Posted by strikeout26 on 5/13/2018 8:15:00 AM (view original):
Keep punishing the ones who have worked hard and taken risks so that they can provide for those who haven't worked as hard and taken as many risks. Great idea, Tang.

what makes you think poor people don't work as hard as rich people?? Sure, some poor people don't work hard, if at all, just like some rich people work very hard but some don't work at all either.

#4) Reduce entitlements. Give elderly vouchers for meds so they don't just go because they are bored. Same for disabled, etc.


are you saying the elderly and disabled just get drugs because they are bored??

Posted by wylie715 on 5/13/2018 11:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 5/13/2018 8:15:00 AM (view original):
Keep punishing the ones who have worked hard and taken risks so that they can provide for those who haven't worked as hard and taken as many risks. Great idea, Tang.

what makes you think poor people don't work as hard as rich people?? Sure, some poor people don't work hard, if at all, just like some rich people work very hard but some don't work at all either.

i would wager a years pay that the average self made millionaire outworks the average poor person and they for sure took more financial risks.

I would bet you that the first part of that isn't true.

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 11:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 10:11:00 AM (view original):
Yes, but most young people then start making real money by the age of 35 and slowly turn to logic. Idiot Tang does not understand basic math even if the tax rate is 37%. Someone who made $100mil is paying $37 mil in taxes. How much more does Tang want that person to pay? Honestly. Someone who makes $100k and is in the 25% bracket pays $25k.

Hmmmm....$37mil vs. $25k? Lets tax the rich more!!!!!!!!!

Tang needs to learn percents and what an "ally" is. He is a total moron. Actually I just insulted morons by calling Tang a moron.

Right. So let's say we adopt the CCCP proposal. Tax based on actual money payed, not percent. We have two options.

1. Make the poor pay 37 million dollars of their income every year and.... Wait... Poor people don't own 37 million dollars..Ok..

2. Lower the taxes the rich pays to 25k! Yeah! Equality! Also the Feds won't raise any money and the world economy collapses!

Look at it on the flip side. The rich take home 73 million per year. The 100k person takes home 73k per year. If we wanted to raise money, who would be the best option to raise taxes on? I wonder...

You idiot it is "paid" not "payed".

The poor pay nothing. They receive an earned income credit. The rich pay enough and employ persons such a landscaper or a housekeeper. We need to spend less not tax more. We need to clean up corruption and we certainly need people like you to get a clue.

Yes, the $73mil that person EARNED to do with as he pleases. That is called capitalism. If you don't like it then move.

OK, so if the poor paying 'nothing' is a problem then how do we fix it? What would a perfect world look like to you?

I agree that we need to make cuts. Again, I suggested cutting the military budget significantly. What would you cut, CCCP?

Yep. Take home that 73 mil and do whatever the hell you want.

#1) Raise the retirement age to 72
#2) Reduce and or eliminate numerous Gov't pensions
#3) Ban Lobbying
#4) Reduce entitlements. Give elderly vouchers for meds so they don't just go because they are bored. Same for disabled, etc.
#5) Amend pharma laws for more generic drugs
#6) Work with insurance companies to cover more at lower costs. Under ACA the insurance companies benefited from historic profits. I am sure that was not the intent.Then again with BHO anything is possible.
#7) The military provides millions of jobs and inventions that is not the problem. Dumbass. I have told you this 1000000x.

I'd start there

1) What good will workers age 62-72 do?
2) Agreed
3) Agreed, but this won't save any money.
4) Not sure.
5) Not sure.
6) Not sure.
7) OK, this is totally wrong. First, cutting the military budget by 100 billion dollars doesn't actually lose many, if any jobs. Most of that money is on stupid tech that never works. We don't have a draft. Second, why the middleman? Japan doesn't spend much on military (We do it for them) and they have tons of innovation. We can do programs that help inventors without the middleman of military.

How much money would these 7 things save?

#1) My dad is 77. He retired at 66 from his career as an engineer. Got bored. Decided to do peoples taxes. He has over 250 clients. There are many jobs that people can do into their 70s. It also keeps you alert and in better health.
#2) Duh
#3) It will because now insurance companies cannot just wheel and deal and rip people off. There would be accountability.
#4) Better than no
#5) see #4
#6) see #5
#7) How do you know which tech works or doesn't work? It is top secret. Do you know anything about nano tech? Super expensive and super necessary. I would actually spend more not less. The military outsources most of the work to the private sector, so Mr. Big Government Idiot, those monies actually flow back to the people. Entitlements do not.

Your last question is impossible to answer as there are so many moving parts but I would say trillions due to the entitlements adjustments.

Posted by wylie715 on 5/14/2018 12:01:00 AM (view original):
#4) Reduce entitlements. Give elderly vouchers for meds so they don't just go because they are bored. Same for disabled, etc.


are you saying the elderly and disabled just get drugs because they are bored??

Not drugs. Visit MD offices because they have knee pain for example. You and I will shrug it off as we have work, etc. If you have nothing to do you go see the MD for any reason as its covered. Drugs should be generic and less expensive.

I see club 88 is meeting.

Posted by wylie715 on 5/13/2018 11:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 5/13/2018 8:15:00 AM (view original):
Keep punishing the ones who have worked hard and taken risks so that they can provide for those who haven't worked as hard and taken as many risks. Great idea, Tang.

what makes you think poor people don't work as hard as rich people?? Sure, some poor people don't work hard, if at all, just like some rich people work very hard but some don't work at all either.

Fighting stats is stupid. You need to take one case at a time. It is not necessarily work harder but work smarter or being more opportunistic. Wealth many times builds on wealth. If you come from wealth you may have an advantage over someone who does not but not always. Each case needs to be reviewed individually.

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/14/2018 8:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 11:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 10:11:00 AM (view original):
Yes, but most young people then start making real money by the age of 35 and slowly turn to logic. Idiot Tang does not understand basic math even if the tax rate is 37%. Someone who made $100mil is paying $37 mil in taxes. How much more does Tang want that person to pay? Honestly. Someone who makes $100k and is in the 25% bracket pays $25k.

Hmmmm....$37mil vs. $25k? Lets tax the rich more!!!!!!!!!

Tang needs to learn percents and what an "ally" is. He is a total moron. Actually I just insulted morons by calling Tang a moron.

Right. So let's say we adopt the CCCP proposal. Tax based on actual money payed, not percent. We have two options.

1. Make the poor pay 37 million dollars of their income every year and.... Wait... Poor people don't own 37 million dollars..Ok..

2. Lower the taxes the rich pays to 25k! Yeah! Equality! Also the Feds won't raise any money and the world economy collapses!

Look at it on the flip side. The rich take home 73 million per year. The 100k person takes home 73k per year. If we wanted to raise money, who would be the best option to raise taxes on? I wonder...

You idiot it is "paid" not "payed".

The poor pay nothing. They receive an earned income credit. The rich pay enough and employ persons such a landscaper or a housekeeper. We need to spend less not tax more. We need to clean up corruption and we certainly need people like you to get a clue.

Yes, the $73mil that person EARNED to do with as he pleases. That is called capitalism. If you don't like it then move.

OK, so if the poor paying 'nothing' is a problem then how do we fix it? What would a perfect world look like to you?

I agree that we need to make cuts. Again, I suggested cutting the military budget significantly. What would you cut, CCCP?

Yep. Take home that 73 mil and do whatever the hell you want.

#1) Raise the retirement age to 72
#2) Reduce and or eliminate numerous Gov't pensions
#3) Ban Lobbying
#4) Reduce entitlements. Give elderly vouchers for meds so they don't just go because they are bored. Same for disabled, etc.
#5) Amend pharma laws for more generic drugs
#6) Work with insurance companies to cover more at lower costs. Under ACA the insurance companies benefited from historic profits. I am sure that was not the intent.Then again with BHO anything is possible.
#7) The military provides millions of jobs and inventions that is not the problem. Dumbass. I have told you this 1000000x.

I'd start there

1) What good will workers age 62-72 do?
2) Agreed
3) Agreed, but this won't save any money.
4) Not sure.
5) Not sure.
6) Not sure.
7) OK, this is totally wrong. First, cutting the military budget by 100 billion dollars doesn't actually lose many, if any jobs. Most of that money is on stupid tech that never works. We don't have a draft. Second, why the middleman? Japan doesn't spend much on military (We do it for them) and they have tons of innovation. We can do programs that help inventors without the middleman of military.

How much money would these 7 things save?

#1) My dad is 77. He retired at 66 from his career as an engineer. Got bored. Decided to do peoples taxes. He has over 250 clients. There are many jobs that people can do into their 70s. It also keeps you alert and in better health.
#2) Duh
#3) It will because now insurance companies cannot just wheel and deal and rip people off. There would be accountability.
#4) Better than no
#5) see #4
#6) see #5
#7) How do you know which tech works or doesn't work? It is top secret. Do you know anything about nano tech? Super expensive and super necessary. I would actually spend more not less. The military outsources most of the work to the private sector, so Mr. Big Government Idiot, those monies actually flow back to the people. Entitlements do not.

Your last question is impossible to answer as there are so many moving parts but I would say trillions due to the entitlements adjustments.

1) You don't have to retire at 62. This also doesn't save money. Seems pointless.

3) Yeah but that doesn't save money for the feds.

7) The airplane that we spent trillions on that doesn't work? Real good 'jobs' investment there. With the example of nanotech, that's a great investment but why the middleman? Again, privatize. Invest directly into innovation. If you think the money goes directly to the people, you are insane sir.

Trillions? LOL! We don't spend trillions on entitlements!

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/14/2018 8:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 5/13/2018 11:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 5/13/2018 8:15:00 AM (view original):
Keep punishing the ones who have worked hard and taken risks so that they can provide for those who haven't worked as hard and taken as many risks. Great idea, Tang.

what makes you think poor people don't work as hard as rich people?? Sure, some poor people don't work hard, if at all, just like some rich people work very hard but some don't work at all either.

Fighting stats is stupid. You need to take one case at a time. It is not necessarily work harder but work smarter or being more opportunistic. Wealth many times builds on wealth. If you come from wealth you may have an advantage over someone who does not but not always. Each case needs to be reviewed individually.

What would that look like in practice?

Also, DUH poor people are less opportunistic... It's tough to make investments when you may not be able to feed your kids.

Posted by tangplay on 5/14/2018 9:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/14/2018 8:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 11:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 10:11:00 AM (view original):
Yes, but most young people then start making real money by the age of 35 and slowly turn to logic. Idiot Tang does not understand basic math even if the tax rate is 37%. Someone who made $100mil is paying $37 mil in taxes. How much more does Tang want that person to pay? Honestly. Someone who makes $100k and is in the 25% bracket pays $25k.

Hmmmm....$37mil vs. $25k? Lets tax the rich more!!!!!!!!!

Tang needs to learn percents and what an "ally" is. He is a total moron. Actually I just insulted morons by calling Tang a moron.

Right. So let's say we adopt the CCCP proposal. Tax based on actual money payed, not percent. We have two options.

1. Make the poor pay 37 million dollars of their income every year and.... Wait... Poor people don't own 37 million dollars..Ok..

2. Lower the taxes the rich pays to 25k! Yeah! Equality! Also the Feds won't raise any money and the world economy collapses!

Look at it on the flip side. The rich take home 73 million per year. The 100k person takes home 73k per year. If we wanted to raise money, who would be the best option to raise taxes on? I wonder...

You idiot it is "paid" not "payed".

The poor pay nothing. They receive an earned income credit. The rich pay enough and employ persons such a landscaper or a housekeeper. We need to spend less not tax more. We need to clean up corruption and we certainly need people like you to get a clue.

Yes, the $73mil that person EARNED to do with as he pleases. That is called capitalism. If you don't like it then move.

OK, so if the poor paying 'nothing' is a problem then how do we fix it? What would a perfect world look like to you?

I agree that we need to make cuts. Again, I suggested cutting the military budget significantly. What would you cut, CCCP?

Yep. Take home that 73 mil and do whatever the hell you want.

#1) Raise the retirement age to 72
#2) Reduce and or eliminate numerous Gov't pensions
#3) Ban Lobbying
#4) Reduce entitlements. Give elderly vouchers for meds so they don't just go because they are bored. Same for disabled, etc.
#5) Amend pharma laws for more generic drugs
#6) Work with insurance companies to cover more at lower costs. Under ACA the insurance companies benefited from historic profits. I am sure that was not the intent.Then again with BHO anything is possible.
#7) The military provides millions of jobs and inventions that is not the problem. Dumbass. I have told you this 1000000x.

I'd start there

1) What good will workers age 62-72 do?
2) Agreed
3) Agreed, but this won't save any money.
4) Not sure.
5) Not sure.
6) Not sure.
7) OK, this is totally wrong. First, cutting the military budget by 100 billion dollars doesn't actually lose many, if any jobs. Most of that money is on stupid tech that never works. We don't have a draft. Second, why the middleman? Japan doesn't spend much on military (We do it for them) and they have tons of innovation. We can do programs that help inventors without the middleman of military.

How much money would these 7 things save?

#1) My dad is 77. He retired at 66 from his career as an engineer. Got bored. Decided to do peoples taxes. He has over 250 clients. There are many jobs that people can do into their 70s. It also keeps you alert and in better health.
#2) Duh
#3) It will because now insurance companies cannot just wheel and deal and rip people off. There would be accountability.
#4) Better than no
#5) see #4
#6) see #5
#7) How do you know which tech works or doesn't work? It is top secret. Do you know anything about nano tech? Super expensive and super necessary. I would actually spend more not less. The military outsources most of the work to the private sector, so Mr. Big Government Idiot, those monies actually flow back to the people. Entitlements do not.

Your last question is impossible to answer as there are so many moving parts but I would say trillions due to the entitlements adjustments.

1) You don't have to retire at 62. This also doesn't save money. Seems pointless.

3) Yeah but that doesn't save money for the feds.

7) The airplane that we spent trillions on that doesn't work? Real good 'jobs' investment there. With the example of nanotech, that's a great investment but why the middleman? Again, privatize. Invest directly into innovation. If you think the money goes directly to the people, you are insane sir.

Trillions? LOL! We don't spend trillions on entitlements!

#1) You idiot. By moving up the retirement age you don't have to pay SS until then. Duh.
#3) Do you think the Fed Gov't employees health insurance and state employees for that matter is paid for by the tooth fairy?
#7) What airplane and what administration was that under? Look up MITRE Corp. and then talk. Man you are so dumb I have to stop conversing with you yet again. People who work for MITRE are in the PRIVATE SECTOR!!!! With security clearance same for Lockheed and numerous other companies. Your dumbassery is off the charts.

I am talking over a 10-year period. Are we discussing one month? One year? Do we not have a 10 year plan to significantly reduce the debt? We spend about $800bn per year on entitlements. If we cut that by 30% and do so for 10 years...it equates to $2.4Tn. Couple that with a stronger economy and you can start putting a dent into the debt.

Dummy.

Posted by tangplay on 5/14/2018 9:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/14/2018 8:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 5/13/2018 11:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 5/13/2018 8:15:00 AM (view original):
Keep punishing the ones who have worked hard and taken risks so that they can provide for those who haven't worked as hard and taken as many risks. Great idea, Tang.

what makes you think poor people don't work as hard as rich people?? Sure, some poor people don't work hard, if at all, just like some rich people work very hard but some don't work at all either.

Fighting stats is stupid. You need to take one case at a time. It is not necessarily work harder but work smarter or being more opportunistic. Wealth many times builds on wealth. If you come from wealth you may have an advantage over someone who does not but not always. Each case needs to be reviewed individually.

What would that look like in practice?

Also, DUH poor people are less opportunistic... It's tough to make investments when you may not be able to feed your kids.

Idiot. Don't have kids if you cannot afford them. Seems pretty logical.

I know logic is not your strong suit.

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/14/2018 9:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/14/2018 9:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/14/2018 8:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 11:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/13/2018 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/13/2018 10:11:00 AM (view original):
Yes, but most young people then start making real money by the age of 35 and slowly turn to logic. Idiot Tang does not understand basic math even if the tax rate is 37%. Someone who made $100mil is paying $37 mil in taxes. How much more does Tang want that person to pay? Honestly. Someone who makes $100k and is in the 25% bracket pays $25k.

Hmmmm....$37mil vs. $25k? Lets tax the rich more!!!!!!!!!

Tang needs to learn percents and what an "ally" is. He is a total moron. Actually I just insulted morons by calling Tang a moron.

Right. So let's say we adopt the CCCP proposal. Tax based on actual money payed, not percent. We have two options.

1. Make the poor pay 37 million dollars of their income every year and.... Wait... Poor people don't own 37 million dollars..Ok..

2. Lower the taxes the rich pays to 25k! Yeah! Equality! Also the Feds won't raise any money and the world economy collapses!

Look at it on the flip side. The rich take home 73 million per year. The 100k person takes home 73k per year. If we wanted to raise money, who would be the best option to raise taxes on? I wonder...

You idiot it is "paid" not "payed".

The poor pay nothing. They receive an earned income credit. The rich pay enough and employ persons such a landscaper or a housekeeper. We need to spend less not tax more. We need to clean up corruption and we certainly need people like you to get a clue.

Yes, the $73mil that person EARNED to do with as he pleases. That is called capitalism. If you don't like it then move.

OK, so if the poor paying 'nothing' is a problem then how do we fix it? What would a perfect world look like to you?

I agree that we need to make cuts. Again, I suggested cutting the military budget significantly. What would you cut, CCCP?

Yep. Take home that 73 mil and do whatever the hell you want.

#1) Raise the retirement age to 72
#2) Reduce and or eliminate numerous Gov't pensions
#3) Ban Lobbying
#4) Reduce entitlements. Give elderly vouchers for meds so they don't just go because they are bored. Same for disabled, etc.
#5) Amend pharma laws for more generic drugs
#6) Work with insurance companies to cover more at lower costs. Under ACA the insurance companies benefited from historic profits. I am sure that was not the intent.Then again with BHO anything is possible.
#7) The military provides millions of jobs and inventions that is not the problem. Dumbass. I have told you this 1000000x.

I'd start there

1) What good will workers age 62-72 do?
2) Agreed
3) Agreed, but this won't save any money.
4) Not sure.
5) Not sure.
6) Not sure.
7) OK, this is totally wrong. First, cutting the military budget by 100 billion dollars doesn't actually lose many, if any jobs. Most of that money is on stupid tech that never works. We don't have a draft. Second, why the middleman? Japan doesn't spend much on military (We do it for them) and they have tons of innovation. We can do programs that help inventors without the middleman of military.

How much money would these 7 things save?

#1) My dad is 77. He retired at 66 from his career as an engineer. Got bored. Decided to do peoples taxes. He has over 250 clients. There are many jobs that people can do into their 70s. It also keeps you alert and in better health.
#2) Duh
#3) It will because now insurance companies cannot just wheel and deal and rip people off. There would be accountability.
#4) Better than no
#5) see #4
#6) see #5
#7) How do you know which tech works or doesn't work? It is top secret. Do you know anything about nano tech? Super expensive and super necessary. I would actually spend more not less. The military outsources most of the work to the private sector, so Mr. Big Government Idiot, those monies actually flow back to the people. Entitlements do not.

Your last question is impossible to answer as there are so many moving parts but I would say trillions due to the entitlements adjustments.

1) You don't have to retire at 62. This also doesn't save money. Seems pointless.

3) Yeah but that doesn't save money for the feds.

7) The airplane that we spent trillions on that doesn't work? Real good 'jobs' investment there. With the example of nanotech, that's a great investment but why the middleman? Again, privatize. Invest directly into innovation. If you think the money goes directly to the people, you are insane sir.

Trillions? LOL! We don't spend trillions on entitlements!

#1) You idiot. By moving up the retirement age you don't have to pay SS until then. Duh.
#3) Do you think the Fed Gov't employees health insurance and state employees for that matter is paid for by the tooth fairy?
#7) What airplane and what administration was that under? Look up MITRE Corp. and then talk. Man you are so dumb I have to stop conversing with you yet again. People who work for MITRE are in the PRIVATE SECTOR!!!! With security clearance same for Lockheed and numerous other companies. Your dumbassery is off the charts.

I am talking over a 10-year period. Are we discussing one month? One year? Do we not have a 10 year plan to significantly reduce the debt? We spend about $800bn per year on entitlements. If we cut that by 30% and do so for 10 years...it equates to $2.4Tn. Couple that with a stronger economy and you can start putting a dent into the debt.

Dummy.

1) SS is good, IMO. 62 is old enough. I don't have a strong opinion on this though.

3) So the minimal gains by doing this anyway is distributed to a minimal amount of people. We probably save less than a million dollars doing this.

7) http://theweek.com/articles/601080/americas-everything-fighter-jet-total-disaster
https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/us-navy-planes-grounded/index.html

Why does MITRE have to work with defense? This is my point! Move the defense spending elsewhere and fund MITRE separately!

Oh, I wouldn't cut it by 30%...

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/14/2018 9:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/14/2018 9:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/14/2018 8:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 5/13/2018 11:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 5/13/2018 8:15:00 AM (view original):
Keep punishing the ones who have worked hard and taken risks so that they can provide for those who haven't worked as hard and taken as many risks. Great idea, Tang.

what makes you think poor people don't work as hard as rich people?? Sure, some poor people don't work hard, if at all, just like some rich people work very hard but some don't work at all either.

Fighting stats is stupid. You need to take one case at a time. It is not necessarily work harder but work smarter or being more opportunistic. Wealth many times builds on wealth. If you come from wealth you may have an advantage over someone who does not but not always. Each case needs to be reviewed individually.

What would that look like in practice?

Also, DUH poor people are less opportunistic... It's tough to make investments when you may not be able to feed your kids.

Idiot. Don't have kids if you cannot afford them. Seems pretty logical.

I know logic is not your strong suit.

You cannot not have kids in retrospect. Some people have children, then fall into poverty.

You are wrong, Tang. Social Security is a terrible thing. If people reinvested the money that is withheld for SS in a mutual fund or something similar, the returns would be much greater than what they get back from SS.

What is wrong with cutting social welfare by 30%? As I've said, if you are healthy, you should not be receiving aid from the government.