• 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!

State of the Union Address

Harry Guerrilla said:
I want the state to stop mandating non insurable benefits, that I'll never use like, coverage for pregnancy and in vitro.
They seem to be going in the other direction though.
Click to expand...

Why do I suspect you also oppose abortion? Most who do also are against supporting motherhood.
 
AdamT said:
Yes, I do understand that. And so is cash. Capiche? In this case they are not issuing treasuries out of thin air. They are issuing them *in exchange for* cash.
Click to expand...

You still do not understand.

The Treasury Securities in the SS "trust fund" are government liabilities, intragovernmental debt. The government owes money to itself.

Basically, the governemnt took the surplus revenues, spent them on other government programs, and then replaced them with promissory notes that can only be financed in three ways: Increasing tax revenues, reappropriating funds from other government programs, or borrowing money.

In 2000, the Clinton Administration's Office of Management and Budget explained why the "trust fund" is nothing more than a meaningless bookkeeping entry:

These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures-but only in a bookkeeping sense. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government's ability to pay benefits.
-FY 2000 Budget, Analytic Perspectives, p. 337
Click to expand...

Please tell me you understand now.

Brian
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Of course they do. It was the Republicans that squandered tha majority of that fund and now that it's gone they want to take the years of sweat by 100,s of millions of workers and reduce to nothing. What fund? Oh, that's been spent......... we have to start fresh. Sorry it doesn't work that way.
SS was fixed in the 1980's to last forever....except that the huge income disparity has now thrown the calculations off in 25 years or so. The SS withholding money has to be levied on 90% of wages for continued solvency. Raisng the top limit on withholding from $108,000 to $180,000 will be enough to put SS on a firm footing without any benefit cuts.
Click to expand...

You make some wild ass statements that you haven't proven. Because you say something doesn't make it right so prove your statement
 
Conservative said:
What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty, Clinton didn't have higher GDP growth than Bush thus there wasn't stronger economic growth as bea.gov will show you but you have no interest in anything that refutes your opinions which is all they are.

You saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true but it does make you wrong and thus irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Conservative, you've been Bush-Wacked, dude... Not only that, you've been brainwashed to believe that your political ideology is more stable or true than the one's you demonize. Sorry, man. It's just as ****ed up. The Washington Royalty and their cronies don't care one way or the other about conservatism or liberalism. They just want to make you keep your eye on the bouncing ball so they can pick your pocket.
 
Conservative said:
What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty, Clinton didn't have higher GDP growth than Bush thus there wasn't stronger economic growth as bea.gov will show you but you have no interest in anything that refutes your opinions which is all they are.

You saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true but it does make you wrong and thus irrelevant.
Click to expand...

# Strong Economic Growth: Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, economic growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy has grown for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.

# Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: The economy has created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector.
The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth
 
Catawba said:
# Strong Economic Growth: Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, economic growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy has grown for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.

# Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: The economy has created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector.
The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth
Click to expand...

And who was in control of the Congress during those years?

Brian
 
Removable Mind said:
Conservative, you've been Bush-Wacked, dude... Not only that, you've been brainwashed to believe that your political ideology is more stable or true than the one's you demonize. Sorry, man. It's just as ****ed up. The Washington Royalty and their cronies don't care one way or the other about conservatism or liberalism. They just want to make you keep your eye on the bouncing ball so they can pick your pocket.
Click to expand...

i use verifiable data to support my posts, suggest you do some research to verify what you believe. The fact remains, Bush economy added 4.5 trillion to GDP which is much higher than Clinton, bea.gov. Clinton GDP 3.6 trillion, Bush GDP 9.9 trillion to 14.3 or 4.4 trillion increase

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1
 
Catawba said:
# Strong Economic Growth: Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, economic growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy has grown for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.

# Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: The economy has created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector.
The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth
Click to expand...

True but billy the jober was blessed by the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. He had nothing to do with that event.....but he took credit for its fall out.

Too bad he and Bush(41) were not smart enough to rescue Russia with a Marshall like plan. Very short sighted.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Medicare and medicaid, by increasing cost sharing.
Instead of retirees paying what they do now, they can have their monthly premiums increased by $20-30 and their co pays increase by $10-20.
Click to expand...

So You don't want to raise taxes on the rich (who can afford it), but you want to raise costs on those that can't afford it.

Brilliant, I say you should write all the GOP running for elections and tell them to run with that idea on the public for their campaigns.
 
Catawba said:
# Strong Economic Growth: Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, economic growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy has grown for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.

# Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: The economy has created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector.
The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth
Click to expand...

LOL, Bill Clinton's own report? Imagine that, interesting that the non partisan BEA.gov disagrees with you and that report but because you are brainwashed by liberalism you ignore non partisan data.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, Bill Clinton's own report? Imagine that, interesting that the non partisan BEA.gov disagrees with you and that report but because you are brainwashed by liberalism you ignore non partisan data.
Click to expand...

Have you ever thought of writing the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics to tell them they have the wrong numbers in their official data? Amazing how wrong one individual can be on every post
 
Catawba said:
Why would we have taken $2.6 trillion from SS over the last 30 years if we had plenty of tax receipts coming in? You don't believe in paying your debts?
Click to expand...

Because it was spent. Because government is unable to live within its means. Because the rate of spending growth has shot through the roof in the last 20 years. Take your pick or all of the above. D is looking pretty accurate to me.

Tax cuts are NOT responsible, government spending IS. I keep hearing Cat saying it was because revenue dropped, well what the heck is wrong with government spending less money? Have we ever tried actually cutting spending or have we only slowed spending growth? Im going with option 2 on that question. We have never actually cut spending. We have only slowed spending growth.

How and why is this hard to understand?
 
TheNextEra said:
So You don't want to raise taxes on the rich (who can afford it), but you want to raise costs on those that can't afford it.

Brilliant, I say you should write all the GOP running for elections and tell them to run with that idea on the public for their campaigns.
Click to expand...

Class warfare and jealousy? Got it! Economic fairness to a liberal is raise taxes on the rich and increase the number of people not paying any taxes. That is liberal fairness.
 
TheNextEra said:
So You don't want to raise taxes on the rich (who can afford it), but you want to raise costs on those that can't afford it.

Brilliant, I say you should write all the GOP running for elections and tell them to run with that idea on the public for their campaigns.
Click to expand...

I said earlier I don't mind a modest tax increase.
As long as it doesn't negatively effect economic growth.

I don't care what the GOP says, I'm not a Republican.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Umm Single payer does limit benefits and access.

So basically you want people to have unlimited medical benefits at a low cost.
And if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their asses, every time they hopped.
Click to expand...

No, just a single payer system that provides health care to all at half the cost we pay, just like the rest of the industrialized world. Without this our health care cost will continue to spiral out of control.

A single payer system lowers limit and benefits and then through private health care insurance because there is no profit and lower overhead under a single payer system. I've reviewed the comparisons between single payer systems and our own, and our quality of care for all citizens is under par compared to the single payer systems.
 
TheNextEra said:
So You don't want to raise taxes on the rich (who can afford it), but you want to raise costs on those that can't afford it.

Brilliant, I say you should write all the GOP running for elections and tell them to run with that idea on the public for their campaigns.
Click to expand...

I dont want to raise taxes on anyone. I want to cut spending. I also dont believe people should be getting not just a complete refund of every tax dollar but getting someone else's money as well. Harry is right about one thing though, if someone regards something as free, they will abuse the service as much as possible because they arent harmed by its overuse. Same applies to taxes and the raising of same, if you dont pay any already, why would you give a **** if taxes are raised? You dont.
 
Conservative said:
Class warfare and jealousy? Got it! Economic fairness to a liberal is raise taxes on the rich and increase the number of people not paying any taxes. That is liberal fairness.
Click to expand...

Class warfare is raising costs on those that can't afford it. But go ahead and have all your GOP favorites running elections this year to campaign on raising costs for those that can't afford it.

But no GOP candidate will because they KNOW they will get their asses handed to them by the public.
 
Catawba said:
No, just a single payer system that provides health care to all at half the cost we pay, just like the rest of the industrialized world. Without this our health care cost will continue to spiral out of control.
Click to expand...

Single payer limits coverage choices, typically to whatever it decides is most cost efficient.

Catawba said:
A single payer system lowers limit and benefits and then through private health care insurance because there is no profit and lower overhead under a single payer system. I've reviewed the comparisons between single payer systems and our own, and our quality of care for all citizens is under par compared to the single payer systems.
Click to expand...

A single payers restricts access to newer, more effective, but more costly treatments or cures.
It has to, in order to keep costs in check.

The thing is, when you do that, it delays the eventually drop in cost of those newer treatments and cures
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I said earlier I don't mind a modest tax increase.
As long as it doesn't negatively effect economic growth.

I don't care what the GOP says, I'm not a Republican.
Click to expand...

A little more taxes? And that stops being a request by the government when?

In order to correct the existing unsavory state of affairs created by government, the government is requesting that we all work harder, and if necessary, we should procure more than one job to pay the government more of our money, liberties, and property in order to for the government to maintain the lifestyle by which it has become accustomed.

The government will also continue to require the citizens to retain it as our debt payment manager. In other words, it will be necessary to cut down our individual living standards in order to pay the government more money to be lavishly squandered while simultaneously seeking new ways to force us all to contribute more than ever before.

You can now sleep at night knowing that the U.S. Government has seen the errors of its way and now wants to attempt to redeem it self by making our lives even more miserable than what we’ve paid them to make it to be over the last 250 years.
 
TheNextEra said:
Class warfare is raising costs on those that can't afford it. But go ahead and have all your GOP favorites running elections this year to campaign on raising costs for those that can't afford it.

But no GOP candidate will because they KNOW they will get their asses handed to them by the public.
Click to expand...

making the rich pay more to seduce the votes from the envious has nothing to do with making things less costly for the unproductive or those truly unable to "afford it"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom