• 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!

U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

upsideguy said:
Just as I thought, you can not back up your statements. Sorry, but one of your fatal flaws is not understanding the difference between impressions and axioms. Just because you believe it to be true does not make it true. You think you can simply tell us that spending caused deficits and all of us are suppose say "two points, Conservative" for a brilliant argument?.... No, that poor argumentation.

Again (and again)... the government, under the leadership of GW Bush, advocated and then implemented a tax cut that was originally designed to eliminate surplus (it was DESIGNED to affect the government coffers via revenue adjustment). Of course, when you implement a surplus buster when you don't have a surplus,. you get deficits... which is exactly what we got..... the cost to the government for this tax cut was somewhere between $1.2T and $2.9T, depending on how you look at it. If you just consider the tax revenue collection shortfall to GDP (8.7% before the cuts; $7.4 after)... I would calculate it at $1.9T to 2010 (see earlier chart posted by me).

Bruce Bartlett: Are the Bush Tax Cuts the Root of Our Fiscal Problem? - NYTimes.com
Does Anyone Still Remember Why We Have The Bush Tax Cuts? - Forbes
The Bush tax cuts are here to stay | Economic Policy Institute
The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

At the front end of the Bush administration we have the government forgoing revenue; at the back end, we get a massive recession that immediately removes $400B annually from individual income tax receipts. As we did not get an immediate recovery, that revenue shortfall took a few years to earn back. Call it (and I am guessing) $1T in revenue cost from the recession. Add the two together, and about $3T of deficits of the past 12 years are caused by revenue shortfall (nothing to do with spending)... so, you are wrong to tell us its all spending.

...and I am not telling you its all revenue, as spending played a part, including expected increases in mandatory spending that had nothing to do with the prior administration and wars/occupations (and Medicare Part D) that had EVERYTHING to do with the previous administration. Those elective wars (Afghanistan was more of an elective occupation as the actual war was not really elective) now have an estimated cost of $4 to $6T, much of which is baked into future spending.



No, what is amazing is you never tell us how Bush created deficits when we clearly went from a "balanced budget" to large deficits during his tenure, yet you want to tell us how Obama debt is so huge. The fact is, Presidents have some control over budgets during their administration; but debt is a function of deficits and budget infrastructure often set during previous administrations. Obama is not responsible for most of the cost infrastructure of government including the wars and mandatory spending, the obligations of which were set up well before he assumed office.

Sorry, while the debt may "only" have risen $4.9T during the Bush presidency. The debt was $5.7 when Bush assumed office in 2001; it is $16.7T today, a change of $11T. Bush is pretty responsible for MOST of that change. Granted, Obama now owns the tax cuts, as the Bush cuts expired in 2010 (and were extended to 2012), and Obama owns part of the stimulus spending... but most of the rest of the government economic infrastructure (spending and revenue) has nothing to do with him.

Feel free to refute this (with facts).... and spare yourself canned counter-argument 101 that its Congress' fault... that argument shows a lack of understanding of how government works... though the House is chartered with creating budgets, its meaningless without support of the Senate and Presidency.. if not, we would be living under the Ryan Budget. The President pretty much has to endorse the budget, or it don't happen... the veto pen is far too strong in today's fractured COTUS.... and, so we can all look at how our budget went from under control to out of control between 2001 and 2009 (the Bush years)... allow me to present, well, the budget (Table 1.1 thereof, anyway).

View attachment 67150849


Sorry, the facts are not on your side, except in your own mind. Quite the contrary, in fact, as you have yet to produce any facts, much less refute any of mine. Look, the Bush Presidency, from an economic perspective, was a disaster... we are still digging out. You should accept that embarrassment of an economic leader and move on. It will help you blood pressure.
Click to expand...


Oh how you have to just love it's never Obama. On nothing.

Bush tax cuts this, Bush tax cuts that, Bush, Bush Bush. Obama and the rest of the brain dead could have dumped the Bush tax cuts in 2008 but they didn't. They had the White House, the Senate and the House. As it turns out, just about the only smart move that this administration has made since 2008 was not dumping those Bush Tax cuts (of course the dumbocrats did a dumb move with increases on the rich since). But funny how Obama is never held for not correcting a problem (even though it wasn't one) when he had the chance. If fact Obama himself said it would be stupid to raise taxes when the economy isn't doing well but then what does he do a couple of years later? What he said was stupid.

Same goes with your nonsense on the deficit. if Obama is not responsible for it, then Bush isn't either. And of course it's funny how that so called "surplus" during Clintons years didn't reduce or slow the rate of growth of the deficit. Taxes being to low is not the problem, spending is. And the deficit is going to skyrocket like never before unless Obamacare is trash caned. But then it won't matter to those like you, instead of blaming it on Bush, you will blame it on the GOP who did not vote for it.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Yes, yes it all makes sense now. Minimum wage should be set at a level that employee's want. The adverse consequences be damned, what's important is what people want. LOL.
Click to expand...

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo

You think employee's want $7 & change per hour??? :roll:
 
Fenton said:
According to the December Jobs report in 2013, ( this year) net new jobs from 2008 in the private sector was up 725,000 but Government jobs were down 700,000 with a net jobs total of around 25,000.

So your'e saying wev'e picked up 7 MILLION private sector jobs since December 2013 ?? In 6 months ?

Can't you defend your corrupt ideology without lying ? It's bad enough you lack the capacity to understand the Democrat mandated Sub-Prime Collapse that caused the recession, but now your'e telling bald face lies.

Its embarrasing to watch and I think you owe me an apology for ttaking up 4 minutes of my life
Click to expand...

It's not my fault you can't understand what I posted. Suffice it to say, I never claimed the private sector gained 7 million jobs since December, 2013(?) ... nor did I say it occurred over a 6 month period.

Learn to understand what you read so you don't embarrass yourself like that again.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Oh how you have to just love it's never Obama. On nothing.

Bush tax cuts this, Bush tax cuts that, Bush, Bush Bush. Obama and the rest of the brain dead could have dumped the Bush tax cuts in 2008 but they didn't. They had the White House, the Senate and the House. As it turns out, just about the only smart move that this administration has made since 2008 was not dumping those Bush Tax cuts (of course the dumbocrats did a dumb move with increases on the rich since). But funny how Obama is never held for not correcting a problem (even though it wasn't one) when he had the chance. If fact Obama himself said it would be stupid to raise taxes when the economy isn't doing well but then what does he do a couple of years later? What he said was stupid.

Same goes with your nonsense on the deficit. if Obama is not responsible for it, then Bush isn't either. And of course it's funny how that so called "surplus" during Clintons years didn't reduce or slow the rate of growth of the deficit. Taxes being to low is not the problem, spending is. And the deficit is going to skyrocket like never before unless Obamacare is trash caned. But then it won't matter to those like you, instead of blaming it on Bush, you will blame it on the GOP who did not vote for it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your emotional, factless response. I laid out specifics; you laid an egg. Sorry, I built a case against Bush with facts and articles; you gave us nothing but wasted cyberspace.... In fact, your retort was so empty, I am not sure why it warrants my attention. I guess I just see a guy with 90 posts and think, just maybe, he has some potential to be a good poster and future debating adversary. "...maybe the kid's got some potential..."

As to the bolded area above, not only do you not bring facts to support your arguments, you ignore facts already presented that specifically refute your argument. I posted Table 1.1 of from the actual US Budget. This table shows ACTUAL receipts and expenditures. If you took the time to look at it, you would the deficits not only slowed; they reversed and become modest surpluses in 1999 and 2000 (on-budget) and 1997 to 2000 (on and off budget combined). These surpluses were acknowledged by the Heritage Foundation (see prior post of mine) and the Bush Administration... they were real, albeit modest. Even if you don't want to acknowledge the surplus, you have to acknowledge that the budget was pretty much balanced when GW pulled up to 1600 Pennsylvania and unpacked his stuff.

Bush Defends Size of Surplus And Tax Cuts - NYTimes.com
Bush 1999: "It's Important to Cut the Taxes" - YouTube

If what you mean is asking why the rate of increase in debt did not slow (confusing deficits and debts is a common rookie mistake).... well, the rate of increase in debt slowed to almost nothing. Total debt rose by about $18B between 1999 and 2001 ($5.641 to $5.659B); while debt to public actually dropped (from $3.8T in 1997 to $3.3T in 2001).

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/feddebt/feddebt_ann2001.pdf

Sorry, Bush essentially started with a clean slate and produced huge deficits... there is no denying it, no matter how much emotion you wish to levy.

I laid out my supported argument. Granted, I have a huge advantage in this as the facts are on my side. Its pretty easy to call up articles to support what I am saying. You have a much tougher challenge; defending the guilty is a tough road.... but, surely you can do better than this. Let's see facts, graphs and supporting articles (from something besides a political porn site). Perhaps you could start by explaining your proposition that Obamacare is a budget buster. That is a new one. The CBO actually has scored it as saving money in the long-run. So, produce the goods (supported arguments).. otherwise sit down, watch and learn, rook.

(hey, at least one guy liked your posts... after all, you jumped in to help him defend the indefensible... unfortunately, you used his strategy of confusing your impressions with good argument and not supporting his position with verifiable facts.)
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
What I find quite bothering is how little you understand about leadership and personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Classic Con: deflect the issue that he can not handle with a new, silly issue. I was not debating leadership and personal responsibility. I was debating who is responsible for the economic mess. Stick to the subject!

Conservative said:
Obama has been in office for over 4 years and has shown zero leadership skills and generated worse economic results than Bush who you want to blame everything on. Most people realize that the Bush Presidency wasn't 2008 alone and that the Bush Presidency had a Democrat Controlled Congress his last two years and a divided Congress his first two years. Too bad you don't hold Obama to the same standards that you want to hold Bush.
Click to expand...

There you go again.... again, Bush started with essentially a balanced budget and then ran up huge deficits.... well before the Dems took control of congress. Again, the fact that the Dems had nominal control of congress in 2007 was moot, as 1) the damage substantially was already done (again --- why must I repeat this? --- with tax cuts designed to eliminate surplus, plus two very, very expensive wars/occupations). The Dems did not have a veto proof congress, so there wasn't much they could have done to change things.... other than do what the current Reps do, which is pass the same meaningless, shallow legislation over and over and over and over and over and over and over... and over again.

Conservative said:
We can continue to debate the so called Clinton surplus but what purpose does it serve? Obama deficits are worse than anything Bush ever did as Bush never had a trillion dollar deficit and Obama's economic plan which consisted of the Stimulus and Obamacare are disasters yet you want to ignore that. The economic numbers today are the facts that I offer that you ignore.
Click to expand...

I am not debating the Clinton surplus. I am telling you the Bush screwed up the economy and we are still digging out. Again, you can't stick to the subject because its an argument lost to you and you know it. Bush made a mess out of the economy.

Conservative said:
The facts are something that you don't seem to understand. You want badly to believe that tax cuts or you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the govt. and creates deficits.
Click to expand...

Facts are something that elude you, pal. First, you have presented NONE in this argument. You continue to offer only your impressions and try to pass them off as facts. I never said tax cuts were an expense to the government. I did say that tax cuts causes deficits. I backed up my statement with numerous articles on the subject... I never offered my personal impressions on this (despite, having a CPA background, I would actually have some expertise on the subject)... but, let me go ahead: deficits can be created by increasing expenditure OR by decreasing revenue. Tax cuts decreased revenue (the tables document this is what happened and the basic premise was for this to happen because they were designed to be surplus

[/QUOTE]You want badly to believe your ideology is a winning one. You want badly to believe Bush is responsible for the economic results today. What you show is just how little you understand about leadership as well as economic policies. [/QUOTE]

You want badly to believe your ideology is a winning one. Well, the ideology of Bush told us how they were going to reduce the surplus and pay off the debt with their tax reform. The result was the biggest forecast bust in the history of human civilization-- THE BIGGEST!

The Heritage Foundation told us the tax cuts would REDUCE revenue by $1.2T (a little higher, but at least they admitted it was going to cut revenue... which means reduce surplus/increase deficit by more than $1T) AND create a $1.8T surplus at the end of Bush's term. Of course, the actual debt at the end of Bush's term was $10.626. (Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)).. for a total budget bust / ERROR of $12.2T. Never, in the history of the world, as anyone been so wrong! Now, I probably shouldn't mention here about the Iraq/Afghanistan wars/occupations, the former of which was to pay for itself, yet cost us $4-6T.

This is the "leadership" was so wrong about so much. It's easy to lay the sins of the US financial plight on their feet; its almost impossible to defend them and preserve your integrity.... but, go ahead, Con, give it a shot. Its nearly an impossible task... which is why you never do it, you just deflect. Not with me. I see through it. You can't defend Bush... and you know it. Its time to admit the sin. The truth and forgiveness will set you free.

The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

Conservative said:
Obama will never generate positive economic results with an anti growth economic policy. He will never create a reduction in the debt with 21 plus million unemployed/under employed/discourage workers. He will never show true leadership as long as he doesn't stand up to people like you who blame all the problems of today on someone else and not the poor leadership of Obama. And we will never dig out of the Obama hole until Obama leaves office or is fired.

Oh by the way I am sure someone as intelligent as you understands that any so called surplus in off budget items isn't really a surplus at all because off budget items are offset with long term obligations. In other words that money is owed to others in the future. Just because less is spent than taken in doesn't generate a surplus when that money is promised to people like you in the future.
Click to expand...

Again, this is a different discussion. I appreciate that your only place to hide is with obfuscation. The proposition that I am asking you to either acknowledge or debate is whether the GW Bush administration 1) started with a balanced budget and delivered running large deficits and thus 2) pretty much screwed up the US economy as we know it.

Go ahead, address that issue without the distraction of changing the subject. I know you are not capable of that, so perhaps you should take the easy road and embrace the truth. It will set you free to discuss whether Obama has failed to fix the problem or is capable of fixing the problem. Though that is a different discussion, I am happy to have that with you. You just might find, on that subject, you and I are much closer to agreement.

Stay on subject.
 
upsideguy;1062098483]Classic Con: deflect the issue that he can not handle with a new, silly issue. I was not debating leadership and personal responsibility. I was debating who is responsible for the economic mess. Stick to the subject!



There you go again.... again, Bush started with essentially a balanced budget and then ran up huge deficits.... well before the Dems took control of congress. Again, the fact that the Dems had nominal control of congress in 2007 was moot, as 1) the damage substantially was already done (again --- why must I repeat this? --- with tax cuts designed to eliminate surplus, plus two very, very expensive wars/occupations). The Dems did not have a veto proof congress, so there wasn't much they could have done to change things.... other than do what the current Reps do, which is pass the same meaningless, shallow legislation over and over and over and over and over and over and over... and over again.



I am not debating the Clinton surplus. I am telling you the Bush screwed up the economy and we are still digging out. Again, you can't stick to the subject because its an argument lost to you and you know it. Bush made a mess out of the economy.



Facts are something that elude you, pal. First, you have presented NONE in this argument. You continue to offer only your impressions and try to pass them off as facts. I never said tax cuts were an expense to the government. I did say that tax cuts causes deficits. I backed up my statement with numerous articles on the subject... I never offered my personal impressions on this (despite, having a CPA background, I would actually have some expertise on the subject)... but, let me go ahead: deficits can be created by increasing expenditure OR by decreasing revenue. Tax cuts decreased revenue (the tables document this is what happened and the basic premise was for this to happen because they were designed to be surplus
Click to expand...
You want badly to believe your ideology is a winning one. You want badly to believe Bush is responsible for the economic results today. What you show is just how little you understand about leadership as well as economic policies. [/QUOTE]

You want badly to believe your ideology is a winning one. Well, the ideology of Bush told us how they were going to reduce the surplus and pay off the debt with their tax reform. The result was the biggest forecast bust in the history of human civilization-- THE BIGGEST!

The Heritage Foundation told us the tax cuts would REDUCE revenue by $1.2T (a little higher, but at least they admitted it was going to cut revenue... which means reduce surplus/increase deficit by more than $1T) AND create a $1.8T surplus at the end of Bush's term. Of course, the actual debt at the end of Bush's term was $10.626. (Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)).. for a total budget bust / ERROR of $12.2T. Never, in the history of the world, as anyone been so wrong! Now, I probably shouldn't mention here about the Iraq/Afghanistan wars/occupations, the former of which was to pay for itself, yet cost us $4-6T.

This is the "leadership" was so wrong about so much. It's easy to lay the sins of the US financial plight on their feet; its almost impossible to defend them and preserve your integrity.... but, go ahead, Con, give it a shot. Its nearly an impossible task... which is why you never do it, you just deflect. Not with me. I see through it. You can't defend Bush... and you know it. Its time to admit the sin. The truth and forgiveness will set you free.

The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan



Again, this is a different discussion. I appreciate that your only place to hide is with obfuscation. The proposition that I am asking you to either acknowledge or debate is whether the GW Bush administration 1) started with a balanced budget and delivered running large deficits and thus 2) pretty much screwed up the US economy as we know it.

Go ahead, address that issue without the distraction of changing the subject. I know you are not capable of that, so perhaps you should take the easy road and embrace the truth. It will set you free to discuss whether Obama has failed to fix the problem or is capable of fixing the problem. Though that is a different discussion, I am happy to have that with you. You just might find, on that subject, you and I are much closer to agreement.

Stay on subject.
Click to expand...

Let me know what you do with more money in your paycheck and if that has any effect on economic activity? Do you think you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the govt?

Now we can continue this but for what purpose? Bush isn't in office, Obama could have ended the Bush tax cuts in 2009 but didn't. Obama has trillion dollar deficit every year in office. Consumer spending is the number one component of GDP so tell me how tax cuts affect consumer spending?

You seem to buy what you are told but not one of those studies addresses economic activity and that effect on jobs and tax revenue

Further back in September 2001 we had quite a shock to the economy of this country and the cries that would never forget. Here we are over a decade later and you have forgotten just like you forgot Bush inherited a recession that began official in March 2001 both of which affected employment, govt. tax revenue, and the deficit. GAO claims 9/11 cost over a trillion dollars which is part of that Bush debt.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Thank you for your emotional, factless response. I laid out specifics; you laid an egg. Sorry, I built a case against Bush with facts and articles; you gave us nothing but wasted cyberspace.... In fact, your retort was so empty, I am not sure why it warrants my attention. I guess I just see a guy with 90 posts and think, just maybe, he has some potential to be a good poster and future debating adversary. "...maybe the kid's got some potential..."

As to the bolded area above, not only do you not bring facts to support your arguments, you ignore facts already presented that specifically refute your argument. I posted Table 1.1 of from the actual US Budget. This table shows ACTUAL receipts and expenditures. If you took the time to look at it, you would the deficits not only slowed; they reversed and become modest surpluses in 1999 and 2000 (on-budget) and 1997 to 2000 (on and off budget combined). These surpluses were acknowledged by the Heritage Foundation (see prior post of mine) and the Bush Administration... they were real, albeit modest. Even if you don't want to acknowledge the surplus, you have to acknowledge that the budget was pretty much balanced when GW pulled up to 1600 Pennsylvania and unpacked his stuff.

Bush Defends Size of Surplus And Tax Cuts - NYTimes.com
Bush 1999: "It's Important to Cut the Taxes" - YouTube

If what you mean is asking why the rate of increase in debt did not slow (confusing deficits and debts is a common rookie mistake).... well, the rate of increase in debt slowed to almost nothing. Total debt rose by about $18B between 1999 and 2001 ($5.641 to $5.659B); while debt to public actually dropped (from $3.8T in 1997 to $3.3T in 2001).

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/feddebt/feddebt_ann2001.pdf

Sorry, Bush essentially started with a clean slate and produced huge deficits... there is no denying it, no matter how much emotion you wish to levy.

I laid out my supported argument. Granted, I have a huge advantage in this as the facts are on my side. Its pretty easy to call up articles to support what I am saying. You have a much tougher challenge; defending the guilty is a tough road.... but, surely you can do better than this. Let's see facts, graphs and supporting articles (from something besides a political porn site). Perhaps you could start by explaining your proposition that Obamacare is a budget buster. That is a new one. The CBO actually has scored it as saving money in the long-run. So, produce the goods (supported arguments).. otherwise sit down, watch and learn, rook.

(hey, at least one guy liked your posts... after all, you jumped in to help him defend the indefensible... unfortunately, you used his strategy of confusing your impressions with good argument and not supporting his position with verifiable facts.)
Click to expand...



Lets play your game, this time with Clinton. The first budget Bush was responsible for began 1 Oct 2001. So for the first nine months of 2001 it's on Clinton but we have to use it all against him according to the rules you use with Obama. The deficit in 2001 was 133.29 billion dollars. The defiict in 1999 was 130.08 billion dollars. Doesn't seem like it slowed much to me. In fact if based against 2000 its on a big upswing. So once again, just where was this "surplus"? Good thing you think very highly of yourself and your phony liberal ideas because people capable of thought won't.

Bring some real facts to the table next time junior. Not just numbers being twisted to gather support from people incapable of thought.
 
Last edited:
Kushinator said:
View attachment 67150904



Perhaps you should do the same.
Click to expand...

So let me see if I have this right, you believe that when you put your money into SS and because more money went in than out because of fewer retirees, it is a surplus? Is that liberal math or what? Your money going into SS is an obligation owed to you in the future, the fact that it was spent on something other than you is a debt to the govt. that has to be repaid at some time. There was no Clinton surplus due to intergovt. holding obligations in the future

Simple question, in 2000, 480.6 million dollars went into SS and only 330.8 million came out. Isn't that 480.6 a future obligation? How can a liberal claim there was a surplus when the receipts are owed in the future?
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
So let me see if I have this right, you believe that when you put your money into SS and because more money went in than out because of fewer retirees, it is a surplus?
Click to expand...
Um, there were not fewer retirees, outlays continued to increase. By law, surpluses went back into the SSTF, hence REVENUE exceeded OUTLAYS.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, there were not fewer retirees, outlays continued to increase. By law, surpluses went back into the SSTF, hence REVENUE exceeded OUTLAYS.
Click to expand...

By law the so called surpluses were used on budget to fund anything other than current social security obligations. Pretty simple question, when you give your money to the govt. for SS isn't that an obligation the govt. owes you when you retire? If so why would you allow it to be spent on something other than your retirement? Sounds like the classic definition of a Ponzi Scheme

By the way, those surpluses didn't go back into the SSTF, IOU's did

I want to be around when the light bulb goes off in your head. You have made claims that the surplus went back into the SSTF which is a lie. You have made claims that the Bush budget led to the 1.2 trillion dollar deficit in 2009 which is another lie. Don't you get tired of allowing the left to make a fool out of you?
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
By law the so called surpluses were used on budget to fund anything other than current social security obligations.
Click to expand...
Wrong, try again. The surpluses were used to pay back previous SSTF borrowing.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Wrong, try again. The surpluses were used to pay back previous SSTF borrowing.
Click to expand...

So we have a Ponzi Scheme, thanks for playing. the problem is that Ponzi scheme is worse because there are more people retiring than working to pay for those retirees. Your money was spent long, long ago and you aren't concerned about it. Says a lot about liberalism
 
Conservative said:
So we have a Ponzi Scheme, thanks for playing. the problem is that Ponzi scheme is worse because there are more people retiring than working to pay for those retirees. Your money was spent long, long ago and you aren't concerned about it. Says a lot about liberalism
Click to expand...
You prove over and over that you don't understand ponzi's or the SS system or the laws concerning surpluses in regard to past SSTF transfers. You believe that by tossing out the old "ponzi" canard that you make a point, not understanding that you are just doubling down on dumb statements. This is to distract away from your losing argument about surpluses.
 
Conservative said:
So we have a Ponzi Scheme, thanks for playing. the problem is that Ponzi scheme is worse because there are more people retiring than working to pay for those retirees. Your money was spent long, long ago and you aren't concerned about it. Says a lot about liberalism
Click to expand...
Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme and for you to say it is, says a lot about you.

Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You prove over and over that you don't understand ponzi's or the SS system or the laws concerning surpluses in regard to past SSTF transfers. You believe that by tossing out the old "ponzi" canard that you make a point, not understanding that you are just doubling down on dumb statements. This is to distract away from your losing argument about surpluses.
Click to expand...

What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty that you would allow your money forcibly taken from you via contributions to be used for everything other than your own retirement? You buy what the left tells you and never questions it but let a conservative provide you with the facts and you will fight to the end defending the indefensible.

When the govt. took in over 400 million dollars in 2000 that money was targeted for future retirees. Because it is a future obligation and simply because less when out than came in doesn't make it a surplus. The over 400 million is owed
 
pbrauer said:
Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme and for you to say it is, says a lot about you.

Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Aw, yes, another liberal heard from. Your money used to pay someone else's retirement and someone else's income used to pay yours. That isn't a Ponzi Scheme? What is it about liberalism that creates people like you, good people who will fight to the death for the indefensible. Simple question, is your contribution being returned to you when you retire or is it going to come from someone else?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You prove over and over that you don't understand ponzi's or the SS system or the laws concerning surpluses in regard to past SSTF transfers. You believe that by tossing out the old "ponzi" canard that you make a point, not understanding that you are just doubling down on dumb statements. This is to distract away from your losing argument about surpluses.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you call it when your SS contribution is used to pay someone else's retirement and the money isn't there for yours unless it comes from someone else? Light bulb go off yet?
 
Conservative said:
What exactly do you call it when your SS contribution is used to pay someone else's retirement and the money isn't there for yours unless it comes from someone else? Light bulb go off yet?
Click to expand...
I have explained this to you before and I see that you need it explained again. A ponzi scheme is based upon deceit, whereas, from the beginning, the operation of SS was a completely open. A ponzi scheme primarily funnels funds to the creator, SS is not like that. Further, the canard that "yours won't be there" is patently false, this is a bogus statement made by those who claim to understand surpluses and SS funding but continue to distract and tangent and divert while they work themselves further and further into corners.
 
Conservative said:
What exactly do you call it when your SS contribution is used to pay someone else's retirement and the money isn't there for yours unless it comes from someone else?
Click to expand...

Insurance.....
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I have explained this to you before and I see that you need it explained again. A ponzi scheme is based upon deceit, whereas, from the beginning, the operation of SS was a completely open. A ponzi scheme primarily funnels funds to the creator, SS is not like that. Further, the canard that "yours won't be there" is patently false, this is a bogus statement made by those who claim to understand surpluses and SS funding but continue to distract and tangent and divert while they work themselves further and further into corners.
Click to expand...

Oh, my, you have no idea what you are talking about. That was never the intent of SS and you ought to know that. Why can't you be mature enough to admit that you are wrong and allowed the liberal elites to make a fool out of you? SS was never put on budget until the unified budget was created in the 60's. SS was created long before that. Where is yours going to come from? There are trillions in IOU's, who funds those IOU's? Light bulb go off yet?
 
Conservative said:
Aw, yes, another liberal heard from. Your money used to pay someone else's retirement and someone else's income used to pay yours.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes....insurance...is "ponzi" scheme.

Tell us again about your vast business experience.....:popcorn2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom