• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

If mitt romney is the nominee who do you vote for

If mitt romney is the nominee who do you vote for


  • Total voters
    90
You, sir/madam are part of the problem, SS and Medicare ARE funded by the payroll taxes and although they were put on Budget by LBJ in the 60's thus creating a unified budget that was never the intent of FICA nor the intent of SS/Medicare.

It is your money that is supposed to fund your retirement supplement. Putting it on budget just allows Congress to spend the money anyway they want and waste your SS/Medicare money. You don't seem to have a problem with your money for retirement being used for something else

Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice how no liberal is supporting your position?

Where did i say i don't have a problem with ss used elsewhere? All i said was that payroll taxes dont fund SS which seem to think it does. Just more dumb straw man arguements from you.
 
Good for you. I like people with the guts to vote for what they want. In fact, IMO those who go into the booth and do that whole "hold my nose while I vote" should have their tongues cut out of their head because seeing how they didn't vote for what they want, they should be restrained from bitching about the results of the ensuing years of having a president they voted for that they didn't want in the first place.

Political cowards ftl!

Cowards waste their votes. It takes courage to compromise.
 
Some think there is no difference between the the two parties.

Maybe that's because those who could influence them to be different keep voting for third parties instead.
 
Where did i say i don't have a problem with ss used elsewhere? All i said was that payroll taxes dont fund SS which seem to think it does. Just more dumb straw man arguements from you.

Amazing, regardless of the evidence to the contrary you still make that kind of statement? FICA was created to fund SS/medicare, FACT
 
No it doesn't. Its all put into the same budget.

No, it doesn't put it all in the same budget. It puts it into the same pot of cash, but the books are separate. SS payroll tax cash may be used to pay general fund obligations, but there is an IOU (a government bond, actually) that goes with that, owed to SS.
 
Social Security/Medicare put on Budget

Social Security Online - HISTORY: Budget Treatment of Social Security Trust Funds

SS on Budget

"On-Budget"-

In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."
This 1968 change grew out of the recommendations of a presidential commission appointed by President Johnson in 1967, and known as the President's Commission on Budget Concepts. The concern of this Commission was not specifically with the Social Security Trust Funds, but rather it was an effort to rationalize what the Commission viewed as a confusing budget presentation. At that time, the federal budget consisted of three separate and inconsistent sets of measures, and often budget debates became bogged-down in arguments over which of the three to use. As an illustration of the problem, the projected fiscal 1968 budget was either in deficit by $2.1 billion, $4.3 billion, or $8.1 billion, depending upon which measure one chose to use. Consequently, the Commission's central recommendation was for a single, unified, measure of the federal budget--a measure in which every function and activity of government was added together to assess the government's fiscal position
 
"On-Budget"-

That's a different use of the term "budget" than he is using.

On-budget simply means it's being accounted for in the same place. You can't really put something "off budget" as if it didn't exist. On-budget is simply reversing that idea. But SS is still a different account, and any cash spent from SS taxes for non-SS expenses is still owed to SS, as you know.
 
The poll results confirm my oft stating that Ron Paul ultimately supports Obama. The contrast between the numbers of the Paul v Obama poll and this one demonstrate this. Ron Paul supporters are not primarily concerned about issues. They are followers of Ron Paul. Accordingly, if Republicans reject him they in turn will reject Republicans.
 
Last edited:
The poll results confirm my oft stating that Ron Paul ultimately supports Obama. The contrast between the numbers of the Paul v Obama poll and this one demonstrate this. Ron Paul supporters are not primarily concerned about issues. They are followers of Ron Paul. Accordingly, if Republicans reject him they in turn will reject Republicans.

I think there will be a lot of liberals that are disappointed with Obama that might choose to vote third party.
 
That's a different use of the term "budget" than he is using.

On-budget simply means it's being accounted for in the same place. You can't really put something "off budget" as if it didn't exist. On-budget is simply reversing that idea. But SS is still a different account, and any cash spent from SS taxes for non-SS expenses is still owed to SS, as you know.

Yes I do know it, now stick to the issue, and correct 99 and his statement that Payroll taxes don't fund SS/medicare. Stop looking for the gotcha moment, stop being a partisan
 
Yes I do know it, now stick to the issue, and correct 99 and his statement that Payroll taxes don't fund SS/medicare. Stop looking for the gotcha moment, stop being a partisan
stop being a partisan....lol....:lamo :lamo from you, that is hilarious!!
 
it appears that tails don't actually get to wag the dog....
the far right, the rabid single issue voters, those who would rid the USA of gay marriage and abortion while the economy collapses around us, those are the small tails that want to wag the entire USA dog....ain't gonna happen, boys and girls....
We haven't elected a conservative since before Reagan, I am thinking MAYBE Eisenhower..but his version of conservatism was not like today's version....

Absolutely. You hit the nail on the head Utah. Todays's version of conservatism is the reason I changed my "lean" in my Debate Politics profile to "slightly liberal." I held on as long as I could but it just got downright embarassing and I could no longer, in good conscience, stand with today's camp of conservatives. That example of embarassment is regularly on display right here on this forum.
 
Yes I do know it, now stick to the issue, and correct 99 and his statement that Payroll taxes don't fund SS/medicare. Stop looking for the gotcha moment, stop being a partisan

I understand what he is saying and I understand what you are saying. It's symantics. At the end of the day, the worker looks at his/her paystub and sees how much of their money the government took. It really doesn't matter to them if it's in the box that says SS/Medicare or FICA or State Tax. To the worker, it's a payroll tax. It's money you don't get to take home.

You two can fight this one out. It don't matter who wins your argument.
 
Yes I do know it, now stick to the issue, and correct 99 and his statement that Payroll taxes don't fund SS/medicare.

You can't even handle it when I agree with you. Jeez.

Stop looking for the gotcha moment, stop being a partisan

YOU are telling someone not to be a partisan? :lol:
 
Absolutely. You hit the nail on the head Utah. Todays's version of conservatism is the reason I changed my "lean" in my Debate Politics profile to "slightly liberal." I held on as long as I could but it just got downright embarassing and I could no longer, in good conscience, stand with today's camp of conservatives. That example of embarassment is regularly on display right here on this forum.

You changed your beliefs because you were embarased by others who hold the same beliefs? This is all about being in the right club?
 
Obama is huge dissapointment and he also progressed this country very little but alot of that can be blamed because of our congress which is much much worse and does absolutely nothing. With the right congress Obama could save the country. Romney can't be trusted hes two faced on every issue and reminds me of that salesman who would say anything to sale you his product but in this case its to get elected. At least Obama believes in things even though he cant get anything through.
 
Last edited:
Huntsman spokesperson has announced Huntsman will be dropping out and is endorsing Romney!
 
Well I guess it's over, after Huntsman throws his nine supporters to Romney.
 
Well I guess it's over, after Huntsman throws his nine supporters to Romney.

LOL! And expects a cabinet appointment in return.....非常感谢 (fei chang gan xie)!
 
Back
Top Bottom