• 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.
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 ****.

That normally is the position of liberals, they really don't give a **** about anything that counters their personal opinion. There is no question that there will always be new workers paying into SS but it will not be enough to pay for the IOU's in Intergovt. holdings and pay the retiring baby boomers. You are right, you don't give a **** which is probably the truest statement you have made in this forum
 
That normally is the position of liberals, they really don't give a **** about anything that counters their personal opinion. There is no question that there will always be new workers paying into SS but it will not be enough to pay for the IOU's in Intergovt. holdings and pay the retiring baby boomers. You are right, you don't give a **** which is probably the truest statement you have made in this forum

Give it up you and your wall street buddies will NEVER get your hooks into SS
 
Give it up you and your wall street buddies will NEVER get your hooks into SS

what candidate got the most support from wall street in 08?
 
what candidate got the most support from wall street in 08?

This is another brainwashed individual who doesn't have a clue nor does he care whether he gives false information. That is the problem with liberals today, the make charges they cannot support and most of them are blatant lies.
 
This is another brainwashed individual who doesn't have a clue nor does he care whether he gives false information. That is the problem with liberals today, the make charges they cannot support and most of them are blatant lies.

Letr me repeat it for you and your libertarian buddy, you will never get your paws into SS
 
This is another brainwashed individual who doesn't have a clue nor does he care whether he gives false information. That is the problem with liberals today, the make charges they cannot support and most of them are blatant lies.

Goldman suchs gave Obumble almost a million dollars
 
Letr me repeat it for you and your libertarian buddy, you will never get your paws into SS

What part of your SS not being there don't you understand? The govt. already put their paws on SS and wasted the money.
 
What part of your SS not being there don't you understand? The govt. already put their paws on SS and wasted the money.

What part of NEVER is it that you don't understand?
 
What part of NEVER is it that you don't understand?

The part that believes I have interest in your SS funds that aren't there anymore. You don't seem to understand a thing about SS even though I proved that your SS was put on budget and spent. You don't seem to care because you believe what Obama and Democrats tell you. The liberal brainwashing doesn't make you look very credible.
 
The part that believes I have interest in your SS funds that aren't there anymore. You don't seem to understand a thing about SS even though I proved that your SS was put on budget and spent. You don't seem to care because you believe what Obama and Democrats tell you. The liberal brainwashing doesn't make you look very credible.

What you think of me means nothing, what you have proved to me about SS is less then nothing, the only brain washing going on is your trying to promote your BS about SS.
 
what candidate got the most support from wall street in 08?
Wall Street will always give the most money to the candidate they think that will win. Do you have a point asking this question?
 
Wall Street will always give the most money to the candidate they think that will win. Do you have a point asking this question?

Really? so claiming that wall street is "conservative" is just mindless rot
 
Really? so claiming that wall street is "conservative" is just mindless rot
Conservatives absolutely defend Wall Street, Wall Street puts there money where think is the best "investment." In 2008 that was Obama.
 
That normally is the position of liberals, they really don't give a **** about anything that counters their personal opinion. There is no question that there will always be new workers paying into SS but it will not be enough to pay for the IOU's in Intergovt. holdings and pay the retiring baby boomers. You are right, you don't give a **** which is probably the truest statement you have made in this forum
Should I assume you're not accepting any Social Security benefits, Conservative?
 
But this keeps capital in industries where it should not be kept. Like in construction. We can't ignore a distorted structure of production. Capital needs to be used where it is most efficient, and government expenditures necessarily make it less efficient.

That depends on how you define efficient. There's no question government wastes money. But at the same time, without government expenditures, we wouldn't have a nuclear industry, a space industry, commercial airlines, dozens of major drugs and many major medical breakthroughs. I don't see how spending money on a plant to make pet rocks is more efficient use of capital then using it on medical research.

Agreed. I know of no economist clamoring for tax cuts who does not admit short term pain.

Which is why we have no respect for Conservative. His views are pretty much insane.

Have they cut enough? Because the debt is still there, isn't it? And you're right that backing private loans is a bad idea.

Just because the debt is still there doesn't mean they haven't cut enough. No one rational expects Greece to get rid of its debt quickly. But a sign of good governance is when debt reduction starts to come primarily from increased revenues from activity rather than cuts.
 
Who then must pay back this money the government spent poorly and decreasing their buying power.

Where did you get the notion that buying power decreases?

I've not seen anyone argue that.

You haven't been paying attention to Bachmann. Or Conservative.

Which in part is what we are doing and the vast majority of people supported it.

But it also got them in trouble.
 
Really? so claiming that wall street is "conservative" is just mindless rot

For the most part yes. Wall Street is essentially opportunistic. Wall Street has plenty to like and dislike from both parties. They like that Democrats will increase government outlays increasing aggregate demand and overall wealth for them to play with. At the same time, they dislike the increased business regulation. Wall Street likes the fact that Republicans will reduce regulation and reduces taxes, but they dislike the religious growth of laws as well as potential cuts reducing growth. Wall Street fluctuates based on perceived views of which downside of each party is worse at the time. Right now it's no wonder that Wall Street is basically sitting on the fence. They really dislike the austerity plans under Republicans, but they really dislike the regulation under Democrats. They as a group haven't figured out which is worse for them in the long run.
 
That depends on how you define efficient. There's no question government wastes money. But at the same time, without government expenditures, we wouldn't have a nuclear industry, a space industry, commercial airlines, dozens of major drugs and many major medical breakthroughs. I don't see how spending money on a plant to make pet rocks is more efficient use of capital then using it on medical research.

This is very true, however nice it is to spend on worthy things when the money is abundant, it is also true that spending without boundaries is a recipe for collapse.

Which is why we have no respect for Conservative. His views are pretty much insane.

That is pretty harsh is it not? Couldn't you just say that you disagree with him? Or is the draw to use Allinsky tactics of 'destroy your opponent' just too strong?

Just because the debt is still there doesn't mean they haven't cut enough.

What actual cuts have been enacted? So far all I see are these fictitious "cuts" to proposed future spending increase that no congress in the future is bound to put into place...It is a shell game.

But a sign of good governance is when debt reduction starts to come primarily from increased revenues from activity rather than cuts.

Do you realize how backwards that sounds? Sure spending other peoples money is just fine, until you run out.

j-mac
 
This is very true, however nice it is to spend on worthy things when the money is abundant, it is also true that spending without boundaries is a recipe for collapse.

Hence why one must figure out their priorities.

That is pretty harsh is it not? Couldn't you just say that you disagree with him? Or is the draw to use Allinsky tactics of 'destroy your opponent' just too strong?

I'll put it this way. He could not figure out that the BLS data he was citing was cumulative. He thought it was all monthly changes. That the US unemployment population increased by 10 million every month. The problem is that the next column over, total US population would double every month as well. Half a dozen pages of people pointing stuff like that out couldn't get it through his head that he was wrong. It took a very public poll making a mockery of him to get him to realize he was reading his own data wrong. I'm on his ignore list for that very reason. When a user cannot even understand the data he cites, it's hard to respect him. Especially when he refuses to admit he's wrong in the face of basic chart and graph reading.

What actual cuts have been enacted? So far all I see are these fictitious "cuts" to proposed future spending increase that no congress in the future is bound to put into place...It is a shell game.

Greece has cut everything from public pensions to emergency worker payrolls. Greeks are rioting in the streets for basically good reasons. Their government is cutting to the point where public safety is becoming questionable.

Do you realize how backwards that sounds? Sure spending other peoples money is just fine, until you run out.

j-mac

It's not backwards at all. When tax revenues to pay off debt increase due to increased activity rather than spending cuts, it's a sign you're back on track. Corporations never quite feel they are doing better in the long run when their profits expand from bottom line cuts. They feel better when it's top line growth. You only can cut so much before you encounter structural problems. Debt reduction from top line growth is a sign you're actually on the manageable path to solvency.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom