Obama gives progressives the finger and switches political parties

[timesjoke]

Just because you can't understand how business capital is connected to banking, that does not mean it is not the truth. The banking collapse caused a lot of problems. If you don't believe the banks falling apart was the cause, what was B e n d e r? Share your enlightened opinion with us and let's talk about it.

 

 

 

I also want to go back to your claim Obama is now a Republican, let's consider your earlier attacks on Republicans saying they were the party of "no" because they would not give into the demands of Democrats and Obama on certain pure socialist legislation. If these Republicans had agreed to support that legislation, would their cooperation mean they were all suddenly Democrats?

 

 

Obama is meeting the Republicans part way, Obama ran on a promise of bringing both sides together and that is what the American people want and it is the main reason they turned on the Democrats in this last election. Americans are sick and tired of the heavy handed way Obama and the Democrats hammered the healthcare bill through without letting the Republicans have any input at all on the bill. Even many Democrats did not like the bill so why would Republicans like it?

 

 

 

Obama pegged you guys correctly, you got 95% of what you wanted and still that is not good enough for you to the point you call him names and consider everything he accomplished a failure. I don't like what he did, but I am not socialist either, you guys are just so greedy for other people's money you can't stand to wait and let things slowly develop. This new entitlement will evolve and grow, it may see some cutbacks at first but Obama is right, just like social security grew, so will Obamacare. The foot is in the door.

[phreakwars]

Greedy for other peoples money?

 

Are you out of your fucking mind? I want MY OWN taxes to go up, I'd get nothing from it at all.

 

Why? Because unlike you, who claims to be fiscally responsible, I actually am. I want the debt paid down. You on the other hand, are in favor of raising it all so you can have your tax cut entitlement welfare.

 

Keeping the tax cuts in place is NOT a fiscally responsible thing to do.

 

It DOES NOT create jobs. If it did, you'd answer the question about why we didn't have job growth in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, etc, etc.

.

.

[timesjoke]

Greedy for other peoples money?

 

Are you out of your fucking mind? I want MY OWN taxes to go up, I'd get nothing from it at all.

 

You are not an employer and I doubt you make over a million dollars a year. You progressives want to plunder companies, to force them to pay higher wages, give more benefits, and you treat them like the enemy if they actually make a profit off their investments. You don't care if you run the company out of business.

 

 

You mentioned your co-workers who are just starting out and making low wages should be getting free medical care etc.....that is being greedy for other people's money. If you want to spend your own money to help other people, fine, but that is not what you are asking for. You want to force people to give up their money and give it away to other people who do not earn it. Just because you don't want it for yourself, that does not change the greedy intent B e n d e r...

 

 

 

 

Why? Because unlike you, who claims to be fiscally responsible, I actually am. I want the debt paid down. You on the other hand, are in favor of raising it all so you can have your tax cut entitlement welfare.

 

I live my life paying for my own way B e n d e r, I don't hold out my hand and ask for big Government to give me a life. I want the tax cuts "AND" a massive cut in entitlements at the same time B e n d e r..

 

People who earn their money, should be allowed to keep their money. Government should not be playing Robin Hood.

 

 

 

Keeping the tax cuts in place is NOT a fiscally responsible thing to do.

 

It definately is if we at the same time reduce expenses, the Government spends way, way too much money and they need to go on a massive diet.

 

 

You want to talk about something that is not "fiscally responsible" look at Obamacare. That will cost ten times the cost of keeping current tax levels but you don't seem to be wanting to end that massive waste.

 

 

 

It DOES NOT create jobs. If it did, you'd answer the question about why we didn't have job growth in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, etc, etc.

.

.

 

I did answer the question, but as usual you are either are not capable of understanding the answers or you just pretend not to understand to further your greedy progressive agenda to transform America into a socialist Nation.

 

In 2001 there was a big problem in America, you may have heard about it, massive lossed were seen and after years of suffering the Bush tax cuts helped us to get America back to a small but still positive job growth for Bush's time in office. Bush faced a much harder situation then Obama and he pulled us through, Obama on the other hand made things much worse and scared the crap out of the business community with all his promises to treat the business community as the enemy and that was the main reason job growth has stopped during his Presidency.

 

You can't treat the job creaters as the enemy then act surprised they don't create jobs......

 

 

 

 

Hey B e n d e r, just curious, was it you that created a word filter to change my use of B e n d e r "Phreakwars" to Phreakwars?

[phreakwars]

There TJ goes with his typical bullshit... you just want the government to do this, you just want the government to do that... entitlements, socialism and yadda yadda yadda..

 

So WHAT EXACTLY is it I want the government to do for me or anybody else? I don't recall EVER saying they should do anything except help sick people.

 

Oh the shame of it all, wanting to do like Jesus would do and help others who are sick.

 

And WOW, I'm even willing to let the government take more of what I have to help someone else. And without getting anything back in return for it.

 

Sorry TJ, you will never EVER spin that to make your right wing ideals of "fuck em, it's mine it's mine and you can't have it" sound any better.

.

.

[timesjoke]

There TJ goes with his typical bullshit... you just want the government to do this, you just want the government to do that... entitlements, socialism and yadda yadda yadda..

 

I want the Federal Government to only do what they are supposed to do based on the Constitution. You Progressives want to ignore the Constitution and transform America into a socialist Country.

 

 

So WHAT EXACTLY is it I want the government to do for me or anybody else? I don't recall EVER saying they should do anything except help sick people.

 

Just wanting to give people free healthcare is socialist B e n d e r.

 

Why do you believe anyone should get anything for free just because they are standing in America?

 

Oh the shame of it all, wanting to do like Jesus would do and help others who are sick.

 

Charity is only accomplished by choice, not by force.

 

Nobody is keeping you from helping other people, it is your choice, but trying to force other people to do as you command is not Christian.

 

 

And WOW, I'm even willing to let the government take more of what I have to help someone else. And without getting anything back in return for it.

 

Great, nothing wrong with you volunterring yourself to pay more taxes, did you know you can write a check to the Government any time you want as a gift?

 

My problem is where you volunteer "other people" to pay higher taxes.

 

 

 

Sorry TJ, you will never EVER spin that to make your right wing ideals of "f em, it's mine it's mine and you can't have it" sound any better.

.

.

 

Who owns the money I make B e n d e r?

 

Does all money belong to the Federal Government first in your mind?

 

 

 

If a person considers money earned as belonging to the person who earned it, then it stands as logical for the person who earned the money to be concerned how much is taken away by force and then how that money is spent.

[eddo]

 

Oh the shame of it all, wanting to do like Jesus would do and help others who are sick.

 

Charity is only accomplished by choice, not by force.

 

Nobody is keeping you from helping other people, it is your choice, but trying to force other people to do as you command is not Christian.

 

 

yep.

[timesjoke]

Thanks eddo....

 

 

Now let's get back to the topic of the thread, I asked B e n d e r a couple questions about his claim that Obama has switched parties and he has once again dodged them so let me try again:

 

 

B e n d e r, you have claimed in the past that Republicans were the party of "no" because they would not get behind Obama's pure socialist legislation, so let me ask you this, if they had voted in support of Obamacare, would they have been transformed into Democrats?

 

 

So in turn, you must be saying the Republicans did the right thing to stick by their principles and not support Obamacare because that would have made them sellouts and forced them to become Democrats instead of Republicans..........

 

 

 

 

You can't have it both ways B e n d e r.....if you believe it is reasonable to ask Republicans to compromise, then why do you see Obama as a traitor to compromise?

 

 

 

Both sides gave up things they wanted and got things they did want, they set aside their political partisan attitudes and met somewhere in the middle. That is what Obama promised the American people when he ran for the office, and that is what the American people expect. I would have personally wanted the Republicans to ask for more, but in the end I believe it was the best deal that could be made considering the alternatives and the short time at their disposal.

[ImWithStupid]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s7KPYIOUL4

[timesjoke]

Good video IWS

[phreakwars]

Just wanting to give people free healthcare is socialist

So I'm a socialist, big deal, it's just a label... can't say I view it as a bad thing. And who said FREE, I just said do the right thing and help, even if it costs me personally.

 

they would not get behind Obama's pure socialist legislation

What socialist legislation? Name all those socialist programs he proposed. I want in on all this wealth spreading and other peoples money that he's been giving away.

 

You can't have it both ways ...if you believe it is reasonable to ask Republicans to compromise, then why do you see Obama as a traitor to compromise?

He didn't compromise at all, he sucked cock and gave his Republican party whatever they want without even trying to negotiate.

.

.

[phreakwars]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s7KPYIOUL4

 

Yeah, this guy is absolutely right... Go ahead and name all those great socialist programs where the wealthy are losing what is their's and it's being given away to the greedy poor.

 

I mean, if it's what you and the idiot and the video want to claim, then SURELY you can give us some fine examples.

.

.

[hugo]

The bill is fiscally irresponsible. Noone should support it. The whole tax system must be overhauled.

 

After further thought I gotta change my mind. Tax increases at the beginning of the year would have been a disaster. We must get spending under control in the next congress. This has to be the last stimulus package. Need to overhaul the whole tax system soon.

[hugo]

And WOW, I'm even willing to let the government take more of what I have to help someone else. And without getting anything back in return for it.

 

Why that is a bad idea, Walter Williams:

 

Much of the justification for the welfare state is to reduce income inequality by making income transfers to the poor. Browning provides some statistics that might help us to evaluate the sincerity and truthfulness of this claim. In 2005, total federal, state and local government expenditures on 85 welfare programs were $620 billion. That's larger than national defense ($495 billion) or public education ($472 billion). The 2005 official poverty count was 37 million persons. That means welfare expenditures per poor person were $16,750, or $67,000 for a poor family of four.

...

The question that naturally arises is if we're spending enough to lift everyone out of poverty, why is there still poverty? The obvious answer is poor people are not receiving all the money being spent in their name. Non-poor people are getting the bulk of it.

[timesjoke]

So I'm a socialist, big deal, it's just a label... can't say I view it as a bad thing.

 

Not bad in Russia, cuba, etc....

 

Very bad in free Countries though Ben-der. We are not designed to be a socialist Nation, this is one of the biggest reasons our economy has such a difficult time rebounding after problems like now. The severe and way over the top taxes imposed on the populace is like trying to stand up after falling down with another person on your back.......not impossible, but difficult to the extreme. The more you add onto your back, the harder it is to get back up and even after you are on your feet, getting around is also difficult. This larger than it is supposed to be Government is a massive weight on society.

 

 

 

And who said FREE, I just said do the right thing and help, even if it costs me personally.

 

Again, volunteer all of your own money you want Ben-der but don't force me to feed the Government monster for socialist programs only you believe can do good. Most of the money the Government takes is wasted on the buracracy and never makes it to the people the people the program is intended to help in the first place.

 

You did see where I told you that you can write a check to the Government any time you want to didn't you?

 

If you Progressives believe so strongly that you should pay higher taxes, then why not just do it? Why do you need everyone else who do not agree with you to be forced to pay more before you pay more? Lead by example -Phreakwars-...

 

 

 

 

What socialist legislation? Name all those socialist programs he proposed.

 

Um, this free healthcare legislation we are talking about is one example, please try to keep up.

 

 

 

I want in on all this wealth spreading and other peoples money that he's been giving away.

 

 

Of course you do, because you envy those with more than you, that is one of the two reasons people embrace the progressives. Either you are greedy and envious, or you feel some form of guilt that you believe can be "worked off" by supporting massive give aways for those you look at as beneath you, sure you verbally talk nice about the "poor" but deep down inside you truly despise and look down on them as sub-humans.

 

 

 

 

He didn't compromise at all, he sucked penis and gave his Republican party whatever they want without even trying to negotiate.

.

.

 

Even the progressive God, Bill Clinton, says this is a great deal, there was a lot more negotiation than you know of Ben-der. You progressives are just acting like children and having a temper tantrum.

 

 

But again you show the double standard, you claim it is bad when non-progressives don't compromise with your side, but if your side compromises with them, you say that is bad. Either compromise is good for both sides or it is bad for both sides, you can't have it both ways and even trying to have it both ways shows a severe trend to the immature.

[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 shit out of luck.

 

Sounds pretty damn fair to me. Then all us so called socialists (bet your ass 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 damn fair to me. Then all us so called socialists (bet your ass 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.

 

Hell, 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.

 

Hell, 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.