• 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!

House passes huge GOP budget cuts

sure, that's why the slasher surrendered during lame duck

Obama Calls Tax Cuts the 'Right Thing to Do'

with his fickle friend at his side

At Obama's side, Clinton backs tax deal - Politics - White House - msnbc.com

You're going a bit before this last election.

Governor Scott Walker, Other Lawmakerrs Face Recall Efforts in Wisconsin Amid Labor Standoff - ABC News

Here was a guy who won WI by a landslide and in just 4 months after the election, he and some of his party members are up for recall.

Pensito Review » Voter Remorse, Cont’d: Poll Finds 28 Point Shift Away from GOP among Swing Voters Since November

Florida

Buyers’ Remorse For Michigan and Ohio Voters » Greenline: The AFSCME Blog

Michigan and Ohio

Manhattan Viewpoint: Bloomberg Voters' Remorse

New York City


Even Christie is falling from Grace with the voters

Chris Christie Faces Slim Support For Hypothetical Presidential Run Back Home: Poll

More and more people are finding it sickening that the republican party gives welfare checks to the rich and does so by cutting back on educating our youth to compete in a global market, taking health care away from poor women, the disabled and seniors, and stop health care to all people.

Most Americans must have recently found Christ, as they turned their backs on the republican made born again evangelicals who worship the rich.
 
Anyone who believes Obama will hurt the rich

the too bigs are the only folks who've benefited under 2 years of the slash

as for ongoing, slash aint gonna hurt no one, he aint gonna DO squat

except run for reelection

if he were gonna DO something he'd have submitted a 2011 budget, the senate would have moved (up, down or sideways) on hr1 which it's been sitting on for months, his 2012 budget wouldn't brazenly RAISE deficit spending an obscene 20%

he wouldn't have signed the bush/obama/clinton/boehner/mcconnell tax cuts for the rich into law JUST TWO MONTHS AGO

slash is a sham, all he does is make speeches

he don't and won't have A PLAN

ask harry

leadership, anyone?
 

Ah, I see why you come up with the stuff you do. It's your sources

Stephen Ohlemacher | NewsBusters.org

Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

Read more: About NewsBusters.org | NewsBusters.org

Media Research Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

he Media Research Center (MRC) is a conservative content analysis organization based in Alexandria, Virginia, founded in 1987 by conservative activist L. Brent Bozell III. Its stated mission is "to bring balance to the news media",[1] and the MRC catalogs and reports on media bias in the United States press. The organization believes that "liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values", so part of its purpose is to actively "neutralize its impact [of liberal bias] on the American political scene."[1] MRC is widely called "conservative".[2]

The MRC has received financial support from several foundations, including the Bradley, Scaife, Olin, Castle Rock, Carthage and JM foundations.[3] It also receives funding from ExxonMobil.[4]

Paid BY the rich to LIE for the rich.

How about a true news source? Without an agenda?

Trustees Report Summary

Social Security expenditures are expected to exceed tax receipts this year for the first time since 1983. The projected deficit of $41 billion this year (excluding interest income) is attributable to the recession and to an expected $25 billion downward adjustment to 2010 income that corrects for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink substantially for 2011 and to return to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving economy. After 2014 deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the baby boom generation’s retirement causes the number of beneficiaries to grow substantially more rapidly than the number of covered workers. The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084. The projected exhaustion date for the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds is unchanged from last year’s report.

Lack of jobs hurts this funds, but taking money from it is theft by the government.

Just Facts.com --> The Impact of Social Security on the National Debt

he Impact of Social Security on the National Debt >



By James D. Agresti

September 1, 2001



As of December 2000, more than a trillion dollars of the U.S. national debt is owed to the Social Security program.[1][2] This amounts to $3,600 for every man, woman, and child living in the United States.[3] By 2015, this figure is projected to reach $9,000 per person, burdening young people with a debt that they had no part in creating.[4][5] To make matters worse, some politicians are pushing a proposal to "save Social Security" that would increase this figure dramatically.



This essay will explain and substantiate the following points:

1.

Citizens are being misled about the national debt.
2.

Despite what you've been told, the budget has not been balanced for the past 3 years.
3.

Every dollar in the Social Security Trust Fund is matched by a corresponding dollar of national debt.
4.

What is referred to as "raiding the Social Security Trust Fund" has no effect on the Social Security Trust Fund. Its real effect is to raise the national debt.
5.

What is referred to as "putting Social Security into a lockbox" has no effect on Social Security.
6.

Some politicians are promoting a plan to "save Social Security" that could add 9 trillion dollars to the national debt.
7.

Privatization would block politicians from using Social Security as a smokescreen to run up debt behind the backs of citizens.

Citizens are being misled about the national debt



More often than not, when a politician or reporter uses the term "national debt," they are not really referring to national debt. They are only referring to a portion of it. The United States government divides the national debt into two categories:

1.

Money that it owes to federal entities such as the Social Security program.
2.

Money that it owes to non-federal entities such as individuals who have purchased U.S. Savings Bonds.[6]

As of December 31, 2000, the national debt looks like this:



Debt owed to federal entities


2.7 trillion

Debt owed to non-federal entities


3.0 trillion

National debt (total)


5.7 trillion

[7]



The debt owed to federal entities accounts for more than 45% of the national debt, yet it is often dismissed or ignored. The excuses that people use to justify disregarding this portion of the national debt generally run along the lines of, "This is just money that the federal government owes to itself. It's only a bookkeeping device. It's as if you owed money to yourself." This line of reasoning ignores the fact that U.S. taxpayers have to pay for this debt. The federal law that governs the payment of the national debt draws no distinction between money owed to federal versus non-federal entities. Both must be paid with interest.[8]



A prime example of downplaying the debt owed to federal entities appears in a 207 page economic plan published by the Bush administration. Not until page 201 is there any mention of the full national debt. This plan states that Bush will retire "$2 trillion in debt over the next ten years."[9] The problem is that this figure only applies to the debt owed to non-federal entities.[10] What about the rest of the debt? Buried in a table on page 201, we find that the debt owed to federal entities increases by 3.8 trillion dollars, and the overall national debt increases by 1.5 trillion dollars.[11]



Worse than this, some people completely ignore the debt owed to federal entities, but have no problem with including it in the assets of the federal programs to which the money is owed. During the 2000 presidential race, the Gore-Liebermann campaign released a 192 page economic plan that contained over 150 uses of the word "debt." This plan does not mention or even acknowledge any of the debt owed to federal entities.[12] Yet, the plan states that the Social Security program will remain solvent until 2037.[13] Contrast this assertion with the fact that in 2015, the Social Security program is projected to start spending more money that it collects in taxes.[14] This is a 22 year discrepancy. How does Social Security stay solvent for 22 years while spending exceeds tax revenue? It collects on the money that it has loaned to the federal government; i.e. the debt owed to federal entities. If Gore and Liebermann want to dismiss the debt that the federal government owes to Social Security, to be consistent, they would also have to state that the program would become insolvent in 2015. But they don't do this. They pretend as if the federal government doesn't have to repay the money that it has borrowed from Social Security while simultaneously including this money in the assets of the Social Security program.

It makes for much better discussions when you read articles that report facts. Fiction should not be included in hard core discussions unless you indicate you are using a fictional source.
 
the too bigs are the only folks who've benefited under 2 years of the slash

as for ongoing, slash aint gonna hurt no one, he aint gonna DO squat

except run for reelection

if he were gonna DO something he'd have submitted a 2011 budget, the senate would have moved (up, down or sideways) on hr1 which it's been sitting on for months, his 2012 budget wouldn't brazenly RAISE deficit spending an obscene 20%

he wouldn't have signed the bush/obama/clinton/boehner/mcconnell tax cuts for the rich into law JUST TWO MONTHS AGO

slash is a sham, all he does is make speeches

he don't and won't have A PLAN

ask harry

leadership, anyone?

News to you. The HOUSE submits a budget. It's their part of the government to do so.

The democrats submitted a government which the party of NO, aka republican party, filibustered.

So, they got their tax cuts for the rich and now they have failed to get a budget in order. They really are pretty bad at economics. You don't have to be a professor to see that republcians are just playing on the one note they've been paid to play...more for the rich, less for the rest.
 
More and more people are finding it sickening that the republican party gives welfare checks to the rich and does so by cutting back on educating our youth to compete in a global market, taking health care away from poor women, the disabled and seniors, and stop health care to all people.

great, tell hurry-up-harry to write it up and pass it---fast

america can't afford to wait

you're gonna need patience, tho, more than most mature americans can manage in times like these

tick tock...
 
erskine bowles?

LOL!

and his 9 fellow dems and 2 republicans PICKED BY THE WHITE HOUSE?

Bowles, Simpson to Head Debt Commission - WSJ.com



No, Simpson and Bowles are right leaning people..bowles on Clinton's staff and all you republicans know Clinton signed the NAFTA treaty Bush made with Mexico and canada.

Five Members of Debt Panel Oppose Bowles-Simpson Plan, Enough to Reject It - Bloomberg

Baucus is a Blue dog...he's voted with republcains in the senate on almost every issue and this debt commission is no different.

I don't see where you come up with the 9 members. There were 18 on the debt commission, with 14 having to approve it.
 
great, tell hurry-up-harry to write it up and pass it---fast

america can't afford to wait

you're gonna need patience, tho, more than most mature americans can manage in times like these

tick tock...

That jibberish generally means you either read the links showing voters' remorse and don't want others to know the credibilty from which I spoke, or you can't read and dont' want anyone to know it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll for with the former.
 
Yeah say they rich are starving to death, poor babies

strawman-motivational1.jpg
 
It's your sources

tell it to ap

How about a true news source? Without an agenda?

LOL!

the trustees have no agenda?

It makes for much better discussions when you read articles that report facts.

says a person who can't read an asa study, doesn't know who's on the debt commission and isn't aware of the last election

where's THE PLAN, harry?

hurry, interest on the debt alone is racing towards a full T per year

source---nyt

News Headlines
 
tell it to ap



LOL!

the trustees have no agenda?



says a person who can't read an asa study, doesn't know who's on the debt commission and isn't aware of the last election

where's THE PLAN, harry?

hurry, interest on the debt alone is racing towards a full T per year

source---nyt

News Headlines

There was no ap involved from your blogger who is paid by EXXonMobil to write lies on News Busters and have been paid well enough to have a big and shiney blog.
 
Oh cool, so I should just quintuple what I'm paying now, not see any increases in benefits - that's cool right? Especially when I'm already not going to see most of what I put in?

I see no reason why I should be paying for 5-6 other peoples' retirements.

Because this is NOT about you as an individual. It is about a societal program for America and Americans. 93% of American workers pay FICA tax on 100% of their earnings. All workers should.
 
tell it to ap



LOL!

the trustees have no agenda?



says a person who can't read an asa study, doesn't know who's on the debt commission and isn't aware of the last election

where's THE PLAN, harry?

hurry, interest on the debt alone is racing towards a full T per year

source---nyt

News Headlines

President Bush And The National Debt - CBS News

Six and a half years later, the Bureau of Public Debt tells us the National Debt clocks in at a staggering:

$8,835,268,597,181.95

That's $8.8 trillion – an increase of $3.1 trillion dollars since January 20, 2001. And that amounts to a jump of 54% during Mr. Bush's watch.

If you wanted to pay it off, dividing it equally among the U.S. population (estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau to be 302,103,675), it would come to $29,245.82 for every man, woman and child.

Sot it's not really hard to understand why Mr. Bush almost never mentions it.

The National Debt has gone up more on his watch than under any other president.

That means it took the Federal Government 225 years to accrue $5.5 trillion in debt under 42 U.S. presidents. But under President Bush alone, it has soared another 35.2%.

And the National Debt is not just a big number, it's an expensive one.

This year alone, it costs taxpayers $247.3 billion in interest payments.
 
It was indeed. Which makes voters's remorse all that much more serious for republicans in 2012.

wait, let me get this stright. the fact that a huge massive push by organized labor in one of their biggest home states costing them millions against an obscure Judge who didn't even act like he was in a race until the very end was still unable to get the support they would have needed from the American people......

....is good for the unions....


Remember the Big Labor resurgence? Neither do we, but we ventured back 29 days into our archives, and there was the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne declaring on NPR that Gov. Scott Walker's success in passing legislation curtailing the power of unions was a victory for those labor monopolies: "What [Walker and the GOP] have done is they have mobilized Democrats and the labor movement--Democrats in a way President Obama wasn't able to in 2010, and the labor movement, as it's never been mobilized before."

"Voters have sided with . . . the unions," Dionne had written five days earlier. Last week this assertion was put to a test at the ballot box, and it proved true. Voters did side with the unions. Not a majority of voters, mind you, but a big enough minority to almost oust a sitting justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in favor of Big Labor's candidate. OK, they lost, but it isn't as if voting out a sitting Supreme Court justice is easy in Wisconsin. Had it happened, it would have been for the first time in almost 1,100 days...

So far from being mobilized "as it's never been mobilized before," Big Labor is "deeply troubled"--and also, according to Politico, "raw," "bitter" and "disappointed." Why?

Perhaps their political power is fading because increasingly their adversaries are not Big Business but taxpayers. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, a majority of labor union members work for the government... Supporters of labor monopolies have attempted to elide the distinction between government and private-sector employees, in the hope of inspiring the latter's "solidarity" with the former. But the decades-long decline of private-sector unions means that only a tiny minority of nongovernment workers are part of Big Labor. The labor monopolies may feel they "must still try to maintain a relationship with the Democratic Party," but the Democratic Party also has to maintain a relationship with those of us who pay the bills.
 
You're going a bit before this last election.

Governor Scott Walker, Other Lawmakerrs Face Recall Efforts in Wisconsin Amid Labor Standoff - ABC News

Here was a guy who won WI by a landslide and in just 4 months after the election, he and some of his party members are up for recall.

Pensito Review » Voter Remorse, Cont’d: Poll Finds 28 Point Shift Away from GOP among Swing Voters Since November

Florida

Buyers’ Remorse For Michigan and Ohio Voters » Greenline: The AFSCME Blog

Michigan and Ohio

Manhattan Viewpoint: Bloomberg Voters' Remorse

New York City


Even Christie is falling from Grace with the voters

Chris Christie Faces Slim Support For Hypothetical Presidential Run Back Home: Poll

More and more people are finding it sickening that the republican party gives welfare checks to the rich and does so by cutting back on educating our youth to compete in a global market, taking health care away from poor women, the disabled and seniors, and stop health care to all people.

Most Americans must have recently found Christ, as they turned their backs on the republican made born again evangelicals who worship the rich.

Here in Michigan Gov. Snyder's rating have plummeted as soon as he announced his budget shifting the tax burden from businesses to seniors and pensioners. If the election were held today, one survey indicates that the Dem he beat by nearly 20 points just last November would bet him. It took the previous governor seven years to hit such low ratings.
 
ah, so breaking trillion dollar promises made over generations is fine tuning?

well, then, fine tune away
/QUOTE]

No - just the opposite. The point is to KEEP the promises made to generations.
 
Because this is NOT about you as an individual. It is about a societal program for America and Americans. 93% of American workers pay FICA tax on 100% of their earnings. All workers should.

if you want the rich to pay more money to the ponzi scheme you have to agree they will get even more back

tell me again why people should be forced to contribute to the ponzi scheme
 
No, Simpson and Bowles are right leaning people

you don't know what you're talking about


as chair of senate finance, baucus was more responsible for the exact shape of obamacare than any man or woman in the nation

he was the gatekeeper

conrad, at budget, was his partner

conrad killed the public option, he is the top national advocate for what he calls rural care

conrad announced in january he's QUITTING (i wonder why)

you don't know what you're talking about

I don't see where you come up with the 9 members.

i'm not surprised

actually, it's ten, bowles plus 9

with 2 of the gop'ers picked by the white house

unless you wanna argue with wsj

about the membership of the debt commission
 

Entire Senate Republican Caucus Commits To Filibustering Anything Prior To Budget, Tax Cuts

The Hill is the baby of Dick Morris and opinions never substitute for facts.

Dick Morris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More recently, Morris has emerged as a harsh critic of the Clintons and has written several books that criticize them, including Rewriting History, a rebuttal to Senator Hillary Clinton's Living History. Morris said that he would leave the United States if Hillary Clinton were elected president in 2008.[5]

Morris was the strategist for Republican Christy Mihos' failed campaign in the 2010 Massachusetts gubernatorial race.[6]

While promoting his new book on a radio show hosted by Peter Schiff, Dick Morris stated that the War on Drugs was not being won because "we're not fighting it", and advocated drug testing every high school student in America.[7]

. . .

Since leaving the Clintons' employ in 1996, Morris has said he has become profoundly "disillusioned" with the actions of the Clintons in the late 1990s. He has now formed a career as a political commentator and critic of the Clintons (particularly towards Hillary), appearing on Fox News programs such as Hannity & Colmes, Hannity, and the O'Reilly Factor, and on various local and nationally syndicated radio talk shows. Morris is also a regular columnist and Pundits Blogger for The Hill, a nonpartisan daily newspaper based in Washington, D.C., and for NewsMax.com, a conservative online news website.[19][20][21]
 
if you want the rich to pay more money to the ponzi scheme you have to agree they will get even more back

tell me again why people should be forced to contribute to the ponzi scheme

No I don't.

It is not about individuals and their own personal gain. It is about all American workers being protected in their golden years. That is a nationwide societal benefit that makes America a great nation.
 
Back
Top Bottom