Obama gives progressives the finger and switches political parties

[phreakwars]

Um, this free healthcare legislation

How is THAT free when you are mandated to BUY into it?.

.

 

[phreakwars]

I do however, have a solution for social security, medicare, etc..

Simply cut a check to the people who paid into it exactly for what they paid in, and make these programs voluntary.

Then, if you happen to lose your job, retire, etc and you haven't paid into these programs, your **** out of luck.

Sounds pretty **** fair to me. Then all us so called socialists (bet your *** Republicans would pay into it to but won't want to admit it), will have our collective insurance for our retirements and medicines, good luck surviving without unemployment, and all the rest can just die in the streets for being jackasses who convince themselves they are set when they retire.

Good luck with those medications and hospital bills, good luck surviving off that pension for the rest of your lives, because I won't care, you made your choice.

The rest of us "socialist" will enjoy laughing at your stupidity.

.

.

 

[timesjoke]

Um, this free healthcare legislation

How is THAT free when you are mandated to BUY into it?.

.

Part of the law includes government payments to people of "lower incomes" to pay them back for the cost of the insurance Bander, so that means it is free.

I do however, have a solution for social security, medicare, etc..

Simply cut a check to the people who paid into it exactly for what they paid in, and make these programs voluntary.

Then, if you happen to lose your job, retire, etc and you haven't paid into these programs, your sh t out of luck.

Nieve Binder, very nieve.

These programs are all a ponzi scheme, without a massive number of people paying in, they just can't work. Today they are running out of money because people are living way, way longer than they used to and taking out many times what they paid in and in larger numbers. At the least we must severely increase the retirement age to give these programs a small chance at staying solvant.

Sounds pretty **** fair to me. Then all us so called socialists (bet your *** Republicans would pay into it to but won't want to admit it), will have our collective insurance for our retirements and medicines, good luck surviving without unemployment, and all the rest can just die in the streets for being jackasses who convince themselves they are set when they retire.

Good luck with those medications and hospital bills, good luck surviving off that pension for the rest of your lives, because I won't care, you made your choice.

The rest of us "socialist" will enjoy laughing at your stupidity.

.

.

The problem is, you socialists don't understand basic economics, the system can't work without everyone paying in. If your socialist system is limited to just those of you who want it, there will not be any money in the pool to draw from. Remember, most people who share your political leanings don't currently pay any federal taxes now, they draw out massive amounts of aid from the Federal Government but pay nothing in.

 

[wez]

Remember, most people who share your political leanings don't currently pay any federal taxes now, they draw out massive amounts of aid from the Federal Government but pay nothing in.

Hey TJ.. doesn't your son collect a monthly check from the federal government, and receive free government housing and free government healthcare just like you did after the failure of your worm farm? Where's that money come from?

Please explain..

 

[phreakwars]

Part of the law includes government payments to people of "lower incomes" to pay them back for the cost of the insurance, so that means it is free.

Yeah, the part that was ALWAYS free. So how bout the rest of those socialist programs, name them.

Nieve, very nieve.
These programs are all a ponzi scheme, without a massive number of people paying in, they just can't work. Today they are running out of money because people are living way, way longer than they used to and taking out many times what they paid in and in larger numbers. At the least we must severely increase the retirement age to give these programs a small chance at staying solvant.

Then that would be the people buying into it's problem, not yours. And the word is "naive"

The problem is, you socialists don't understand basic economics, the system can't work without everyone paying in. If your socialist system is limited to just those of you who want it, there will not be any money in the pool to draw from. Remember, most people who share your political leanings don't currently pay any federal taxes now, they draw out massive amounts of aid from the Federal Government but pay nothing in.

It's worked so far, and would even have a surplus had Republicans not tapped into it and spent it already..

.

 

[ImWithStupid]

It's worked so far, and would even have a surplus had Republicans not tapped into it and spent it already.


.


.

 


That's a lie.

 


In 1972 Social Security changed from only being for those who paid in, to everyone with the inclusion of SSI (Supplemental Security Income). That led to Social Security not having enough to cover expenditures by the early 80's which led to this...

 

 

 

The apparent collapse of talks between the White House and Senate Democrats suggests that, though we should remain vigilant, conservative groups appear to have successfully stopped a sell-out effort to raise Social Security taxes in the name of reform. 


That said, the status quo — entitlement spending projected to lead an explosion in the size of the federal government to 38% of gross domestic product by 2050 from 20% — is a rout for limited government conservatives and a disaster for the country's future.

 


The key to getting the reform effort back on track is to focus on the lowest common denominator problem with the current system — Congress's unconscionable raid of Social Security surpluses to fund unrelated programs. Fortunately the conservative Republican Study Committee is now proposing to do precisely that by including a commitment to stop the raid in its American Taxpayer Bill of Rights agenda announced last Wednesday.

 


Social Security had a severe cash crunch in 1983. Because of shifting demographics, the program was within months of not having enough money coming in to pay benefits. The government solved its problem by making the problem for workers worse — it raised taxes, cut benefits, and increased the retirement age.

 


The result was large and growing cash surpluses — more money coming into Social Security in payroll taxes than going out in benefit payments. But Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, which means that the taxes that come in each year are used to pay benefits for retirees that year. There is no mechanism for investing any excess funds that are left over.

 


Surpluses, which in theory should fund benefits for future retirees, are instead raided by Congress and squandered on unrelated spending programs. The late New York senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, called this "outright thievery."

 


Here's how the raid works: The surplus payroll tax dollars go into the Social Security Trust Fund, which in turn uses them to buy special issue bonds from the U.S. Treasury.

 


Then Congress can use those dollars, in the Treasury, to spend on anything it wants. All that Social Security has are the bonds. The bonds pay interest, but Congress raids the interest, too, by simply placing more bonds in the trust fund. The trust fund itself is a filing cabinet in West Virginia — it doesn't have any real funds in it and you probably shouldn't trust it.

 


President Bush explained this pretty well in a speech in 2005: "You pay your payroll tax, we pay out to current retirees, and then we spend your money on other government programs."

 


In 2006 this thievery reached a milestone, passing the staggering number of $1 trillion used for programs other than Social Security since 1983. And that's not including interest. That enormous amount of money has allowed both parties in Congress to fund innumerable wasteful programs and pork-barrel projects while concealing the size of the deficit.

 


Social Security is expected to remain in cash-flow surplus for the next decade, and the raid is scheduled to continue. Under present law, Congress will raid Social Security funds to the tune of $693 billion over the next decade, not including interest. If a tax-increase deal did come together, it would amplify the size of the larceny while doing nothing to make Social Security a better deal for workers.

 


Enter the Republican Study Committee. While the committee has not yet introduced specific legislation, the group, which has over 100 members, has defined stopping the raid as one of its key policy priorities, saying: "The RSC will propose legislation this year making it against the law to spend Social Security money collected from Americans on anything other than Social Security."

 


The committee's bill likely will be very similar to a bill sponsored in the last Congress and recently reintroduced by a Republican Study Committee member, Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, that could form the foundation of a broad consensus to end the raid. Her bill, H.R. 581, would prohibit Congress from spending Social Security surpluses and form a bipartisan commission to consider the best use of those funds.

 


Some ideas the commission could consider include using the surplus for future individual accounts that have been proposed by Senator DeMint of South Carolina and Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin; centralized investment in stocks or corporate bonds as President Clinton suggested, or perhaps the Head Start Retirement Accounts, savings accounts for children under age18, that are being promoted by Larry Hunter of the Institute for Policy Innovation. In the meantime, the Social Security surpluses would remain protected in a segregated account.

 


Fifty years ago, there were 16 workers for every retiree. Now there are three, and soon there will be only two. If Social Security continues to be a transfer payment, it will place an incredible strain on workers in the medium term, which would derail economic growth. Social Security simply cannot be propped up in its present form without damaging American workers and the economy. Structural reform is needed, and the first step toward broader reforms is to stop the raid.

http://www.nysun.com...ity-raid/50792/

 

[phreakwars]

All the news I hear, and all the news I read, says SS is good to go for AT LEAST another 30 years... provided Republicans don't destroy it anymore then they already have.

.

.

 

[jokersarewild]

Here's a program:

SS age remains 65.

Raise benefits to where the elderly can live comfortably.

Euthanasia at 70.

You get to spend the last 5 years of your life living well, probably spending the majority of your money on things other than food and necessities (like large TVs and the like), and then when it's your time to go, one last meal, one last good lay, and out you go.

I would campaign on that right there.

 

[ImWithStupid]

All the news I hear, and all the news I read, says SS is good to go for AT LEAST another 30 years... provided Republicans don't destroy it anymore then they already have.

.

.

More lies. See previous post.

 

[phreakwars]

All the news I hear, and all the news I read, says SS is good to go for AT LEAST another 30 years... provided Republicans don't destroy it anymore then they already have.

.

.

More lies. See previous post.

Your previous post is the official Republican explanation of why they don't want to accept responsibility for what they did. They OF COURSE, blame the poor and disabled. The truth of the matter is, they used the money for war. A war we didn't need to get into. The excuse is that it's all SSI's fault.
****, it's spelled out in that same post right here when Bush says:

President Bush explained this pretty well in a speech in 2005: "You pay your payroll tax, we pay out to current retirees, and then we spend your money on other government programs."

.

.

 

[ImWithStupid]

All the news I hear, and all the news I read, says SS is good to go for AT LEAST another 30 years... provided Republicans don't destroy it anymore then they already have.

.

.

More lies. See previous post.

Your previous post is the official Republican explanation of why they don't want to accept responsibility for what they did. They OF COURSE, blame the poor and disabled. The truth of the matter is, they used the money for war. A war we didn't need to get into. The excuse is that it's all SSI's fault.
****, it's spelled out in that same post right here when Bush says:

President Bush explained this pretty well in a speech in 2005: "You pay your payroll tax, we pay out to current retirees, and then we spend your money on other government programs."

.

.

I see you either didn't read the article or once again, based on your blind bias, didn't comprehend what was said.

The article said Congresses of both Repubs and Dems robbed the excess from SS because nothing was ever set up as to what to do with any excess as it wasn't an issue before the changes in the early 80's.

I see you then omitted the rest of the story after W's quote about how Repubs in the mid 2000's tried to change that, you know in that SS reform legislation that the Dems blocked and fought so hard against and you still bring up falsely as an attempt to privatize SS, in one of your famous misrepresentation of facts.

 

[atlantic]

In the era of globalization being poorly educated ain't good for individuals or nations.

What's sad, is thanks to defunding, todays generation, is actually dumber then the last.

.

Defunding what?

Not education. Since 1970 spending per student have sky rocketed, but scores haven't improved.

View attachment 3065

Not in all states, Az is right at the bottom. I guess it all depends where you live.

 

[atlantic]

Obama is doing what he has to in order to push through tax cuts for the middle class, and lower earning class. I'm not too happy about extending unemployment for even longer, especially since it means my chain-smoking alcoholic neighbor Dave who has already been collecting for like 2 years already, who now always needs rides due to DUI and thinks I'm Ms. Daisy is around. I am also not happy with the Democratic party either, and for Harry Reid to be pushing the Dream Act when clearly there is a financial crisis going on is infuriating. I wish I could collect for 3 years, which is shy of a college education.

My answer to where are the jobs? Well most of them are in other countries now - period. This country doesn't manufacturer too much anymore. **** you can't even call customer service and not get someone in Canada (no offense Emkay, I loves me the Canada) or India. So if you are not in the health field you have no guarantees.

I think it might take a Trump or a Romney to turn this country around.

 

[atlantic]

Here's a program:

SS age remains 65.

Raise benefits to where the elderly can live comfortably.

Euthanasia at 70.

You get to spend the last 5 years of your life living well, probably spending the majority of your money on things other than food and necessities (like large TVs and the like), and then when it's your time to go, one last meal, one last good lay, and out you go.

I would campaign on that right there.

JAW - awesome! Seriously though, I had a step-grandfather (who was a complete wee-wee and wouldn't put it past him if he was a serial killer) live to the ripe old age of 99, he was collecting a huge check every month from ssi. I can guarantee you he didn't pay that much into it. He was blind and in terrible shape when he died, I think he was that way for years. My question is what is the point of this. My grandmother, had a stroke and she is now living with my mother and my grandmother is 90 something. She is now getting the huge ssi check, and sends most of the money to my drunk-*** uncle who never supported his own chiildren.
The system will eventually run out/collapse. It cannot handle the expense of seniors who are living to the ages of 90, not to mention the huge influx of people fleeing to this country - which lately confuses me. Newsflash people, our economy is collapsing or hadn't you noticed. I actually knew some people from Mexico who had no desire to come here - they said too expensive and no work - lol.

 

[builder]

Remember, most people who share your political leanings don't currently pay any federal taxes now, they draw out massive amounts of aid from the Federal Government but pay nothing in.

Hey TJ.. doesn't your son collect a monthly check from the federal government, and receive free government housing and free government healthcare just like you did after the failure of your worm farm? Where's that money come from?

Please explain..

Tj had a worm farm that failed? OMFG. What happened, Tj? Did you feed them your own detritus or something? How does a bloke fail at worm farming?

Too progressive, or something?

 

[ImWithStupid]

What the **** was THAT? All those links linked to is **** about the mortgage financial crisis, which has NOTHING to do with business shutting down. What, did bosses fire employees who couldn't make mortgage payments? Did banks forclose on business' because they were bad business deals made to people who bought homes? GET REAL MAN. There is one VERY huge hole in the whole Fannie and Freddie did it theory... FANNIE AND FREDDIE ARE HOME LENDERS, NOT BUSINESS LENDERS.

That Fannie and Freddie meme is horse **** Republican blame game talk about something completely unrelated to America losing it's industrial sector. The banks could have very easily switched liquid assets into the industrial sector and avoided the housing sector, but they didn't, they got greedy.

.

.

Reminds me of one of my favorite Ronald Reagan quotes...

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so. ~ Ronald Reagan

I sure hope this helps you get a basic grasp of the economy and how bad mortgage loans triggered the economic downturn...

On May 20, 2009, Public Law No. 111-21, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, was enacted into law, creating the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC). According to the Act, the FCIC was established to "examine the causes, domestic and global, of the current financial and economic crisis in the United States." The law requires that today, December 15, 2010, the FCIC submit "to the President and to the Congress a report containing the findings and conclusions of the Commission on the causes of the current financial and economic crisis in the United States."
This primer contains preliminary findings and conclusions released by Vice Chairman Bill Thomas, Commissioner Keith Hennessey, Commissioner Douglas Holtz-Eakin, and Commissioner Peter J. Wallison, and represents a portion of the findings and conclusions resulting from our work on the FCIC. As the transmission of the report of the FCIC to the President and Congress requires a majority vote of the Commission, these findings and conclusions do not constitute the Commission's report. Rather, this document is an effort to reflect the clear intention of our enabling legislation.

http://www.aei.org/d...risisPrimer.pdf

 

[phreakwars]

http://www.aei.org/d...risisPrimer.pdf

Yeah, nice OPINION PIECE from yet another Republican think tank.

http://www.sourcewat...prise_Institute

Explain why Freddie & Fannie still have 90% of their loans still out there and still solid investments.

10% of their loans were **** and that caused the housing bubble?

The Republican think tanks "blame the poor" excuse doesn't hold water, neither does their "BLAME THE LIBERALS/EVIL GOVERNMENT" agenda report..

.

.

 

[ImWithStupid]

http://www.aei.org/d...risisPrimer.pdf

Yeah, nice OPINION PIECE from yet another Republican think tank.

http://www.sourcewat...prise_Institute

Explain why Freddie & Fannie still have 90% of their loans still out there and still solid investments.

10% of their loans were **** and that caused the housing bubble?

The Republican think tanks "blame the poor" excuse doesn't hold water, neither does their "BLAME THE LIBERALS/EVIL GOVERNMENT" agenda report..

.

.

I see you once again didn't read it or your bias made you see it as a Republican think tank piece.

Oh well, you can't force the blind to see.

 

[ImWithStupid]

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/d0nERTFo-Sk?feature=oembed

 

[phreakwars]

I see you once again didn't read it or your bias made you see it as a Republican think tank piece.

Oh well, you can't force the blind to see.

No, it is BECAUSE I read it, that I know it is bullshit. And it is also because of where it came from that I am UNBIASED.

TELL ME that isn't a right wing think tank you got the info from.

I should just take their word for it because they put it in a .pdf file and called it research?

If I accept THAT BS, I might as well watch Fox News ( an admitted arm of the GOP ) and say they are accurate.

And no commentary on why 90% of Freddie & *****'s loans are still solid yet their to blame?

I apologize if my pondering drives things DEEPER then just Freddie or ***** and yours stops right there. Must be your superior right wing skills of only looking at one thing and not seeing the other **** around you, like you claimed here: http://Off Topic Forum.com/topic/35177-science-prove-that-sheeple-exist

.

.