all intents and purposes welfare for the elderly, I don't see any downside to eliminating the cap. On the other hand, I also have no problem turning Social Security into a mandatory savings account. At least those of us putting money in now will get money out at the end.

I agree with that charles, but dont think a lot of folks do.  Me i doubt I will draw a dime out of it.  But do see a down side to eliminating the cap. a 6.5 percent increase in the nominal tax rate wouldnt be to popular.  Think the downside to it is finally saying its not a "retirement fund"  But an income transfer fund, as you so politley put it.  Thanks for the nice response to the post. 

[Dog Walker]

You want to trust Wall Street and the big banks with your retirement money?  No thanks.  Privatize the system and you will see fraud, corruption and theft that will begger half the country.  They have too much power now.

Vouchers for Medicare?  The insurance companies will push up healthcare costs so fast it will make a sonic boom.

Take the $110k cap off FICA; Social Security solved and Medicare helped.  Put on a 15% Federal Sales tax for healthcare and make Medicare universal.  Let the insurance companies go bankrupt or offer Medicare supplement plans and premium care plans for Mayo, etc.  They are currently a zero sum business at best and a drag on the economy most of the time.

[fsquid]

Is that a 15% sales tax on top of the state and local taxes?  Is that also in addition to the existing tax code?

[ronchamblin]

You, my MJ friends can deal with the details of crunching numbers, as unfortunately I don’t have the time to gather and ponder them, probably not the skill, and therefore I’m too ignorant to contribute in ways you all do.  All I have is my gut feelings about what is going on in our country, and a sense of the truths about the iniquities and abuses as perpetrated against the average person by the established power structures within, all of which having been designed to rape the average worker and the poor from all sides, and by any means possible.   

My occasional rants, part truth and part fantasy, about the guillotine, perhaps not enjoyed by some, are meant to be somewhat humorous, but also to cultivate a sense of urgency, and a mood which might avoid complacency, and certainly to convey to anyone that there are many of us who are not fooled into thinking that we are making good progress in righting the wrongs in this country, because we are certainly not making good progress.  We are going in circles of bullshit, both nationally and right here in our city, and I think most of you know this.

Of course, anyone who might wish to persuade me that there are “no” individuals, such as certain politicians and financial moguls etc, who are guilty of fraud and gross theft of the assets and funds rightfully belonging to the population of hard workers, not to mention the destruction of our economy, then please convince me of it if you have the inclination and the time. 

Those who suggest that things are fine, and who are settled into a comfortable living, with a good job, enjoying the reassuring messages and socials of a church, who might offer the occasional insincere token of assistance to the needy, but who ignore genuine concern for the plight of the those who suffer, and struggle to find food, are in most cases, but not always by any means, involved with the conservative party.  Many of these individuals will probably not enjoy my rants about a guillotine, and some, perhaps a very few, even shiver somewhat as they contemplate that they themselves might one day be sought to test the efficiency of the blade.  There’s that blade again.

And the fellow or lady (civil42806) who verbally slapped me in an earlier post, suggesting that I am one who could not win a fight with his 14 year old granddaughter in a bar, I realize your frustration at reading something that makes you angry or uncomfortable, as the truth often does, and I realize that you might again take another slap at me, but this time, please try to avoid being so juvenile.  Try to say something that actually makes sense, as I get impatient very quickly with comments deficient in relevancy and logic.  And too, attempt saying something of substance, with an explanation or a question, and not just a useless derogatory remark about someone.  If you do not have the thinking and writing skills to argue a point productively and accurately, there are some forums wherein you can find others, of similar disabilities, with whom you can verbally joust nonsense, and exchange attacks at levels to which you apparently enjoy descending. 

I hope that, in the interest of enhancing the overall quality of this forum, we can avoid the kind of useless derogatory slaps offered by individuals like civil42806.  Increased overall quality of the forum increases readership by those having higher standards, and of course, increased readership brings more revenue to the site.             

             

[Dog Walker]

Is that a 15% sales tax on top of the state and local taxes?  Is that also in addition to the existing tax code?

Yes, and it would be a lot cheaper for the country than the insurance premiums that we are paying now. 

How many potential entrepreneurs are stuck in salaried jobs right now so that they can have health insurance for their families? How many new companies and jobs would be created if they were freed of the worry of losing their health coverage?  Why do all of the countries of Europe (that Socialist dump) have more small businesses the business friendly United States?

[Debbie Thompson]

Social Security was supposed to supplement pensions.  I've known since I was very young Social Security probably wouldn't be there for me.  When it was determined SS probably wouldn't be there for us, back in the 80's or so, they came up with 401(k).  That was the new tool to supplement pensions because SS wasn't going to be there for us baby boomers. Now that I'm almost there, I've been priviledged to support "the greatest generation" but it would be nice if there were pensions, SS, or at least 401(k) not ravaged by this recession.

NotNow, as for the general fund, if I remember correctly, it goes back to dumping the Social Security Trust Fund into the general fund to hide the cost of the Vietnam War.  If they put the trust fund INTO the general fund, why can't they put money back?

[NotNow]

Actually Debbie, the SS Trust Fund was placed exclusively in a special Treasury bill.  Those T-bills are just IOU's from the Federal Government, which will pay back those T-bills out of the general fund.  As that occurs, the general fund will become even more depleted causing more borrowing.  Eventually, the interest on the debt will force us into default.  All because we could not develop the courage to control our government spending.

[finehoe]

I think Ryan is a pretty smart guy and I applaud his bold ideas......BUT....he isn't exactly the staunch less government person many think he is...I wonder how many hard-core Repubs know these things about him.

1. He has said many times that there are things government is very good at and we need to keep funding those

2. He had no problem advocating for and accepting budget earmarks for his District during his first 5 terms in Congress

3. When his father died, Ryan as a minor, was able to use Social Security to supplement the family income....social safety net anyone?

Plus he voted FOR

1) The invasion of Iraq
2) Medicare Part D
3) TARP

Of course a Republican was president then and as we all know, 'deficits don't matter' when the office is held by someone who doesn't have a D after their name.

[BridgeTroll]

I think Ryan is a pretty smart guy and I applaud his bold ideas......BUT....he isn't exactly the staunch less government person many think he is...I wonder how many hard-core Repubs know these things about him.

1. He has said many times that there are things government is very good at and we need to keep funding those

2. He had no problem advocating for and accepting budget earmarks for his District during his first 5 terms in Congress

3. When his father died, Ryan as a minor, was able to use Social Security to supplement the family income....social safety net anyone?

Plus he voted FOR

1) The invasion of Iraq
2) Medicare Part D
3) TARP

Of course a Republican was president then and as we all know, 'deficits don't matter' when the office is held by someone who doesn't have a D after their name.

Damn... does this mean you are not gonna vote Romney/Ryan???  Whoa...