• 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%

This thread is hilarious

Obama's record on the economy is a pathetic joke. You can trot out all the Mother Jones graphs and Krugman articles all you want. .

Who has pulled out one of those?
 
Social Security is an insurance program. Just like when one buys a home a bank will make one purchase insurance

So when you die your spouse gets the total value of your insurance policy? This has to be an act on your part, you aren't this stupid.
 
SocialSecurityTaxCaps03152012.jpg


Just wanting those that get the most outta our country to pay the same % of payroll tax that 98 % of loyal Americans willingly pay.Is that asking too much?:2wave:

What a bogus argument, SS is a contribution you make and you get a return out of it. You don't invest and you get nothing like so many in states that don't contribute. It has nothing to do with who puts in what or what percentage. This has to be an act on your part. Now get back on topic.
 
So when you die your spouse gets the total value of your insurance policy? This has to be an act on your part, you aren't this stupid.


a) Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund

There is hereby created on the books of the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the “Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund”. The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund shall consist of the securities held by the Secretary of the Treasury for the Old-Age Reserve Account and the amount standing to the credit of the Old-Age Reserve Account on the books of the Treasury on January 1, 1940

42 USC § 401 - Trust Funds | Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute,
 
a) Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund

There is hereby created on the books of the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the “Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund”. The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund shall consist of the securities held by the Secretary of the Treasury for the Old-Age Reserve Account and the amount standing to the credit of the Old-Age Reserve Account on the books of the Treasury on January 1, 1940

42 USC § 401 - Trust Funds | Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute,

So you don't have an answer to the question, I see. You really don't understand SS at all and you can post a link but suggest you read it. Show me in that trust fund where it authorized the Congress to put the contributions on budget and to spend it on items other than SS?
 
What a bogus argument, SS is a contribution you make and you get a return out of it. You don't invest and you get nothing like so many in states that don't contribute. It has nothing to do with who puts in what or what percentage. This has to be an act on your part. Now get back on topic.


It took FDR almost seven years to get SS off the ground. I guess we can give BO three years to get it straightened out. It’s been a pretty heavy load hoisted onto his back by the ineptitude of the previous misadministration.:2wave:
 
I voted for a D in JFK who understood the private sector and how to stimulate it. No D since JFK has been worth a damn in managing the private sector economy. Obamanomics is a failure so no matter how many times you divert from that record it isn't going to change the results.

You don't even know how it works. You don't know the difference between Obama and what you want, China.
 
How can someone that truly believes himself so smugly superior, get what I clearly typed, so wrong?

Ah well, figures....

Feel free to point out any errors.

Or to fully spell out the mindless either or fallacy you threw out there. I choose to deal with that by explaining what we really had. You ignored that, so pony up something not so fallacious.
 
Last edited:
So you don't have an answer to the question, I see. You really don't understand SS at all and you can post a link but suggest you read it. Show me in that trust fund where it authorized the Congress to put the contributions on budget and to spend it on items other than SS?

Are you referring to intra-governmenta debt that pays the trust fund 4.4% in interest? The same fund that will run a surplus through the end of 2021? The fund that holds United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government?:2wave:
 
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?

Again, you are obfuscating. But, if you must, the government deciding to forgo revenue by giving a tax cut, while not an expense, is a reduction of revenue, which has the exact same effect. BTW, as I business owner, I do not have a paycheck.


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?

We are continuing this because you want us to believe it is Obama that has wrecked the economy and I am telling you he hasn't. He has failed to fix it; the economy was wrecked by the failed policies of the previous administration. Once again, you obfuscate because you can not defend.

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.

And again, you obfuscate..... I am asking you to tell us why we should not blame GW Bush for starting with essentially a balanced budget and delivering extremely large deficits. I know why you must obfuscate, because this is an argument you can not win. Bush screwed up big time and now we are dealing with the consequences of his failed policies. Its time to live in the real world. The truth will set you free.
 
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.

Hey, thanks for using facts. Now if we could just get you to use real (verifiable) facts.

Where did you get your numbers as they do not jive with table 1.1 of the US Budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals or see below)? I would love to indulge you in your question, but not your fantasies. Let's see a link and settle on the real numbers so that we can actually have a discussion.

Note per the table below, 2001 had an on-budget deficit of $32B; but the total budget showed a surplus of $128B. In 1999, we had a surplus on-budget and in total. The 2001 on-budget deficit was 100% attributable to a revenue shortfall of a greater amount (see tax collection column), largely caused by the tech bubble crash rather than specific policies of the President.

Regardless, the discussion of whether we had a small deficit or small surplus is moot. Either way our budget had negligible surplus or modest, manageable deficits. In essence, they were the same thing: the budget was balanced when the tenant at 1600 Pennsylvania changed. In fact, the prevailing wisdom and political discussion at the time was about how to spend the forecast surpluses.

Happy to discuss you issue, but please either accept the real numbers or produce some support for yours. I refuse to debate your impressions, which without verifiable numbers is all you have brought to the table.

Notwithstanding anything you might come up with to refute the starting point as "balanced budget", the ending point (the day the George turned the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania to Barack) was huge deficits. Hard to blame anyone but George for that mess.

Looking forward to your response, champ.

Budget - US Budget.jpg
 
Last edited:
It took FDR almost seven years to get SS off the ground. I guess we can give BO three years to get it straightened out. It’s been a pretty heavy load hoisted onto his back by the ineptitude of the previous misadministration.:2wave:

FDR's policies extended The Great Depression

Fail
 
upsideguy;1062103096]Again, you are obfuscating. But, if you must, the government deciding to forgo revenue by giving a tax cut, while not an expense, is a reduction of revenue, which has the exact same effect. BTW, as I business owner, I do not have a paycheck.

Interesting, as a business owner your business isn't affected by people having more spendable income? You believe the govt. grows revenue by restricting economic activity? Another interesting comment. From 2004-2006 the Republicans controlled the entire Congress and govt. revenue grew and even set a record in 2007 for tax revenue with the Bush tax cuts. How do you explain it? It does seem that economic activity isn't something you understand.



We are continuing this because you want us to believe it is Obama that has wrecked the economy and I am telling you he hasn't. He has failed to fix it; the economy was wrecked by the failed policies of the previous administration. Once again, you obfuscate because you can not defend.

He has had over 4 years. If you generated the kind of results Obama has generated you would be bankrupt and yet you give him a pass. The economic numbers are a disaster, not one of his predictions on the economy have been accurate and yet it is still Bush's fault? Is that how you operate in your business, blaming someone else for your own failures?



And again, you obfuscate..... I am asking you to tell us why we should not blame GW Bush for starting with essentially a balanced budget and delivering extremely large deficits. I know why you must obfuscate, because this is an argument you can not win. Bush screwed up big time and now we are dealing with the consequences of his failed policies. Its time to live in the real world. The truth will set you free.

Why blame Bush? Obama had total control of the Congress his first term and could have shown leadership but didn't. He kept the Bush tax cuts but then followed that by implementing a stimulus program that only stimulated rewarding of states with bad behavior. You want badly to blame Bush but ignore the failed leadership of Obama. Leaders play the hand they are dealt. Obama said he had the answers and yet Obama has failed but it is Bush's fault?

the truth is nothing Obama has done has benefited the economy and nothing Obama does is ever going to change your mind regarding his lack of leadership skills. Obama poll numbers are dropping rapidly, he continues to campaign for a job that he already has, he demonizes private business and individual wealth creation which will do nothing to grow the private sector economy. Why would any business person invest in their business under Obamanomics?
 
It took FDR almost seven years to get SS off the ground. I guess we can give BO three years to get it straightened out. It’s been a pretty heavy load hoisted onto his back by the ineptitude of the previous misadministration.:2wave:

Get SS straightened out? How do you straighten anything out with trillion dollar deficits, stagnant job growth, high debt, and poor job creation?
 
Uhmm we are not talking life insurance

You obviously don't understand SS at all. It is a supplement that you contribute to and are supposed to get some of that contribution back. It was never to be funded by others so what someone else contributes is irrelevant. Your money has been spent and now you want to reward that bad behavior by increasing taxes on the top end again? What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
 
And it is a heck of a lot better than 5 years ago.

Such low expectations? If you add 6.2 trillion to the debt with massive govt. spending shouldn't you generate better results than 5 years ago? Do you think 21 million plus unemployed/discouraged, and under employed is a positive economic result? Do you think a GDP growing at less than 2% four years after the end of the recession is good economic results?

Oh, well, why bother. Economic results don't matter to you especially those today four years after the end of the recession. Guess you are in that 40% of the public that still supports him?
 
You don't even know how it works. You don't know the difference between Obama and what you want, China.

you think claiming that I want this country like China is a winning argument? All that does is divert from current economic results of Obama and policies that are fundamentally changing this country into a China but actually more like the European socialistic economy which is based on a large central govt. that has people dependent.
 
Are you referring to intra-governmenta debt that pays the trust fund 4.4% in interest? The same fund that will run a surplus through the end of 2021? The fund that holds United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government?:2wave:

Amazing, man, because the trust fund has a surplus ignores the reality that that surplus has targeted obligations and is owed to someone, probably including you. It really is sad that you and others continue to lack understanding of the purpose of SS, the funding for SS, and how that contribution has been stolen by politicians
 
Amazing, man, because the trust fund has a surplus ignores the reality that that surplus has targeted obligations and is owed to someone, probably including you. It really is sad that you and others continue to lack understanding of the purpose of SS, the funding for SS, and how that contribution has been stolen by politicians

Question: Where are the majority of ALL pension fund balances allocated?
 
Back
Top Bottom