- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Slyfox696;1063140826]Yes, and your response missed the point. Different situations are different. I've said it many times now.
:lamo
That is why things are better at the state level rather than the one size fits all Federal programs you and others promote
So? What does that have to do with you trying to project a false image of yourself being an open minded voter? It's not hard to stay on topic, at least not if you have a salient point.
My ideology promotes individual responsibility, neighbor helping neighbor, and social programs residing where they belong, at the state and local level. Any politician that promotes those has my support. You don't seem to understand the concept. As stated and you ignored, we have a Lesbian, Democrat Mayor of Houston who is fiscally conservative and as a result has bipartisan support including mine. Social issues aren't the responsibility of the Federal Govt. except to promote an atmosphere that assists in solving those kind of problems meaning people helping others not the govt. bureaucrats.
And here you are proving me right about your copy and paste job, regurgitating the same disproven rhetoric time and again. Keep dancing.
Keep singing the same old song and believing the liberal rhetoric and I will continue to give you the same answers until they finally sink in
How dare the government allow that money to sit and fall prey to inflation? Do you even understand the basics behind how SS works?
LOL, I contributed to SS for 35 years and you claim I don't know how it works? You have a very high opinion of yourself which just covers up your own insecurities. SS was designed as a supplement but it never was intended to be used and it certainly wasn't intended for a sole retirement program. It is the govt. that creates inflation, not the private sector as the govt. produces nothing really of value thus creating more workers than there are products driving up cost.
Social Security is not a retirement fund. How dare you not understand what you're talking about when you criticize?
Already explained to you what SS was, a supplement, not sole retirement that many people including you are making it.
At the end of the day, "entitlement spending" is increasing as the Baby Boomers continue to grow older. It's going to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. So unless you're advocating for my 80 year old grandfather to get off his lazy butt and go back to work, your comment of "spending in the name of compassion has generated record numbers dependent on the Federal govt" doesn't mean much.
It was the govt. that created those entitlements and forcing people to contribute. It is you that doesn't seem to understand the concept. Your 80 year old grandfather was forced to contribute and is not entitled to his money back withe a return on investment for that contribution
I didn't ignore that at all. I specifically said Obama INHERITED the $1.2 trillion in deficits and has since cut it in half. Could you please take more time to read before you respond
Logically speaking, how does cutting deficit in half generate record deficit? Just by sheer mathematics, that doesn't make sense.
No, it is you that doesn't understand the budget process at all, there was NO Bush Budget, but there was a budget proposal from Bush that was rejected. He inherited a PROJECTION not a budget deficit and could have corrected that but Obama signed the budget in March 2009 making it his budget and included his priorities. You have no understanding of projections vs. reality. Bush's largest deficit was less than 500 billion dollars, Obama has never had one that low and proposing a 3.9 trillion dollar budget shows he isn't serious about the budget deficit or the debt. I don't think I would be taking victory laps over cutting the 1.2 trillion dollar budget deficit to 600 billion dollars which still is in record territory. What exactly did Obama do to cut that deficit? Think about it.
Yes, I think facts are important. The CBO projected a $1.2 trillion deficit in January 2009, before Obama even took office. Roughly 5 years later, the deficit was about half of that $1.2 trillion deficit Obama inherited. And while we've cut the deficit in half, we've also recovered every private sector job lost.
See above
All under Obama. You should be thanking the man.
Why would I thank anyone for increasing the debt, having stagnant economic growth, having 20 million Americans unemployed, under employed, discouraged?
It has everything to do with the topic, because those are the type of people you call dependent on the federal government.
"People who contributed to SS and Medicare deserve to have their investment back."Social Security is not an investment. You clearly don't understand how Social Security works. Please research Social Security.
There in lies the problem, why are people forced to contribute to any govt. program and get nothing out of it? If this is what you truly believe then it is very sad. Do you have any idea how much people and businesses give to the govt. for SS. You don't think people should get that back?
Everything I've said has exactly been the issue. Different situations are different (comparing Obama and Reagan recessions, which you still don't understand). Dependency is, in large part, due to people retiring. The policies of Obama have been in effect while we've recovered every private sector job lost and cut the deficit Obama inherited in half. Social Security is not a retirement plan.
Everything I've said has been on topic. You just need to understand things a little better, it does appear.
Look up the definition of Personal responsibility and then cut out that definition and post it where you see it every day. I lived and worked through both so it is you that doesn't understand the two nor do you understand leadership