Page 36 of 128 FirstFirst ... 2634353637384686 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 1274

Thread: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

  1. #351
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    11-12-16 @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,485

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Your state has no massive surpluses as your legislature continues to kick the can down the road. Your state is exactly what you want the country to become and that is a fiscal disaster with an entitlement mentality.
    That is only the case now. I am not sure why the right insists on denying and disparaging Intelligent Design "theory" regarding commerce in drugs from potentially seed bearing plants.

  2. #352
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
    That is only the case now. I am not sure why the right insists on denying and disparaging Intelligent Design "theory" regarding commerce in drugs from potentially seed bearing plants.
    LOL, thanks for showing us who you really are

  3. #353
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,986

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Sorry but you are totally and completely wrong


    No, no I'm not. Everything I said was correct, at least as far as a basic explanation of Social Security is concerned. I dare you to find any reputable sources which disputes my recounting of how Social Security works.

    SS was supposed to be put into a Trust fund
    No it was not. It couldn't be. When Social Security was passed, "benefits" needed to be paid out immediately, but since there were no funds with which to pay, money was taken directly from the workers and was then transferred to those receiving money. The Trust Fund wasn't even introduced until 1939, four years after the original passage of the legislation.

    That worked so well that they decided to keep it there and other Administrations had fun spending the money as well.
    Did you even read what I wrote? The money was borrowed, to protect from inflation. This is not hard to understand. Here, maybe you'll accept it from the Social Security website itself.

    Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

    A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
    Social Security History

    At the time when there were more workers than retirees that wasn't a problem but as is typical of the Federal Govt. they had no foresight at all and that is why we have trillions in unfunded liabilities today.
    You still don't understand how Social Security works, even after I explained it to you. Amazing.

    Seriously, just go research. The more research you do, the more you'll see I'm correct.

    What you are buying is the liberal interpretation of SS not the original intent.
    No, I'm simply speaking the truth. The fact you think the truth is a "liberal interpretation" is hilarious.

    Amazing how liberal legislation gets changed and distorted over time.
    What don't you understand? It was not, and is not, a retirement plan. Ignoring for a moment the fact you posted something which clearly states was proposed but NOT passed, even what you posted says nothing about a retirement plan. You don't pay into Social Security to get "your" money back later. You pay into Social Security to give money to retirees.

    It's a social insurance program. It's a completely different concept.

    As for the projected budget surplus please a simple yes or no, was TARP included in that projection?
    Who cares, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We're talking about the budget deficit and the deficit was $1.2 before Obama even took office. Quit trying to distract from facts with irrelevant comments.

  4. #354
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post


    No, no I'm not. Everything I said was correct, at least as far as a basic explanation of Social Security is concerned. I dare you to find any reputable sources which disputes my recounting of how Social Security works.

    No it was not. It couldn't be. When Social Security was passed, "benefits" needed to be paid out immediately, but since there were no funds with which to pay, money was taken directly from the workers and was then transferred to those receiving money. The Trust Fund wasn't even introduced until 1939, four years after the original passage of the legislation.

    Did you even read what I wrote? The money was borrowed, to protect from inflation. This is not hard to understand. Here, maybe you'll accept it from the Social Security website itself.


    Social Security History

    You still don't understand how Social Security works, even after I explained it to you. Amazing.

    Seriously, just go research. The more research you do, the more you'll see I'm correct.

    No, I'm simply speaking the truth. The fact you think the truth is a "liberal interpretation" is hilarious.

    What don't you understand? It was not, and is not, a retirement plan. Ignoring for a moment the fact you posted something which clearly states was proposed but NOT passed, even what you posted says nothing about a retirement plan. You don't pay into Social Security to get "your" money back later. You pay into Social Security to give money to retirees.

    It's a social insurance program. It's a completely different concept.

    Who cares, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We're talking about the budget deficit and the deficit was $1.2 before Obama even took office. Quit trying to distract from facts with irrelevant comments.
    You simply cannot admit you are wrong, do you know what a unified budget is?

    SS on Budget

    "On-Budget"-'

    In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."
    This 1968 change grew out of the recommendations of a presidential commission appointed by President Johnson in 1967, and known as the President's Commission on Budget Concepts. The concern of this Commission was not specifically with the Social Security Trust Funds, but rather it was an effort to rationalize what the Commission viewed as a confusing budget presentation. At that time, the federal budget consisted of three separate and inconsistent sets of measures, and often budget debates became bogged-down in arguments over which of the three to use. As an illustration of the problem, the projected fiscal 1968 budget was either in deficit by $2.1 billion, $4.3 billion, or $8.1 billion, depending upon which measure one chose to use. Consequently, the Commission's central recommendation was for a single, unified, measure of the federal budget--a measure in which every function and activity of government was added together to assess the government's fiscal position.
    As for the deficit, how did Bush have a deficit of 1.2 trillion dollars when one, he didn't have a budget passed by Congress, and two he was only in office from October 1, 2008 to January 21, 2009? You didn't answer the question which is probably due to the fact that you have no idea what a projection is. Did the CBO PROJECTION include the TARP Loans? The fact that you won't answer is indeed the answer.

  5. #355
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    11-12-16 @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,485

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    LOL, thanks for showing us who you really are
    Only "original sinners" are claiming a plant is bad.

  6. #356
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,986

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    You simply cannot admit you are wrong
    Because I'm not.

    do you know what a unified budget is?
    Yes, it was in the link I already gave to you. You obviously didn't read the source:

    Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

    A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

    Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.
    Social Security History

    You're wrong. Even the official Social Security website says you're wrong. Hell, they even say it in two different places.

    Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program


    The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.


    The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
    Social Security History

    These are direct quotes from the Social Security website. You are making provably incorrect statements.


    As for the deficit, how did Bush have a deficit of 1.2 trillion dollars when one, he didn't have a budget passed by Congress
    Because spending is based on "proposed" budgets. Are you really telling me that, for fiscal year 2009 (which was from October 2008 until September 2009), the United States government didn't spend any money from October until January? That's an asinine position.

    What Obama signed at the end of the fiscal year was spending adopted under Bush, which started in October 2008 before Obama was even elected, plus the couple hundred extra billion dollars incurred as part of his plan to recover the economy for a total of $1.4t in deficits. This is simple common knowledge.

    EDIT: Hell, here's a link to the news of the spending bill Bush signed in September 2008, as well as a link to the actual bill.

    News: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...ing-bill_N.htm
    Bill: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...0hr2638enr.pdf
    and two he was only in office from October 1, 2008 to January 21, 2009?
    That's exactly the point. Bush was in office and it was under Bush that fiscal year spending was allocated. Why is this hard for you to understand?

    You didn't answer the question which is probably due to the fact that you have no idea what a projection is. Did the CBO PROJECTION include the TARP Loans? The fact that you won't answer is indeed the answer.
    I'm not answering because you're trying to distract from the issue. And you're trying to distract from the issue because you have been proven wrong every step of the way. I repeat, PROVEN wrong. It's not a simple "my political theory versus yours", you've been PROVEN wrong every step of the way.

    But instead of admitting your faulty position (because then you couldn't regurgitate it later with any credibility) you just keep trying to deflect the issues. The fact is you are wrong. We both know it.
    Last edited by Slyfox696; 04-11-14 at 07:38 PM.

  7. #357
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Because I'm not.

    Yes, it was in the link I already gave to you. You obviously didn't read the source:


    Social Security History

    You're wrong. Even the official Social Security website says you're wrong. Hell, they even say it in two different places.


    Social Security History

    These are direct quotes from the Social Security website. You are making provably incorrect statements.


    Because spending is based on "proposed" budgets. Are you really telling me that, for fiscal year 2009 (which was from October 2008 until September 2009), the United States government didn't spend any money from October until January? That's an asinine position.

    What Obama signed at the end of the fiscal year was spending adopted under Bush, which started in October 2008 before Obama was even elected, plus the couple hundred extra billion dollars incurred as part of his plan to recover the economy for a total of $1.4t in deficits. This is simple common knowledge.

    EDIT: Hell, here's a link to the news of the spending bill Bush signed in September 2008, as well as a link to the actual bill.

    News: Bush signs sprawling spending bill - USATODAY.com
    Bill: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...0hr2638enr.pdf
    That's exactly the point. Bush was in office and it was under Bush that fiscal year spending was allocated. Why is this hard for you to understand?

    I'm not answering because you're trying to distract from the issue. And you're trying to distract from the issue because you have been proven wrong every step of the way. I repeat, PROVEN wrong. It's not a simple "my political theory versus yours", you've been PROVEN wrong every step of the way.

    But instead of admitting your faulty position (because then you couldn't regurgitate it later with any credibility) you just keep trying to deflect the issues. The fact is you are wrong. We both know it.
    We aren't talking about the Trust fund, we are talking about a unified budget. When you go to the budget of the United States, tell me why there is a line item for Medicare and SS?

    Your link doesn't address that issue at all. Look you want to discuss SS and want me to prove you wrong, start an new OP, this OP is about unemployment and job creation.

    No, TARP was included in the CBO Projections which is why we had a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit PROJECTION, 750 billion of it was TARP. Bush budget projection was 450 billion and TARP was mostly paid back so why wasn't TARP repayment used to lower the deficit projections?

    You have way too much invested in believing what you are told and not getting the actual details. Liberals have a problem doing just that.

  8. #358
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,986

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    We aren't talking about the Trust fund, we are talking about a unified budget.
    We're talking about Social Security and how you have/had no idea how it works.

    Your link doesn't address that issue at all. Look you want to discuss SS and want me to prove you wrong
    I already have proven you wrong. I have proven you don't know how Social Security works and I have proven you believe things about Social Security which are not true. You were wrong. I don't suspect you'll admit it, but we both know I've proven it.

    start an new OP, this OP is about unemployment and job creation.
    YOU brought up Social Security, not me. Just because you were shown to have no understanding how it worked, don't blame me for what you started.

    No, TARP was included in the CBO Projections which is why we had a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit PROJECTION, 750 billion of it was TARP. Bush budget projection was 450 billion and TARP was mostly paid back so why wasn't TARP repayment used to lower the deficit projections?
    What in the world are you talking about? You're not making any sense.

    The CBO projected, before Obama even took office, a deficit of $1.2 trillion. The final budget Obama signed had a deficit of roughly $1.4 trillion. It doesn't matter what happened after FY 2009, those are the actual numbers. It almost seems like you're saying TARP repayment years later should be used to retroactively reduce the FY 2009 budget. IF that's what you're claiming, that's asinine. If it's not, then you'll need to explain why you think your constantly yapping about TARP is important to this discussion.

    Furthermore, TARP was not $750 billion in FY 2009.

    According to CBO’s estimates, outlays this year will include more than $180 billion to reflect the present value of the net cost of transactions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which was created in the fall of 2008.
    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...07-outlook.pdf

    What you seem to be talking about is how much TARP was authorized to spend in total, but again, you are wrong as Obama signed Dodd-Frank authorizing only $475 billion.

    Although Congress initially authorized $700 billion for TARP in October 2008, that authority was reduced to $475 billion by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
    Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).
    http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/.../default.aspx#

    Once again, facts have proven you wrong. Don't you get tired of being proven wrong?

    At the end of the day, for all the falsehoods you continue to spout, you cannot dispute the indisputable. And the indisputable facts clearly state during the time of Obama's policies, we've cut the deficit in half, regained all private sector jobs lost due to the recession, had a booming stock market and growth in GDP.

    You have way too much invested in believing what you are told
    We just spent the last few hours by having me educate you on how Social Security works. Then I had to educate you on how budgets work. Then I had to correct you both on the total amount TARP was allowed to spend and how much of it was spent in FY 2009. And you're accusing me of believing what I'm told? Did you even stop to think how ridiculous that is for you to say?

    Liberals have a problem doing just that.
    Says the person who has done nothing but constantly spout provably false statements throughout the entire thread.

  9. #359
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    We're talking about Social Security and how you have/had no idea how it works.

    I already have proven you wrong. I have proven you don't know how Social Security works and I have proven you believe things about Social Security which are not true. You were wrong. I don't suspect you'll admit it, but we both know I've proven it.

    YOU brought up Social Security, not me. Just because you were shown to have no understanding how it worked, don't blame me for what you started.

    What in the world are you talking about? You're not making any sense.

    The CBO projected, before Obama even took office, a deficit of $1.2 trillion. The final budget Obama signed had a deficit of roughly $1.4 trillion. It doesn't matter what happened after FY 2009, those are the actual numbers. It almost seems like you're saying TARP repayment years later should be used to retroactively reduce the FY 2009 budget. IF that's what you're claiming, that's asinine. If it's not, then you'll need to explain why you think your constantly yapping about TARP is important to this discussion.

    Furthermore, TARP was not $750 billion in FY 2009.


    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...07-outlook.pdf

    What you seem to be talking about is how much TARP was authorized to spend in total, but again, you are wrong as Obama signed Dodd-Frank authorizing only $475 billion.


    TARP Programs

    Once again, facts have proven you wrong. Don't you get tired of being proven wrong?

    At the end of the day, for all the falsehoods you continue to spout, you cannot dispute the indisputable. And the indisputable facts clearly state during the time of Obama's policies, we've cut the deficit in half, regained all private sector jobs lost due to the recession, had a booming stock market and growth in GDP.

    We just spent the last few hours by having me educate you on how Social Security works. Then I had to educate you on how budgets work. Then I had to correct you both on the total amount TARP was allowed to spend and how much of it was spent in FY 2009. And you're accusing me of believing what I'm told? Did you even stop to think how ridiculous that is for you to say?

    Says the person who has done nothing but constantly spout provably false statements throughout the entire thread.
    You really won't let it go, will you. I have given you the purpose of SS, I have told you that there are line items in the budget for SS and Medicare which wouldn't be there if they weren't in the Unified budget established by LBJ, I contributed to SS for 35 years and know exactly how it works, I gave the the information on the budget projections which you don't understand so apparently you are doing nothing more than seeking attention. I am done with you and this issue because as stated before you are a waste of time.

    Oh, by the way, suggest you actually read the CBO deficit projections for 2009 and what makes up those numbers. You don't seem to understand anything about the budget and how the CBO came up with their numbers. Obama loves having people like you who really don't have a clue and buy what you are told.

    The projections for the Deficit were for the total year and there was NO BUSH BUDGET FOR 2009 and Bush didn't propose the 842 billion stimulus, the Afghanistan Surge, the take over of GM/Chrysler, the supplementals for Afghanistan, and the take over of Freddie and Fannie. but then again I am sure that reality goes right over your partisan head.
    Last edited by Conservative; 04-11-14 at 11:17 PM.

  10. #360
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,986

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    You really won't let it go, will you.
    Why should I when I'm right?

    I have given you the purpose of SS
    Which not only was wrong, it was also not what we were talking about. We were talking about how Social Security works, not how it was originally intended. You were wrong. You've been wrong. You seem to insist on remaining wrong.

    I have told you that there are line items in the budget for SS and Medicare which wouldn't be there if they weren't in the Unified budget established by LBJ
    And I gave you a direct quote from the official Social Security website which says the way the Social Security Trust Fund has worked more or less the same way since it was first introduced.

    The fact you're now arguing with the official source is just laughable. Or, as you would put it, "indicative of a conservative who can't stand the truth".

    Luckily for real conservatives, I don't use one person to judge all others.

    I contributed to SS for 35 years
    Who gives a damn? Completely irrelevant information. What WAS relevant was your clear lack of understanding of how Social Security works, as I already pointed out.

    and know exactly how it works
    No, no you do not. That was proven multiple times throughout this thread. You can continue to repeat this lie all you want, but we both know it is still a lie.

    I gave the the information on the budget projections
    No, I gave YOU the information on the budget projections, which was a $1.2 trillion deficit before Obama stepped into office. Once more, you are engaging in blatant lies. This is beneath you.

    I am done with you
    Because you can't handle being proven wrong over and over again? I've given you official sources from the Social Security website, from the CBO and the GPO. You're essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and regurgitating the same falsehoods which were already disproven.

    Oh, by the way, suggest you actually read the CBO deficit projections for 2009 and what makes up those numbers. You don't seem to understand anything about the budget and how the CBO came up with their numbers. Obama loves having people like you who really don't have a clue and buy what you are told.
    At this point, we both know you've lost. It doesn't matter what is in the CBO projections because it won't change what we're talking about. Once more you're trying to avoid admitting how wrong you've been the entire time by saying useless things.

    The projections for the Deficit were for the total year
    Yes, for the total fiscal year, which started in October 2008. As I've already explained and sourced for you.

    and there was NO BUSH BUDGET FOR 2009
    I literally linked you directly to the bill George W. Bush signed. Why are you so scared of admitting you were wrong that you are blatantly lying?

    and Bush didn't propose the 842 billion stimulus
    Of which only roughly $200 billion went against the deficit (since it wasn't all in one year), and which I noted before. Once more, you're trying to distract from how wrong you are.

    the Afghanistan Surge, the take over of GM/Chrysler, the supplementals for Afghanistan, and the take over of Freddie and Fannie.
    Blah, blah, blah. You're trying to distract again. It was $1.2 trillion deficit before Obama. Fiscal year 2009 officially ended with a $1.4 trillion deficit. That deficit (both the original and the final) have now been cut roughly in half.

    You should be on your knees kissing Obama's feet, given how much you seem to care about these things. You won't, but we both know why and it has nothing to do with the truth.

    but then again I am sure that reality goes right over your partisan head.
    You just posted numerous known lies to protect your political party...you have no right to call anyone partisan.

Page 36 of 128 FirstFirst ... 2634353637384686 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •