• 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!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
pbrauer said:
Read it Conservative, of course money had to be initially put in to the fund, otherwise current retires (circa 1935) would have no benefits.
Click to expand...

You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about, money has gone into the fund since inception with very little paid it. It never has been about current retirees not having the money, now it is about those "future" retirees whose money was wasted. Keep waiting for that lightbulb going off in your head. Looks like your electrical circuits have been burned out.
 
Conservative said:
When did you first learn that it was the Government's job to take care of you from cradle to grave?

Yes, I ran a $200 million dollar a year company with over 1200 employees. I never taught them that it was the government's job to provide for them and that there weren't consequences for personal failure and poor choices made. Seems you never learned that.
Click to expand...

I don't have much problem with the base thought you state ... consequences of failure. My problem is when legislation is used to export and destroy prosperity ... which removes the ability of citizens to provide for themselves. Failure is much more about using government legislation to concentrate wealth and removes the ability of people to provide for their own needs. Pretty much any social net could be maintained either by private or public management ... given the bottom line is there to support it ... prosperity.
 
pbrauer said:
Read it Conservative, of course money had to be initially put in to the fund, otherwise current retires (circa 1935) would have no benefits.
Click to expand...

Better think, Pb. What also factors in is how our current REAL unemployment rate of over 16% is affecting the current SS. Fewer and fewer people are contributing more and more to the increasing ranks of those collecting. This is a Ponzi scheme. New investors (those working and paying into SS) are supporting those who have retired and are collecting. When more is needed by those collecting than those able to contribute, the Ponzi scheme becomes dead in the water or contributions from the few that are working to the many that are retired spirals into severe funding problems. That is where we are now.
 
EarlzP said:
When do you think the republican party will start worrying more about the middle class and poor and less about pleasing thier corporate buddies, when do you think America and Americans will mean more to them then the dollars thier corporate buddies give to them?
Click to expand...

The White House's invited guests who will hear President Obama speak to Congress tonight about creating jobs for the common man include a CEO under fire for moving jobs to China and a mayor who recently built a six-foot wall around his mansion.

Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of GE and head of the president's jobs council, tops the list of invited guests who will listen to Mr. Obama's speech from the first lady's box in the House chamber.


Obama invites GE's Immelt to jobs speech - Washington Times

WHen do you think anyone will?
 
Boo Radley said:
When the middle class and poor can afford better lobbyists and can afford the to pay these folks to care?
Click to expand...

The middle class and poor vote far and away outnumber the lobbyist vote.
 
1Perry said:
The middle class and poor vote far and away outnumber the lobbyist vote.
Click to expand...

Require less for their support. And give less money. Lobbyists earn their money. :coffeepap
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
That's a strawman. What's fraudulent about it?
Click to expand...

Did I say there was anything fraudulent about it .? But surely someone with your even limit intelligence must realize that is exactly what it is .. and nothing more
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
There is no lie. I said he had airport security raised until the perceived theat had passed. You ask what Bush could have done ... he could have done that.
Click to expand...

Oh I see until the "perceived" threat had passed ..... what a joke .. .
 
Boo Radley said:
Require less for their support. And give less money. Lobbyists earn their money. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

yeah but you, I , and others keep voting in these people .... the lobbyist doesn't .. you are correct the lobbyist is just doing his job, and we keep voting in career politicians .... that the lobbyist know they can sway.
 
1Perry said:
The middle class and poor vote far and away outnumber the lobbyist vote.
Click to expand...


but with the money spent on lobbying, to some degree it could potentially disturb the outcome of the election, and when i say disturb, i'm referring to perry and his multi-million dollar corporate funding campaign is what may possibly take obama down in 2012.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Inflation is entirely and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. Since the government does not create dollars, what on earth are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry .. I just don't understand your posts sometimes ....... if our government .. just (as it has been doing on a large scale of late) prints money, is that not creating dollars ??? As it prints more and more dollars, has it not helped devalue our dollar against other currencies?
 
The Barbarian said:
yeah but you, I , and others keep voting in these people .... the lobbyist doesn't .. you are correct the lobbyist is just doing his job, and we keep voting in career politicians .... that the lobbyist know they can sway.
Click to expand...

Yep. Sadly.
 
1Perry said:
The White House's invited guests who will hear President Obama speak to Congress tonight about creating jobs for the common man include a CEO under fire for moving jobs to China and a mayor who recently built a six-foot wall around his mansion.

Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of GE and head of the president's jobs council, tops the list of invited guests who will listen to Mr. Obama's speech from the first lady's box in the House chamber.


Obama invites GE's Immelt to jobs speech - Washington Times

WHen do you think anyone will?
Click to expand...

I don't know how you felt but I was really disappointed that he did not ask me to attend the speech
 
Modus said:
but with the money spent on lobbying, to some degree it could potentially disturb the outcome of the election, and when i say disturb, i'm referring to perry and his multi-million dollar corporate funding campaign is what may possibly take obama down in 2012.
Click to expand...


-laughs- what did I hear Obama was aiming for in this election run .. . I believe it's a billion dollars ...... When he ran in 2008 Didn't he run the most expensive campaign, in terms of dollars, in the history of our country. Now you are worrying about someone that might be able to come close to getting the same amount of money .... and you suddenly don't like it ??
 
The Barbarian said:
Did I say there was anything fraudulent about it .? But surely someone with your even limit intelligence must realize that is exactly what it is .. and nothing more
Click to expand...
You implied it when you called it a "ponzi scheme" since a ponzi scheme is fraudulent by definition.
 
The Barbarian said:
Oh I see until the "perceived" threat had passed ..... what a joke .. .
Click to expand...
No, the joke was on America when we elected George Bush and he decided rather than raise airport security while there was a perceived threat of hijackings like his predecessor had done, that spending a few more days on the ranch to watch Sesame Street was the optimal decision to make. Unfortunately for America, that joke resulted in 4 hijacked planes in a single morning on his watch with 3,000 people being murdered.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
No, the joke was on America when we elected George Bush and he decided rather than raise airport security while there was a perceived threat of hijackings like his predecessor had done, that spending a few more days on the ranch to watch Sesame Street was the optimal decision to make. Unfortunately for America, that joke resulted in 4 hijacked planes in a single morning on his watch with 3,000 people being murdered.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah I know .. . it's Bush's fault .. why everything is Bush's fault .. why . . simple because the talking heads have told you so .. .and you like a good little boy march in lock step with them ..... I guess Fort Hood was Bushes fault too .. Or the Christmas underwear bomber .. . was Bush's fault too . . I have one question to weak assed liberals like yourself .. do you . . or will you ever man up . .and take responsibility for anything .. .. or is it always going to be someone else's fault ?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
You implied it when you called it a "ponzi scheme" since a ponzi scheme is fraudulent by definition.
Click to expand...

Well then oh wise one ... tell me how it isn't a ponzi scheme ..... Oh I'm sorry .. I'll answer you that for you ... IT'S BUSH'S FAULT
 
The Barbarian said:
Yeah yeah I know .. . it's Bush's fault .. why everything is Bush's fault .. why . . simple because the talking heads have told you so .. .and you like a good little boy march in lock step with them ..... I guess Fort Hood was Bushes fault too .. Or the Christmas underwear bomber .. . was Bush's fault too . .
Click to expand...
Hyperbole does not help you and no, not everything is Bush's fault. 9.11 for example is not Bush's fault ... it's the fault of Muslim extremists. What is Bush's fault is making the decision to do absolutey nothing to prevent it.

The Barbarian said:
I have one question to weak assed liberals like yourself .. do you . . or will you ever man up . .and take responsibility for anything .. .. or is it always going to be someone else's fault ?
Click to expand...
I've got your answer right here.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Hyperbole does not help you and no, not everything is Bush's fault. 9.11 for example is not Bush's fault ... it's the fault of Muslim extremists. What is Bush's fault is making the decision to do absolutey nothing to prevent it.


I've got your answer right here.
Click to expand...

Well as soon as you get your head out of it .. maybe you can pass some gas . .and feel better ..
 
The Barbarian said:
Yeah yeah I know .. . it's Bush's fault .. why everything is Bush's fault .. why . . simple because the talking heads have told you so .. .and you like a good little boy march in lock step with them ..... I guess Fort Hood was Bushes fault too .. Or the Christmas underwear bomber .. . was Bush's fault too . . I have one question to weak assed liberals like yourself .. do you . . or will you ever man up . .and take responsibility for anything .. .. or is it always going to be someone else's fault ?
Click to expand...

I was a little disappointed last night in President Obama's speech, I would have liked to have seen him walk to the podium with a 45 strapped to each hip and a 20lb sledge hammer in his right hand to use as a gavel. I agree with you it's time for the working men/women to take responsibility for the future of our country.

Hoffa has the right idea mobilize and vote the power brokers out of office
 
Last edited:
The Barbarian said:
yeah but you, I , and others keep voting in these people .... the lobbyist doesn't .. you are correct the lobbyist is just doing his job, and we keep voting in career politicians .... that the lobbyist know they can sway.
Click to expand...

Makes it easy for them.
 
Conservative said:
Better think, Pb. What also factors in is how our current REAL unemployment rate of over 16% is affecting the current SS. Fewer and fewer people are contributing more and more to the increasing ranks of those collecting. This is a Ponzi scheme. New investors (those working and paying into SS) are supporting those who have retired and are collecting. When more is needed by those collecting than those able to contribute, the Ponzi scheme becomes dead in the water or contributions from the few that are working to the many that are retired spirals into severe funding problems. That is where we are now.
Click to expand...
You are correct about what a Ponzi scheme is, but that description doesn’t fit Social Security. As long as you have people contributing to Social Security, you’ll have money for benefits. A Ponzi scheme rewards the Ponzi and the very first invests, but screws those investors who follow much like a chain-letter does.

Social Security is a pay as you go system; it will never run out of funds. Today the Social Security Trust Fund has about $2.5 trillion in it can pay 100% of the benefits like it done for 75 years. It’s been estimated that about 80% of the benefits will be paid after the Trust fund has been exhausted.

I know you don’t agree, but I really don’t give a ****.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom