• 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!

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

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
 
Yes, but bailing out a private business with taxpayer dollars is something no govt. should do and is the difference that you don't seem to understand

A bailout of the private sector is a bailout of the private sector; you all only seem to have a problem when the least wealthy get bailed out.
 
A bailout of the private sector is a bailout of the private sector; you all only seem to have a problem when the least wealthy get bailed out.

You don't seem to get it at all, I am against bailing out any private sector business regardless of their wealth. You go into business you take the risk and if you fail because of actions under your control then no bailout should ever be given.
 
You don't seem to get it at all, I am against bailing out any private sector business regardless of their wealth. You go into business you take the risk and if you fail because of actions under your control then no bailout should ever be given.

Dude, corporate welfare even has paid for multi-million dollar bonuses.
 
Dude, corporate welfare even has paid for multi-million dollar bonuses.

Corporate welfare is businesses keeping more of what they earn. Why do you care what someone else earns or pays in taxes? You seem to ignore the 3.9 TRILLION dollar govt Obama wants and the huge bonuses paid to govt. workers out of taxdollars. Interesting set of priorities you have here
 
Corporate welfare is businesses keeping more of what they earn. Why do you care what someone else earns or pays in taxes? You seem to ignore the 3.9 TRILLION dollar govt Obama wants and the huge bonuses paid to govt. workers out of taxdollars. Interesting set of priorities you have here

A bailout of the private sector is a bailout of the private sector; you all only seem to have a problem when the least wealthy get bailed out. Did you miss the concept?
 
A bailout of the private sector is a bailout of the private sector; you all only seem to have a problem when the least wealthy get bailed out. Did you miss the concept?

It's not governments money. It's ours.
 
I think it's cute how you keep managing to foul up quoting me properly, yet manage to quote everyone else just fine. If one was a skeptic, one might think it was being done on purpose.
That is why things are better at the state level rather than the one size fits all Federal programs you and others promote
Once more, you post an unrelated comment to something you cannot debate.

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, again, you're ducking the issue. You tried to pass yourself off as an open minded voter because you voted for Democrats long ago. But the illusion was ruined once one looks at how you're not really open minded to different ideas so much as you just changed the letter for whom you vote. That's the point.

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
But you're posting things which have been disproven. It's that simple.

LOL, I contributed to SS for 35 years and you claim I don't know how it works?
Yes, because it is clear you do not. Heck, you referred to it as an investment.

You have a very high opinion of yourself which just covers up your own insecurities.
No, I just take the time to research my facts before I post them.

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.
Again I implore you to research how Social Security really works.

It was the govt. that created those entitlements and forcing people to contribute.
Because it was necessary to promote the general welfare of its citizens.

It is you that doesn't seem to understand the concept.
Given your lack of understanding over something as basic as Social Security, it would be in your best interest to not cast accusations about what others understand.

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
Once more, research what Social Security is. Thank you.

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.
I understand the budget process just fine. I also understand removing billions of dollars which had already been promised would have resulted in a shock to the economy which would have destroyed it.

Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit. For you to claim otherwise is little more than silly partisanship and a complete lack of interest in the reality of the situation.

See above
No. Because it was silly partisanship which has no place in a legitimate discussion.

The fact is, under Obama, we've cut the deficit in half, recovered every private sector job lost from the effects of the recession, grown GDP and have a booming stock market. No amount of partisan comments will change those facts.

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?
It's irrelevant what you or I think SHOULD happen, it doesn't change the fact Social Security is not a retirement fund like you seem to think it is. It doesn't change the fact you seem to have basically no idea how Social Security works, nor does it change the fact that a widow is not entitled to anything from Social Security because her husband died. And it doesn't change the fact the government borrows against the Social Security Trust Fund to protect it.

With all due respect, Conservative, while we both know you do little more than engage in partisan posting, you at least sometimes attempt to use real facts/stats to support your position. But, in this case, it's clear you don't understand the basic structure behind Social Security, regardless of how many years you've paid into it (which is completely irrelevant anyways). All it will take is a little Google research and you'll understand why your comments regarding Social Security have been rather nonsensical. I know you usually at least want to support your partisan posting with facts, so do your homework on this.

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
More useless comments which do not respond to anything I said. You can't avoid the truth, no matter how often you "accidentally" quote me incorrectly or how often you post useless rhetoric when confronted with facts.
 
A bailout of the private sector is a bailout of the private sector; you all only seem to have a problem when the least wealthy get bailed out. Did you miss the concept?

I am a firm believer in neighbor helping neighbor and have never known the Federal govt. to be an efficient neighbor. People like you always want the Federal Govt. to take on social issues, why is that? the answer to your social problems rest in your own community where you can go over and beat on your local Representatives door. You don't seem to understand that concept.
 
So, why complain only when the least wealthy may receive some benefit?

What benefit exactly do you believe the "less wealthy" receive from the Federal Govt. that they cannot get better from the state and local govt? You don't seem to understand the concept of personal responsibility as well as the slush fund for federal bureaucrats
 
I think it's cute how you keep managing to foul up quoting me properly, yet manage to quote everyone else just fine. If one was a skeptic, one might think it was being done on purpose.Once more, you post an unrelated comment to something you cannot debate. And, again, you're ducking the issue. You tried to pass yourself off as an open minded voter because you voted for Democrats long ago. But the illusion was ruined once one looks at how you're not really open minded to different ideas so much as you just changed the letter for whom you vote. That's the point.But you're posting things which have been disproven. It's that simple.Yes, because it is clear you do not. Heck, you referred to it as an investment. No, I just take the time to research my facts before I post them. Again I implore you to research how Social Security really works.Because it was necessary to promote the general welfare of its citizens. Given your lack of understanding over something as basic as Social Security, it would be in your best interest to not cast accusations about what others understand.Once more, research what Social Security is. Thank you.I understand the budget process just fine. I also understand removing billions of dollars which had already been promised would have resulted in a shock to the economy which would have destroyed it.Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit. For you to claim otherwise is little more than silly partisanship and a complete lack of interest in the reality of the situation.No. Because it was silly partisanship which has no place in a legitimate discussion. The fact is, under Obama, we've cut the deficit in half, recovered every private sector job lost from the effects of the recession, grown GDP and have a booming stock market. No amount of partisan comments will change those facts.It's irrelevant what you or I think SHOULD happen, it doesn't change the fact Social Security is not a retirement fund like you seem to think it is. It doesn't change the fact you seem to have basically no idea how Social Security works, nor does it change the fact that a widow is not entitled to anything from Social Security because her husband died. And it doesn't change the fact the government borrows against the Social Security Trust Fund to protect it.With all due respect, Conservative, while we both know you do little more than engage in partisan posting, you at least sometimes attempt to use real facts/stats to support your position. But, in this case, it's clear you don't understand the basic structure behind Social Security, regardless of how many years you've paid into it (which is completely irrelevant anyways). All it will take is a little Google research and you'll understand why your comments regarding Social Security have been rather nonsensical. I know you usually at least want to support your partisan posting with facts, so do your homework on this.More useless comments which do not respond to anything I said. You can't avoid the truth, no matter how often you "accidentally" quote me incorrectly or how often you post useless rhetoric when confronted with facts.
Sorry, but you are an absolute waste of time. I do suggest a reading comprehension course because when you say I don't understand something you actually show your reading comprehension problem. Let me see if I can say it a little louder for you. SOCIAL SECURITY WAS INTENDED TO BE A SUPPLEMENT AND NOT SOLE RETIREMENT. Far too many today have it as their sole retirement and those benefits put them below the poverty level. If you simply took the money you contributed to SS and your employers, put it in a simple untouchable savings account you would be shocked at how much you would have vs what you get in a monthly annuity and that money would belong to your family. The rest of your post is nothing but garbage. The Federal Budget runs from October to September and to claim that Bush had a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit that he was leaving Obama is typical liberal re-writing history. There was NO BUSH BUDGET, but the actual projection included the 750 billion TARP which wasn't even spent but was a loan and not a expense.
 
I am a firm believer in neighbor helping neighbor and have never known the Federal govt. to be an efficient neighbor. People like you always want the Federal Govt. to take on social issues, why is that? the answer to your social problems rest in your own community where you can go over and beat on your local Representatives door. You don't seem to understand that concept.

Yes, simply because the left understands that the power to provide for the general welfare involves income transfers. Why not actually solve our social dilemmas instead of waging wars on them?
 
What benefit exactly do you believe the "less wealthy" receive from the Federal Govt. that they cannot get better from the state and local govt? You don't seem to understand the concept of personal responsibility as well as the slush fund for federal bureaucrats

In this case, it is about both federal and State governments not faithfully executing our own laws.
 
Sorry, but you are an absolute waste of time.
I guess if you cannot dispute facts, resort to things like this.

I do suggest a reading comprehension course because when you say I don't understand something you actually show your reading comprehension problem. Let me see if I can say it a little louder for you. SOCIAL SECURITY WAS INTENDED TO BE A SUPPLEMENT AND NOT SOLE RETIREMENT.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with how Social Security works. You can shout all you want, but it won't change the fact your describing what you believe to be the intention, NOT the structure. I was pointing out you don't understand the basic structure of how Social Security works. You seem to think Social Security is a retirement plan. It's not. It's not a supplement retirement plan nor is it a sole retirement plan. Nobody is owed any money because their spouse died.

This is why I'm telling you to research what Social Security is. For all your shouting, for all the years you claim to have paid into it, you still do not understand how it works. If you spent less time trying to avoid admitting your ignorance on how Social Security works, and more time learning about how it works, it would be of great help to you.

If you simply took the money you contributed to SS and your employers, put it in a simple untouchable savings account you would be shocked at how much you would have vs what you get in a monthly annuity and that money would belong to your family.
But since Social Security is not a savings account, nor is it even comparable to a savings account in any way, you have no point here.

The rest of your post is nothing but garbage.
My post was nothing but fact. The idea of facts being garbage amuses me.

The Federal Budget runs from October to September and to claim that Bush had a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit that he was leaving Obama is
The truth. It's the plain truth. You can attempt all the partisan games you want, but it won't change the fact it was Bush's planned spending combined with a drastic reduction from expected revenue which led to the $1.2 trillion. No matter how hard you want to believe otherwise, Obama inherited the $1.2 trillion deficit.

And anyone interested in truth, rather than partisanship, knows it.
 
Last edited:
Yes, simply because the left understands that the power to provide for the general welfare involves income transfers. Why not actually solve our social dilemmas instead of waging wars on them?

The Preamble doesn't say PROVIDE for the general welfare but rather PROMOTE the general welfare. Do you understand the difference? NO, you don't. It isn't the role to provide or to transfer income. Look if you want to pay more then just do it, why aren't you?
 
In this case, it is about both federal and State governments not faithfully executing our own laws.

Then change your state govt. Yours has been under Democrat control for decades and your debt is massive. You have the entitlement mentality in your state and see how it has worked for you? Over 1.5 million Californians make California minimum wage of $8 an hour. You cannot even solve your own problems yet you want to focus on national issues. Just like the Federal govt. you are putting your nose into something you have no business getting involved in.
 
Slyfox696;1063141848]I guess if you cannot dispute facts, resort to things like this.

Wow, again reading comprehension isn't a strong suit of yours

Which has absolutely nothing to do with how Social Security works. You can shout all you want, but it won't change the fact your describing what you believe to be the intention, NOT the structure. I was pointing out you don't understand the basic structure of how Social Security works. You seem to think Social Security is a retirement plan. It's not. It's not a supplement retirement plan nor is it a sole retirement plan. Nobody is owed any money because their spouse died.

Yes, SS is a supplement, you have no clue. You have no idea what you are talking about and obviously have no problem "contributing" your income to this retirement supplement with the idea that should you die that money is gone and being spent on someone else. Nor do you seem to care that LBJ put SS on budget and had the money spent on things like the Vietnam War and everything other than the original intent. Now you can continue to spout rhetoric but all you do is destroy what little credibility you think you have. That money that is being contributed is yours and mine. both of us deserve to get it back since we were forced to contribute to the fund. Since it isn't a supplement in your world, what exactly do you think it is?

This is why I'm telling you to research what Social Security is. For all your shouting, for all the years you claim to have paid into it, you still do not understand how it works. If you spent less time trying to avoid admitting your ignorance on how Social Security works, and more time learning about how it works, it would be of great help to you.

Then why don't you tell me what it is and how it works since you believe I am wrong?

But since Social Security is not a savings account, nor is it even comparable to a savings account in any way, you have no point here.

Never said it was a savings account. Please post proof of that statement or admit you are wrong?

My post was nothing but fact. The idea of facts being garbage amuses me.

The only fact in your statement is the fact that you made the post.

The truth. It's the plain truth. You can attempt all the partisan games you want, but it won't change the fact it was Bush's planned spending combined with a drastic reduction from expected revenue which led to the $1.2 trillion. No matter how hard you want to believe otherwise, Obama inherited the $1.2 trillion deficit.

You mean the shovels never go to the American people for those shovel ready jobs? Do you even know what made up that 1.2 trillion PROJECTED deficit? Try doing some research for a change and since you quoted CBO you will find the information there. 750 billion of it was the TARP program and that was a loan that wasn't even all spent and most of it was paid back, where did that payback go and why didn't it reduce the deficit?

And anyone interested in truth, rather than partisanship, knows it.

Yes, I can see how much support you are getting here.
 
Wow, again reading comprehension isn't a strong suit of yours
And again, you manage to quote everyone else with no problems...

Yes, SS is a supplement, you have no clue. You have no idea what you are talking about and obviously have no problem "contributing" your income to this retirement supplement with the idea that should you die that money is gone and being spent on someone else. Nor do you seem to care that LBJ put SS on budget and had the money spent on things like the Vietnam War and everything other than the original intent. Now you can continue to spout rhetoric but all you do is destroy what little credibility you think you have. That money that is being contributed is yours and mine. both of us deserve to get it back since we were forced to contribute to the fund. Since it isn't a supplement in your world, what exactly do you think it is?
You're talking but not saying anything. Is it really so devastating to one's ego to research when they don't know something?

Social Security is NOT a supplemental retirement plan, no matter what you wish to believe. Social Security is socialism, almost to its purest form.

Then why don't you tell me what it is and how it works since you believe I am wrong?
I know you're wrong. Why don't you do the research yourself? However, I'm feeling particularly generous on this fine Friday afternoon, so I'll go ahead and help you out. Keep in mind, this is not a nuanced explanation, but a basic one.

As I mentioned before, Social Security is socialism, almost to the hilt. It is quite literally the expression "from each according to his ability, to those according to his contribution/deed". It is little more than government mandated transference of money from a worker to a qualified non-worker, with the financial amounts dependent upon how much one earns/has earned. What one pays in payroll taxes is not stored for the individual, it is passed out immediately (for theoretical purposes, we'll say immediately) to those who receive Social Security. Let's use an example.

Let's say I pay $2 in payroll taxes and your SS benefits grant you $2. The $2 I paid does not go into some bank, it goes directly to you. It's not stored for me to retrieve when I retire, it directly goes to you. What I pay is not, in any way, a retirement plan. If Social Security ended tomorrow, I would (theoretically) be entitled to absolutely nothing, regardless of how much I've paid in.

Where people get confused (and I'm going to guess this is what trips you up as well) is when we start talking about the Social Security Trust Fund. People think they pay into the Trust Fund and then receive their money in return when they retire. That's not true. The Trust Fund is simply the collection of overpayments from taxes. Let's go back to our example.

If I pay $3 in payroll taxes, but you're only granted $2 in SS benefits, then you get $2 and the other $1 goes into the Trust Fund.

The Trust Fund keeps these overpayments so if/when the day comes where the amount garnered in taxes comes in less than the amount going out in benefits, the benefits can still be paid for a certain length of time. However, in order to prevent these funds from falling victim to inflation (after all $1 today buys more today than it will in 10 years), the government borrows money from the Trust Fund and basically writes an IOU for the amount borrowed + a certain % increase on the principal. This protects future payouts to future generations. This is also why people talking about the debt in this country are greatly exaggerating the severity of the debt, as so much of the debt is owed to ourselves and will not come due all at the same time, nor can it ever be completely paid off (at least not as long as Social Security is solvent).

So, now that we have a basic understanding of how Social Security works, let's go back and revisit your previous statements to show how I knew you didn't understand how Social Security works:


How dare the Federal Govt. spend the money people contributed to SS and Medicare on issues other than Medicare and SS.
They "dare" because if they didn't borrow from the Trust Fund, then the monies in the fund would become ravaged by inflation.
You said:
How dare people like you ignore the fact that the families of those people who die before collecting SS and Medicare lose their contributions.
They didn't "lose" anything because Social Security is neither a retirement plan nor a savings account. Social Security is simply the transfer of money from those who are working to those who can no longer work.
You said:
How dare personal responsibility be something you don't understand
Do you now understand why I laughed about you criticizing someone for not understanding so soon after showing an obvious misunderstanding of how Social Security worked?
You said:
People who contributed to SS and Medicare deserve to have their investment back.
People who contributed to Social Security were not making an investment. They were providing for those who can no longer work, with the belief when they can no longer work, someone will provide for them.
You said:
LOL, I contributed to SS for 35 years and you claim I don't know how it works?
Do you understand now why I claimed you didn't? You know, because you didn't?
You said:
SS was designed as a supplement
No, SS was designed to protect those who could no longer earn a living (such as the elderly). It was designed to allow capable individuals help those who could were not. That's what Social Security was designed to do. As I said, it's pretty much pure socialism.


Never said it was a savings account. Please post proof of that statement or admit you are wrong?
I never claimed you said it was a savings account, but you essentially compared it to a savings account, which makes as much sense as comparing an apple to a quarterback.

The only fact in your statement is the fact that you made the post.
Everything I've said has been true. Just because you didn't realize it was true doesn't make it any less so.

You mean the shovels never go to the American people for those shovel ready jobs?
Again, you're trying to ignore the issue in order to regurgitate useless information.

Do you even know what made up that 1.2 trillion PROJECTED deficit?
Irrelevant to our discussion, as our discussion is focused on the fact Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit and 5 years later, it's roughly half of that.

You're trying to distract from the issue with tons of useless information. It won't change the fact that the moment Obama stepped into office, this country was projected to have a $1.2 trillion deficit. And it won't change the fact that roughly 5 years later, it was cut in half.

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 can try to distract all you want, but it won't change the truth.
Yes, I can see how much support you are getting here.
This comment is pretty ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
And again, you manage to quote everyone else with no problems...

You're talking but not saying anything. Is it really so devastating to one's ego to research when they don't know something?

Social Security is NOT a supplemental retirement plan, no matter what you wish to believe. Social Security is socialism, almost to its purest form.

I know you're wrong. Why don't you do the research yourself? However, I'm feeling particularly generous on this fine Friday afternoon, so I'll go ahead and help you out. Keep in mind, this is not a nuanced explanation, but a basic one.

As I mentioned before, Social Security is socialism, almost to the hilt. It is quite literally the expression "from each according to his ability, to those according to his contribution/deed". It is little more than government mandated transference of money from a worker to a qualified non-worker, with the financial amounts dependent upon how much one earns/has earned. What one pays in payroll taxes is not stored for the individual, it is passed out immediately (for theoretical purposes, we'll say immediately) to those who receive Social Security. Let's use an example.

Let's say I pay $2 in payroll taxes and your SS benefits grant you $2. The $2 I paid does not go into some bank, it goes directly to you. It's not stored for me to retrieve when I retire, it directly goes to you. What I pay is not, in any way, a retirement plan. If Social Security ended tomorrow, I would (theoretically) be entitled to absolutely nothing, regardless of how much I've paid in.

Where people get confused (and I'm going to guess this is what trips you up as well) is when we start talking about the Social Security Trust Fund. People think they pay into the Trust Fund and then receive their money in return when they retire. That's not true. The Trust Fund is simply the collection of overpayments from taxes. Let's go back to our example.

If I pay $3 in payroll taxes, but you're only granted $2 in SS benefits, then you get $2 and the other $1 goes into the Trust Fund.

The Trust Fund keeps these overpayments so if/when the day comes where the amount garnered in taxes comes in less than the amount going out in benefits, the benefits can still be paid for a certain length of time. However, in order to prevent these funds from falling victim to inflation (after all $1 today buys more today than it will in 10 years), the government borrows money from the Trust Fund and basically writes an IOU for the amount borrowed + a certain % increase on the principal. This protects future payouts to future generations. This is also why people talking about the debt in this country are greatly exaggerating the severity of the debt, as so much of the debt is owed to ourselves and will not come due all at the same time, nor can it ever be completely paid off (at least not as long as Social Security is solvent).

So, now that we have a basic understanding of how Social Security works, let's go back and revisit your previous statements to show how I knew you didn't understand how Social Security works:


They "dare" because if they didn't borrow from the Trust Fund, then the monies in the fund would become ravaged by inflation.
They didn't "lose" anything because Social Security is neither a retirement plan nor a savings account. Social Security is simply the transfer of money from those who are working to those who can no longer work.
Do you now understand why I laughed about you criticizing someone for not understanding so soon after showing an obvious misunderstanding of how Social Security worked?
People who contributed to Social Security were not making an investment. They were providing for those who can no longer work, with the belief when they can no longer work, someone will provide for them.
Do you understand now why I claimed you didn't? You know, because you didn't?
No, SS was designed to protect those who could no longer earn a living (such as the elderly). It was designed to allow capable individuals help those who could were not. That's what Social Security was designed to do. As I said, it's pretty much pure socialism.


I never claimed you said it was a savings account, but you essentially compared it to a savings account, which makes as much sense as comparing an apple to a quarterback.

Everything I've said has been true. Just because you didn't realize it was true doesn't make it any less so.

Again, you're trying to ignore the issue in order to regurgitate useless information.

Irrelevant to our discussion, as our discussion is focused on the fact Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit and 5 years later, it's roughly half of that.

You're trying to distract from the issue with tons of useless information. It won't change the fact that the moment Obama stepped into office, this country was projected to have a $1.2 trillion deficit. And it won't change the fact that roughly 5 years later, it was cut in half.

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 can try to distract all you want, but it won't change the truth.
This comment is pretty ridiculous.

Sorry but you are totally and completely wrong and have no idea why SS was created and its sole purpose nor do you understand how much money you and your employer are putting into the account. SS was supposed to be put into a Trust fund but LBJ along with Congress changed that rule in the 60's as they looked for a way to pay for the Vietnam War. That worked so well that they decided to keep it there and other Administrations had fun spending the money as well. 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. What you are buying is the liberal interpretation of SS not the original intent.

The draft bill submitted by FDR differed in many interesting respects from the final Social Security Act which emerged from Congress in August 1935. For example, FDR had proposed a three-part program of old-age security consisting of: old-age welfare pensions; compulsory contributory social insurance (what we now think of as Social Security); and a third-tier which would consist of optional annuity certificates sold by the government to workers who, upon retirement, could convert the certificates to monthly annuities which would be used as supplements to their basic Social Security retirement benefit.


Amazing how liberal legislation gets changed and distorted over time.

As for the projected budget surplus please a simple yes or no, was TARP included in that projection?
 
The Preamble doesn't say PROVIDE for the general welfare but rather PROMOTE the general welfare. Do you understand the difference? NO, you don't. It isn't the role to provide or to transfer income. Look if you want to pay more then just do it, why aren't you?

Article 1, Section 8 says provide. Why wage wars on abstractions while claiming we only need to cut social spending for the least wealthy.
 
Article 1, Section 8 says provide. Why wage wars on abstractions while claiming we only need to cut social spending for the least wealthy.

Article 1, Section 8 was changed by politicians who realize they could buy votes by spending money in the name of compassion and keep their jobs almost forever because of the entitlement programs they have created. That doesn't wash with the Preamble and the word Promote. Our Founders are turning over in their grave because of people like you

You don't get it nor do you understand the role of the Federal, State, and local governments. Noticed you continue to ignore your own state and its problems which is typical liberal diversion when you don't have an answer for California's failures.
 
Article 1, Section 8 was changed by politicians who realize they could buy votes by spending money in the name of compassion and keep their jobs almost forever because of the entitlement programs they have created. That doesn't wash with the Preamble and the word Promote. Our Founders are turning over in their grave because of people like you

You don't get it nor do you understand the role of the Federal, State, and local governments. Noticed you continue to ignore your own state and its problems which is typical liberal diversion when you don't have an answer for California's failures.

Promote is in the preamble, in Case their is Any question about which way it should be interpreted. Only incompetent politicians do what you claim since they are supposed to be providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Our State was running massive State surpluses when the federal government was running massive federal surpluses.
 
Promote is in the preamble, in Case their is Any question about which way it should be interpreted. Only incompetent politicians do what you claim since they are supposed to be providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Our State was running massive State surpluses when the federal government was running massive federal surpluses.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom