• 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.
Conservative said:
Typical, anything to divert from the Obama Job's Plan, poor economic performance, and disastrous Simulus One, but no big you have your job and nothing else matters. How about those Obama tax cuts, Sheik. Now why would he do that since tax cuts are an expense to the govt. and will do nothing to create jobs according to liberals? But since you want to make this about SS, why would you support cutting payroll taxes which fund Social Security. Isn't it in big enough trouble now? Oh, well, what are a few more trillion in IOU's?
Click to expand...
I responded to someone's post.; Tough **** if that annoys you.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Your record of dishonesty is here for all to see ... your posts speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

You're criticisms lend credibility to Conservatives views. Instead of your words aren't meant to aspire or improve Conservatives views but are instead meant to manipulate and are purely said out of self-interest and ego. Obama has spent some money, has backed QE1 and QE2, has injected billions into the country with little to show as far as positive economic outlook. Saying that is dishonest is in fact, dishonest.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, they are not the characteristics of a ponzi scheme. I gave you a link explaining a ponzi scheme. All mistakes, even lies, are no ponzi schemes. Ponzi schemes fit a specfici definition. It requires you investing you money for the purpose of that money, your money, to make money for you. And the person committing the scheme knows for the begining that there is no possible way for your money to make money.

As for Obama, another issue (squirrel), Obama like too many bow to political pressures. He seeks compromise. But at least it is a targeted compromise, in which something has to be done to earn the cut.
Click to expand...

Boo, keep believing that and keep supporting the empty suit. Putting your money into a fund and having it used for something other than the original intent and then having someone else fund your SS when you retire is a Ponzi scheme which LBJ made legal in the 60's with the help of a Democrat Congress.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I responded to someone's post.; Tough **** if that annoys you.
Click to expand...

Doesn't annoy me at all, just goes to show how partisan and brainwashed you really are. You have your job, the hell with the 25 million who are unemployed and under employed. In addition the 16.7% unemployed African Americans have plenty of time to protest and campaign for the re-election of this incompetent President showing another group of brainwashed.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Umm, like SS, the money you get back was put in the bank by someone else since the bank uses the money you put in to make them more money.
Click to expand...

Man, you are unbelievable, maybe Goldenboy can explain it to you because obviously you don't have a clue. Too bad you couldn't put the amount you put into SS into a bank and see what you would have when you retire and it would be all yours and your family's instead of the Government's should something happen to you. Have you checked out the return on your investment from SS? Doubt it because brainwashed people never do any research.
 
Conservative said:
Boo, keep believing that and keep supporting the empty suit. Putting your money into a fund and having it used for something other than the original intent and then having someone else fund your SS when you retire is a Ponzi scheme which LBJ made legal in the 60's with the help of a Democrat Congress.
Click to expand...

No, again, I direct you to the definition of a Ponzi scheme. You simply can't make words mean what you want them to mean. They actually have meanings.
 
obvious Child said:
By that measure all tax cuts reduce purchasing power. Furthermore, purchasing power is not tied directly to the amount of money you make or have. It's how much an individual currency unit will buy. I think you are confusing your terms.
Click to expand...

Where do you get the idea that tax cuts reduce purchasing power?

And how many of them did it from scratch relying upon nothing from previous programs?
Click to expand...

It's not how many did, but could they? I a government agency has invented electricity, the airplane or the automobile I'm sure they would be held up as examples today also

Care to tell me what firm in the 50s had a couple billions dollars in 1950s money to spend on something that could not commercialize for possibly decades?
Click to expand...

The point is, even if there was, they wouldn't have been able to. There was quite a squabble over AC or DC power. Much was invested in both. For the DC arguement it was wasted.

I can use the very same arguement...... Would we have went to the moon without the Wright Brothers? Would we have won WWII without Ford and GM?
 
Boo Radley said:
No, again, I direct you to the definition of a Ponzi scheme. You simply can't make words mean what you want them to mean. They actually have meanings.
Click to expand...

Actions support my claim, LBJ made this ponzi scheme legal
 
pbrauer said:
If this is true, why didn't your hero, Ronald Reagan, fix it in 1983.
Click to expand...

Reagan raised FICA taxes to put money back into the count, money that had been stolen due to the actions of LBJ in the 60's. Ever wonder why politicians are fighting so hard to keep SS the way it is? Research LBJ and his actions will explain it to you.
 
Conservative said:
Actions support my claim, LBJ made this ponzi scheme legal
Click to expand...

No, you've just attached your defintion, your incorrect definition to SS. Seriously, this response by you lacks a lot.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, you've just attached your defintion, your incorrect definition to SS. Seriously, this response by you lacks a lot.
Click to expand...

My response stands, you don't like it, tough. Anytime you put your money into SS and have it spent on something other than the original intent and then rely on someone else to fund your retirement in the future, that is a ponzi scheme. To continue to argue it isn't serving any purpose so in this case we can only agree to disagree. My money was long gone before I started collecting SS just like yours will be long gone as well. That wasn't the intent.

Don't blame you from wanting to divert from the Job's speech and the very poor employment performance of your choice for the WH. Don't blame you from diverting from that record.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Then why do you keep complaining about it?
Click to expand...

As that what you think I am doing? No complaints here at all, just logic and common sense. Obviously the job market is great for you since you have one. Much easier to bury your head in the sand and not worry about those that don't. Your liberal compassion says it all.
 
Conservative said:
As that what you think I am doing? No complaints here at all, just logic and common sense.
Click to expand...
I responded to someone's post about about GDP following the Great Depression when you complained I was off-topic to divert from Obama's record.

Don't run away from your convictions just because you are ashamed of them.
 
Conservative said:
My response stands, you don't like it, tough. Anytime you put your money into SS and have it spent on something other than the original intent and then rely on someone else to fund your retirement in the future, that is a ponzi scheme.
Click to expand...
No it's not. You're making up your own definition of what a ponzi scheme is and then saying that matches SS. It may match SS but it doesn't match a ponzi scheme.

A ponzi scheme doesn't take in money to invest in something other than paying off investors. SS does that ... a ponzi scheme does not. They are not the same.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I responded to someone's post about about GDP following the Great Depression when you complained I was off-topic to divert from Obama's record.

Don't run away from your convictions just because you are ashamed of them.
Click to expand...

You seem to be the one ashamed of "your" President because you keep running from his record. I love being a conservative and have no problem with you making as much money as you possible can. That is the difference between me and you. I don't blame you from dodging the Obama record or distorting it by posting percentage change because then that prevents you from actually having to look at individuals. You see a 40% increase in the debt going from 10 trillion to 14 trillion or 4 trillion increase always looks better than the percentage change of taking the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion or a 1.7 trillion increase. 4 trillion is a lot less than 1.7 trillion right?

Then of course taking the unemployment up to 25 million unemployed and under employed is a lot better than taking the unemployment and under employed to 22 million because the percentage change is better. That is why you have no credibility, the 3 million more unemployed and under employed aren't excited about Obama's record of lower percentage change.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
No it's not. You're making up your own definition of what a ponzi scheme is and then saying that matches SS. It may match SS but it doesn't match a ponzi scheme.

A ponzi scheme doesn't take in money to invest in something other than paying off investors. SS does that ... a ponzi scheme does not. They are not the same.
Click to expand...

You seem hung up on the legal definition of ponzi scheme. Guess it isn't only me that believes it is a ponzi scheme since it is an obligation that our kids and grandkids cannot sustain. So You really don't understand a ponzi scheme, pyramid scheme, chain letter, do you? Keep buying what the liberal elites tell you

Santelli & Friedman's Heated Debate - CNBC
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
No it's not. You're making up your own definition of what a ponzi scheme is and then saying that matches SS. It may match SS but it doesn't match a ponzi scheme.

A ponzi scheme doesn't take in money to invest in something other than paying off investors. SS does that ... a ponzi scheme does not. They are not the same.
Click to expand...
Since he gets it wrong, he must be brainwashed by those Texan conservatives who want their governor to be President.
 
Conservative said:
You seem to be the one ashamed of "your" President because you keep running from his record.
Click to expand...
Not at all as I've responded to the post you have roboblasted on this forum many times. Because I don't respond to it every single time you post it by no means I am running away from it.

Conservative said:
I love being a conservative and have no problem with you making as much money as you possible can. That is the difference between me and you.
Click to expand...
It is? When have I said I have a problem with you making as much as you possibly can? A quote would be nice, I really don't want you paraphrasing what you think I say.
 
Conservative said:
You seem hung up on the legal definition of ponzi scheme. Guess it isn't only me that believes it is a ponzi scheme since it is an obligation that our kids and grandkids cannot sustain. So You really don't understand a ponzi scheme, pyramid scheme, chain letter, do you? Keep buying what the liberal elites tell you

Santelli & Friedman's Heated Debate - CNBC
Click to expand...
Ummm, it's not the legal definition -- it's THEE definition.
:lamo
 
Conservative said:
You seem hung up on the legal definition of ponzi scheme. Guess it isn't only me that believes it is a ponzi scheme since it is an obligation that our kids and grandkids cannot sustain. So You really don't understand a ponzi scheme, pyramid scheme, chain letter, do you? Keep buying what the liberal elites tell you

Santelli & Friedman's Heated Debate - CNBC
Click to expand...
All this proves is that Santelli is an idiot. :coffeepap:
 
pbrauer said:
Since he gets it wrong, he must be brainwashed by those Texan conservatives who want their governor to be President.
Click to expand...

I would take the mayor of a small town over what we have in the WH right now let alone the governor of the 11th largest economy in the world. Now only if he had Community Organizer training.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom