iOS app Android app
Clicking Follow Back will add user to your friends list and may allow access to your Social News timeline..

HuffPost Social News

Badges:
Your Badges and the Badge Module will be removed from your profile

sothsegger's Comments

View Comments:   Sort:
next
1 - 25
John Boehner On Gay Marriage: 'I Can't Imagine' Ever Supporting This (VIDEO)

John Boehner On Gay Marriage: 'I Can't Imagine' Ever Supporting This (VIDEO)

Commented Mar 18, 2013 at 14:36:39 in Politics

“it's not so simple. because i don't believe it's her word.”

wpianoman99 on Mar 18, 2013 at 17:30:05

“Well, I believe it's His Word because it is coming to pass before our eyes. If a man wrote this stuff on his own that would not be happening but anything God has His hand in will always be confirmed. I hope you someday have the faith to believe that He loves you and wants your life to blessed. I wish you the best.”
John Boehner On Gay Marriage: 'I Can't Imagine' Ever Supporting This (VIDEO)

John Boehner On Gay Marriage: 'I Can't Imagine' Ever Supporting This (VIDEO)

Commented Mar 17, 2013 at 16:28:40 in Politics

“wpian, how do you know what god thinks? in fact, god told me just the other day that she thinks gay marriage is long overdue!”

wpianoman99 on Mar 17, 2013 at 18:37:17

“It's simple, Soth.......read His Word! He tells you everything you need to know about life and how live it, what will bring blessing into your life, and those things that just leave you empty and sad. "He's" trying to get the world's attention with all this comic activity, earthquakes, storms, blizzards, solar flares, warring nations, ect. but somehow people continue to pursue their own desires and ignore "His" plan for their lives. By the way, the Lord of the Bible has always been a male persona, not female, and He will never bless these types of unions since they are contrary to His creation plan. But since some people insist on pursuing them they do so at their own risk......

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”
John Boehner On Gay Marriage: 'I Can't Imagine' Ever Supporting This (VIDEO)

John Boehner On Gay Marriage: 'I Can't Imagine' Ever Supporting This (VIDEO)

Commented Mar 17, 2013 at 14:09:56 in Politics

“don't like gay marriage? then don't marry a gay. problem solved!”

mike rouff on Mar 17, 2013 at 14:28:47

“good one!!”
Nancy Pelosi: My Support For Social Security Cut 'Was Really To Call The Bluff' Of Republicans

Nancy Pelosi: My Support For Social Security Cut 'Was Really To Call The Bluff' Of Republicans

Commented Jan 5, 2013 at 11:39:45 in Politics

““watch out! any benefit cut that disregards the money owed to the social security trust
fund is equivalent to a retroactive tax increase, which would fall most heavily on
middle and working class earners, who, because their income was below the payroll cap,
paid the greater percentage of their wages to create the fund. this is theft! this is
the rich stealing from the middle and working classes! this is an outrage!

don't believe the right wing wants this? read it for yourself by
googling "heritage savamerdream pdf." here's a telling quote from this heritage
foundation publication: "Social Security does have a $2.5 trillion trust fund from the
surpluses that it collected between 1983 and 2009 but that money isn’t there. Rather
than build up real assets in a real trust fund, Congress actually spent that money on
everything from roads to corporate welfare. That trust fund is filled with special-issue
Treasury bonds that the U.S. Treasury is required to finance when they are needed to
fund Social Security’s deficits. As they are bonds not backed by any real assets, the
government will have to either borrow or raise taxes to pay for them." the heritage
foundation in this outrageous proposal then goes on to advocate draconian cuts to
benefits; cuts which would otherwise be totally unnecessary if they honored the money
owed to the trust fund. don't let these fiscal conservatives steal our money to
protect the rich from the taxes they now owe!””

agenda21 on Jan 5, 2013 at 11:57:09

“is it the lock box?”
Fiscal Cliff: GOP Gives In On Social Security Cuts In Stalled Talks (UPDATE)

Fiscal Cliff: GOP Gives In On Social Security Cuts In Stalled Talks (UPDATE)

Commented Jan 5, 2013 at 11:37:08 in Politics

“mr E, i think you misread my comment. i didn't say anything about the chained-cpi; however, i have heard some policy makers say the new cola would be applied across the board. and regarding the regressive nature of social security, i was referring only to the payroll cap. as it stands now, social security's regressive payroll tax is balanced somewhat by it's progressive benefit structure. but there are those in positions of power and influence who want to upset this delicate balance with severe cuts to benefits as well as means testing. i find this totally unacceptable.

that said, i agree with you that it is unfortunate that ss has to be a generational system. ideally, i believe it should be private accounts. but i don't see how we switch to private accounts without screwing the last generation. to switch from a generational system to private accounts would indeed turn ss into a ponzi scheme for the last generation.

so we now have to cope with a generational system because history has thrust it upon us. remember, ss came about in the midst of a severe depression when the country was faced with an intolerable problem of old age poverty. we simply didn't have the time to wait a whole generation or more for private accounts to solve the problem. we had to act right away, and a generational system was the only answer.”

Joe Economist on Jan 5, 2013 at 14:37:25

“You said any benefit cut - and I simply gave you the Chain-CPI as an example. Most benefit cuts affect high-income earners not middle or working class.

You can't pull out parts of the system. As a whole Social Security is highly progressive. The system pays much higher benefits to lower-wage workers.

We agree on the problem with privatization. Where we might disagree is that we have private accounts such as 401Ks and IRAs. There is no reason to think that the government will run a retirement system better than the private sector.

I would question your statement about the old-age insurance portion of Social Security. Originally old-age insurance covered about 50% of the work force. It did not include widows and orphans and the like. FDR rejected the generational system. That came in after he died.”
Fiscal Cliff: GOP Gives In On Social Security Cuts In Stalled Talks (UPDATE)

Fiscal Cliff: GOP Gives In On Social Security Cuts In Stalled Talks (UPDATE)

Commented Jan 2, 2013 at 10:11:10 in Politics

“watch out! any benefit cut that disregards the money owed to the social security trust
fund is equivalent to a retroactive tax increase, which would fall most heavily on
middle and working class earners, who, because their income was below the payroll cap,
paid the greater percentage of their wages to create the fund. this is theft! this is
the rich stealing from the middle and working classes! this is an outrage!

don't believe the right wing wants this? read it for yourself by
googling "heritage savamerdream pdf." here's a telling quote from this heritage
foundation publication: "Social Security does have a $2.5 trillion trust fund from the
surpluses that it collected between 1983 and 2009 but that money isn’t there. Rather
than build up real assets in a real trust fund, Congress actually spent that money on
everything from roads to corporate welfare. That trust fund is filled with special-issue
Treasury bonds that the U.S. Treasury is required to finance when they are needed to
fund Social Security’s deficits. As they are bonds not backed by any real assets, the
government will have to either borrow or raise taxes to pay for them." the heritage
foundation in this outrageous proposal then goes on to advocate draconian cuts to
benefits; cuts which would otherwise be totally unnecessary if they honored the money
owed to the trust fund. don't let these fiscal conservatives steal our money to
protect the rich from the taxes they now owe!”

Joe Economist on Jan 4, 2013 at 13:24:47

“Your logic is completely flawed. The Chain-CPI changes would most affect high-wage earners not the poor. The idea that Social Security is regressive is simply uninformed. The Social Security Administration provides reports which show that high-wage earners can get up to 1/10th the return that low-wage earners get.

The outrage is that we are stealing from the young.

You ought to read the full plan by the Heritage Foundation. What you have quoted is the blah, blah, blah that argues for changing the Social Security system into a means-tested welfare program.”
Fiscal Cliff Protestors To Picket Social Security Offices Nationwide

Fiscal Cliff Protestors To Picket Social Security Offices Nationwide

Commented Dec 3, 2012 at 13:14:07 in Politics

“beware of means testing!
if social security becomes an insurance/welfare program where you only get it if you need it,
then why should someone who makes under the cap pay a greater percentage than someone who makes over the cap? to make it a welfare/insurance program without making the middle and working classes shoulder an unfair burden you'd have to scrap the cap entirely.”
Fiscal Cliff Protestors To Picket Social Security Offices Nationwide

Fiscal Cliff Protestors To Picket Social Security Offices Nationwide

Commented Dec 3, 2012 at 13:11:36 in Politics

“watch out! any benefit cut that disregards the money owed to the ss trust fund is
equivalent to a retroactive tax increase, which would fall most heavily on middle and
working class earners, who, because their income was below the payroll cap, paid the
greater percentage of their wages to create the fund. this is theft! this is the rich
stealing from the middle and working classes! this is an outrage!

don't believe the rightwing wants this? read it for yourself by googling "heritage savamerdream pdf." here's a telling quote from this heritage foundation publication:
"Social Security does have a $2.5 trillion trust fund from
the surpluses that it collected between 1983 and 2009 but that money isn’t
there. Rather than build up real assets in a real trust fund, Congress actually spent
that money on everything from roads to corporate welfare. That trust fund is filled
with special-issue Treasury bonds that the U.S. Treasury is required to finance when
they are needed to fund Social Security’s deficits. As they are bonds not backed
by any real assets, the government will have to either borrow or raise taxes to pay for
them."
the heritage foundation in this outrageous publication then goes on to advocate draconian
cuts to benefits, cuts which would otherwise be totally unnecessary if they honored the
money owed to the trust fund. we cannot let these fiscal conservatives steal our money to
protect the rich from the taxes they now owe!”
Linda McMahon Proposed Social Security

Linda McMahon Proposed Social Security "Sunset" At Tea Party Forum

Commented Nov 7, 2012 at 05:25:51 in Politics

“watch out! any benefit cut that disregards the money owed to the social security trust fund is
equivalent to a retroactive tax increase, which would fall most heavily on middle and
working class earners, who, because their income was below the payroll cap, paid the
greater percentage of their wages to create the fund. this is theft! this is the rich
stealing from the middle and working classes! this is an outrage!”
Rupert Murdoch: Chris Christie Must 'Re-Declare' For Mitt Romney 'Or Take Blame'

Rupert Murdoch: Chris Christie Must 'Re-Declare' For Mitt Romney 'Or Take Blame'

Commented Nov 3, 2012 at 18:16:58 in Media

“you mean sleaze”

floridanorm on Nov 3, 2012 at 18:53:34

“I spelled it just the way the person spelled it in their comment! But thanks for being a spell check!”
Bernie Sanders: Barack Obama Better Not Cut Social Security

Bernie Sanders: Barack Obama Better Not Cut Social Security

Commented Oct 29, 2012 at 13:22:22 in Politics

“watch out! any benefit cut that disregards the money owed to the social security trust fund is
equivalent to a retroactive tax increase, which would fall most heavily on middle and
working class earners, who, because their income was below the payroll cap, paid the
greater percentage of their wages to create the fund. this is theft! this is the rich
stealing from the middle and working classes! this is an outrage!
if you don't believe the rightwing wants this, read it for yourself by googling "heritage savamerdream pdf."
here is a telling quote from this heritage foundation publication:
"Social Security does have a $2.5 trillion trust fund from
the surpluses that it collected between 1983 and 2009 but that money isn’t
there. Rather than build up real assets in a real trust fund, Congress actually spent
that money on everything from roads to corporate welfare. That trust fund is filled
with special-issue Treasury bonds that the U.S. Treasury is required to finance when
they are needed to fund Social Security’s deficits. As they are bonds not backed
by any real assets, the government will have to either borrow or raise taxes to pay for
them."
the heritage foundation in this publication goes on to advocate draconian
cuts to benefits, cuts which are totally unnecessary if they honored the
money owed to the trust fund. we cannot let these fiscal conservatives steal our money to
protect the rich from paying the taxes they now owe!”
Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

Commented Sep 24, 2012 at 19:44:25 in Politics

“some people feel that rather than pay back the ss trust fund, benefits should be cut.”
Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry

Commented Sep 24, 2012 at 18:26:30 in Politics

“watch out! any benefit cut that disregards the money owed to the social security trust fund is
equivalent to a retroactive tax increase, which would fall most heavily on middle and
working class earners, who, because their income was below the payroll cap, paid the
greater percentage of their wages to create the fund. this is theft! this is the rich
stealing from the middle and working classes! this is an outrage!

if you don't believe the right wing wants this, you can read it for yourself at
.
here is a telling quote from this publication:
"Social Security does have a $2.5 trillion trust fund from
the surpluses that it collected between 1983 and 2009 but that money isn’t
there. Rather than build up real assets in a real trust fund, Congress actually spent
that money on everything from roads to corporate welfare. That trust fund is filled
with special-issue Treasury bonds that the U.S. Treasury is required to finance when
they are needed to fund Social Security’s deficits. As they are bonds not backed
by any real assets, the government will have to either borrow or raise taxes to pay for
them."”

DONCAL on Sep 24, 2012 at 18:32:50

“It has always been part of the public portion of the national debt. Where else would you put it ?”
Peter Peterson Spent Nearly Half A Billion In Washington Targeting Social Security, Medicare

Peter Peterson Spent Nearly Half A Billion In Washington Targeting Social Security, Medicare

Commented May 17, 2012 at 08:36:41 in Politics

“the only way you can justify benefit cuts is if you question the validity of the ss trust fund. to do so would be not only unconstitutional (article 4, section 4), but immoral. not to honor the trust fund is tantamount to a retroactive and regressive tax on the middle and working classes who spent a lifetime building it up.”
Social Security Advocates Launch Campaigns To Pressure AARP

Social Security Advocates Launch Campaigns To Pressure AARP

Commented Mar 19, 2012 at 02:28:22 in Politics

“fyi
i didn't propose it. it was a recommendation of obama's bipartisan deficit commission. you can google it and read it. it's interesting.”

murphthesurf3 on Mar 19, 2012 at 09:36:48

“Simpson-Bowles....got it....what do you think?”
Social Security Advocates Launch Campaigns To Pressure AARP

Social Security Advocates Launch Campaigns To Pressure AARP

Commented Mar 18, 2012 at 20:54:13 in Politics

“though my employer paid half the fica, i was still affected by it. because if he hadn't paid half, he could have given it back to me in salary. whether my employer paid it or i paid it is not the point, together we paid 12.4 percent.

you write:
"i favor a return to the original understanding of the system as Insurance (as in Federal Insurance Contributions Act) which is governed by the usual conditions of insurance. You pay for the security of knowing that if it is needed, it will be there
and if it is not, well- you don't get your money back."

i could agree with this if everyone paid at the same rate for this "insurance." but such is not the case. if you made under the payroll cap (currently 106k) you paid the full 12.4%. but the more you made over the cap the smaller the percentage you paid. for example, if you made 212k then you paid 6.2 percent; if 424k, then 3.1 percent, etc. how can you justify giving someone who contributed a much higher percentage of his pay the same zero benefit as one who contributed a smaller percentage? your argument if implemented would result in an unacceptably inequitable system.”
Social Security Advocates Launch Campaigns To Pressure AARP

Social Security Advocates Launch Campaigns To Pressure AARP

Commented Mar 17, 2012 at 22:02:15 in Politics

“however, nobody who paid the full 12% should lose his benefit, whether he needs it or not. how can you justify someone who paid the full 12% of his salary all his life, losing his benefits simply because he saved and invested? while at the same time someone who made twice as much only paid 6% of his salary?”

murphthesurf3 on Mar 18, 2012 at 21:52:03

“Saw your last post, at the end of the thread, so replying here....

I would be ok with the system you propose. I actually wish they had kept to the original formula which called for a much smaller FICA for SS with the understanding that many would never get it. This was all done in reaction to the Great Depression to provide a safety net. Medicare came much later.”

murphthesurf3 on Mar 17, 2012 at 22:11:57

“Under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act 12.4% of earned income up to an annual limit must be paid into Social Security, and an additional 2.9% must be paid into Medicare.

If you're a wage or salaried employee, you pay only half the FICA bill (6.2% for Social Security plus 1.45% for Medicare), and the tax is automatically withheld.

Your employer contributes the other half.

i favor a return to the original understanding of the system as Insurance (as in Federal Insurance Contributions Act) which is governed by the usual conditions of insurance. You pay for the security of knowing that if it is needed, it will be there and if it is not, well- you don't get your money back.

I had a house for years that was in a flood plain. I had flood insurance. Several thousand a year. Never had a flood hit my home....hit others in the area. Insurance...not an annuity.”
7 Reasons to Take 7 Seconds to Save Social Security and Medicare

7 Reasons to Take 7 Seconds to Save Social Security and Medicare

Commented Oct 30, 2013 at 12:01:55 in Politics

“here's the link. actually, the plan includes two 5 percent increases.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3957

martman1 on Oct 31, 2013 at 11:19:39

“Thank you, I stand corrected and apologize for any snideness.:-)”
7 Reasons to Take 7 Seconds to Save Social Security and Medicare

7 Reasons to Take 7 Seconds to Save Social Security and Medicare

Commented Oct 29, 2013 at 00:44:29 in Politics

“Apparently you are unaware that there is a 5 percent "give back" in the chained-cpi plan. they call it a longevity increase. if you don't belive me, read the bipartisan commission's report. or google it. if you live to be 80-something, you get 5 percent of your benefit back.”

martman1 on Oct 30, 2013 at 09:36:07

“I couldn't find anything on that...........maybe give me a link?”
7 Reasons to Take 7 Seconds to Save Social Security and Medicare

7 Reasons to Take 7 Seconds to Save Social Security and Medicare

Commented Oct 27, 2013 at 11:40:07 in Politics

“"For someone who retires at 65, the chained CPI is would be:

-- a 3.7 percent cut at age 75;
-- a 6.5 percent cut at age 85;
-- and a 9.2 percent cut at 95."

But this doesn't mention the 5 percent longevity increase which would occur around age mid-80s. Therefore, 6.5 will become 5.5 and likewise 9.2 will become 4.2”

martman1 on Oct 28, 2013 at 11:09:15

“That makes absolutely no sense at all. He was saying that someone who has reached 95 will, that year, be receiving 9.2% less than he would have otherwise without the chained CPI. Subtracting the numeral 5 from that is completely meaningless.”
Paul McCartney Visits Elvis' Home, Leaves Guitar Pick Behind

Paul McCartney Visits Elvis' Home, Leaves Guitar Pick Behind

Commented May 27, 2013 at 19:16:52 in Entertainment

“why did he wait so long to visit graceland?”

Memphistigers on May 28, 2013 at 02:04:43

“He seemed VERY impressed with the enthusiasm of the sold-out crowd at the Forum, and he said twice he would be back on his next tour. Paul has only performed here twice, two sold-out shows in 1966 with the Beatles, and in 1993 by himself which was also sold out. As a Memphian, we would have LOVED to have had many more of his concerts here.”

Beatlearl on May 27, 2013 at 19:53:08

“Simple answer,he's pretty busy,I've lived in Memphis all my life and I have yet to visit Graceland,nothing against Elvis.”

Me atlast on May 27, 2013 at 19:52:05

“Is it required to go? I've been once, it's not as opulent as one would think, other than the building that has his jumpsuits and records and things, the house itself seemed smaller than I imagined it would be. Of course I didn't get to go upstairs either.”

CR46 on May 27, 2013 at 19:26:06

“Have you visited Graceland or Elvis' home in Tupelo?
And it many be that he isn't American and isn't in the country most of the time.”

JD Scroggins on May 27, 2013 at 19:21:10

“who knows. Why does that matter?”
Cut Social Security to Destroy the Recovery

Cut Social Security to Destroy the Recovery

Commented Apr 8, 2013 at 11:52:33 in Politics

“i cannot believe obama is as ignorant and uncaring as this article describes him. another view is that he is still playing a smart, long game that will show the republicans up for what they are: the party of the rich and unable to compromise. hopefully, this will reap benefits in 2014 when the country elects a democratic house. until then obama's hands are tied as they have been since the 2010 elections.”

pshakkottai on Apr 8, 2013 at 16:14:52

“Sad!

" My legacy:

I cut Social Security
I cut Medicare
I cut Medicaid
I cut federal employees
I cut post office employees
I cut military employees
I cut scientific research and development
I cut NASA
I cut food inspection
I cut drug inspection
I cut stock market regulations
I cut bank regulation
I cut food stamps
I cut housing for the poor
I cut aid to the poor
I cut aid to the elderly
I cut aid to the disabled
I cut aid to education
I even cut visitors the White House

I widened the gap between the rich and the rest
and I never prosecuted a single crooked banker.

So will you contribute to my Obama library
and pay me big money for speeches
and hire my wife and kids to high-paying jobs?

No?

Who needs you? I’ve made rich friends who will." from
http://mythfighter.com/2013/04/05/suitable-for-framing/
huffingtonpost entry

Professor Krugman and Crude Keynesianism

Commented Mar 13, 2013 at 17:08:58 in Politics

“wasn't it misguided to have krugman, a nobel prize winning princeton economist, debate joe scarborough, a politician whose credentials don't hold a candle to krugman? i would have preferred sachs to scarborough.”
Resigning From the AARP

Resigning From the AARP

Commented Feb 26, 2013 at 11:57:06 in Politics

“you are quite mistaken. benefits are progressive and are indeed based on need. here is the current formula: your benefit level is calculated as 90% of your first $749 in monthly pre-retirement earnings, 32% of earnings up to $4,517, and 15% of your earnings above that. this means that high-income earners get a smaller benefit as a percentage of their income than low earners do.”
Resigning From the AARP

Resigning From the AARP

Commented Feb 25, 2013 at 16:18:08 in Politics

“explain how changing the existing formula turns SS into any more of a "welfare wealth transfer program" than it already is. the benefit calculation is already progressive; the bend points provide a substantially lower percentage of income replacement for higher paid contributors than lower paid contributors. scrapping the cap merely extends the progressiveness of the current system.”

sanityismine on Feb 26, 2013 at 08:55:31

“"nto any more of a "welfare wealth transfer program" than it already is"

Benefits are not based on need (or lack thereof) they are based on what you put into the pension system.  If you want to use need (or lack thereof) as the criteria for the premiums or the benefits you have disconnected the benefit form the payment and turned it into an arbitrary welfare program.

Either it is a defined benefit pension system or it become welfare.

Choose carefully, the latter will garner less support over the years.”
next
1 - 25