• 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!

Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3

X Factor said:
Good grief. I can't believe you actually buy this. Don't know why I should be surprised. Obama's said it, therefore it must be true. :roll:



I lose because you're pointing out something irrelevant? I love it when liberals point to that prescription drug plan. If Dems had done it, you'd be lauding it as this great compassionate thing. If it weren't for double standards, you would have any standards at all. :roll:
Click to expand...

What's irrelevant. You righties bitch and moan about spending like it's a new thing. Bush was one of the biggest spenders in history. That fact is entirely relevant to this discussion. He went from a surplus to doubling the debt. Tax cuts for the rich didn't create any jobs and they only put us deeper in the hole. Be delusional all you want, but those of us who live in reality know that Bush's policies ****ed this country up.
 
X Factor said:
I get what you're doing. You're trying to get yourself thread-banned so you don't have to make up inane responses any more. LOL
Click to expand...

I get what you're doing. You don't have an answer for my valid points. Sit down. You're done.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Ok, you little ignorant hack, YOU'RE the one who said that he was responsible for those things, I have no burden whatsoever. You said he did them, I say prove it. You can't! You're just pissed that it took me all of 2 seconds to shoot down one of your "accomplishments." Sorry, Obummer is a 1 -termer!!

Put me on ignore, it would be doing me a favor as I would no longer have to answer to your ignorant, stupid and completely irrelevant posts.
Click to expand...

He is responsible. That list of accomplishments happened on his watch. Therefore, he's responsible. Don't act like you don't blame him for the bad stuff. It goes both ways. And the only thing from that list of 42 accomplishments you took issue with was the Cash for Clunkers program. That's all you could find. Actually, by your own admission you didn't even bother reading the list. All of those tax cuts, legislation to give women fair pay, the benefits of the health care law, and all you did was zero in on CFC.

Don't give yourself too much credit, my delusional little friend. You can't piss me off. Your posts are just asinine, irrelevant nonsense. I'll wait to put you on ignore. I'm still looking forward to reading and responding to your nonsensical BS.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
He is responsible. That list of accomplishments happened on his watch. Therefore, he's responsible. Don't act like you don't blame him for the bad stuff. It goes both ways. And the only thing from that list of 42 accomplishments you took issue with was the Cash for Clunkers program. That's all you could find. Actually, by your own admission you didn't even bother reading the list. All of those tax cuts, legislation to give women fair pay, the benefits of the health care law, and all you did was zero in on CFC.

Don't give yourself too much credit, my delusional little friend. You can't piss me off. Your posts are just asinine, irrelevant nonsense. I'll wait to put you on ignore. I'm still looking forward to reading and responding to your nonsensical BS.
Click to expand...


Re, Cash for Clunkers. Let me grab my book. :)

One glimmer of hope came on the demand side. The Cash for Clunkers program, aided by a catchy name, proved so instantly popular in August that $1 billiion in subsidies meant to last for ninety days were absorbed by auto buyers in only nine. Congress was forced to immediately authorize $2 billion more (which lasted less than a month). The main beneficiaries were suburban families trading in their second or third car.

At first the logistics were a fiasco, as dealers complained angrily that the department of Transportation was so disorganized that it couldn't answer calls, much less cut checks on time. But Ray LaHood's team responded quickly. By mid-September, after installing new software in record time and hiring nine thousand contractors almost overnight to process payments, Transportation officials straightened out the mess so well that they received rewards from grateful car dealers. On balance the program was a success, saving 120,000 jobs and providing the only economic boost of the summer.
Click to expand...

Quote from "The Promise" by Jonathan Alter.
 
:shock: :lamo

wow. someone outside the administration actually claims cash for clunkers was a success. :lol:

Cash for Clunkers didn't save a single American job. All it did was shift when people bought new cars - and furthermore, it made used vehicles more expensive for the ranks of the un and under employed who now need cheaper vehicles. Auto sales slumped way below historic averages after the program. Furthermore, 8 of the top 10 selling vehicles were made by Japanese and South Korean companies (Toyota got the most C4C dollars of anyone).



you simply can't INCREASE wealth by destroying it. Else we could all become rich by burning down our houses.
 
cpwill said:
:shock: :lamo

wow. someone outside the administration actually claims cash for clunkers was a success. :lol:

Cash for Clunkers didn't save a single American job. All it did was shift when people bought new cars - and furthermore, it made used vehicles more expensive for the ranks of the un and under employed who now need cheaper vehicles. Auto sales slumped way below historic averages after the program. Furthermore, 8 of the top 10 selling vehicles were made by Japanese and South Korean companies (Toyota got the most C4C dollars of anyone).



you simply can't INCREASE wealth by destroying it. Else we could all become rich by burning down our houses.
Click to expand...

I prefer used cars, and will be buying one tomorrow. Who says they are more expensive? Where?
 
Boo Radley said:
I prefer used cars, and will be buying one tomorrow. Who says they are more expensive? Where?
Click to expand...

Everywhere. Because of the price of scrap you can't buy a real cheap car today because you can get 5-600 out of it for scrap. Of course you can still find a good deal if you look and the fact that many are holding onto cars because they can't afford another helps, but we took many a good used car off the road and that's going to affect used car prices.
 
1Perry said:
Everywhere. Because of the price of scrap you can't buy a real cheap car today because you can get 5-600 out of it for scrap. Of course you can still find a good deal if you look and the fact that many are holding onto cars because they can't afford another helps, but we took many a good used car off the road and that's going to affect used car prices.
Click to expand...

In 2000, I bought a junker for $1000. Got three years out of the car. I'm looking at one tommorow, equivilent, for $800 (I bet he'll take $500). Doesn't seem that much different to me. Still, the problem you allude to is the price of scrap, and not as CP suggested that Obama made them more expensive. Am I wrong?
 
Boo Radley said:
In 2000, I bought a junker for $1000. Got three years out of the car. I'm looking at one tommorow, equivilent, for $800 (I bet he'll take $500). Doesn't seem that much different to me. Still, the problem you allude to is the price of scrap, and not as CP suggested that Obama made them more expensive. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

It's all related. Obama's policies have caused commodities to sky rocket.
 
Boo Radley said:
In 2000, I bought a junker for $1000. Got three years out of the car. I'm looking at one tommorow, equivilent, for $800 (I bet he'll take $500). Doesn't seem that much different to me. Still, the problem you allude to is the price of scrap, and not as CP suggested that Obama made them more expensive. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

When I was home, we had two Toyotas that we drove into the ground over the course of six years that cost $500 each. Good times.
 
BDBoop said:
When I was home, we had two Toyotas that we drove into the ground over the course of six years that cost $500 each. Good times.
Click to expand...

Let's be fair, if you didn't have to dump a couple grand in each of those to keep them going, you were lucky. Further, you probably got terrible gas mileage, perhaps had messed up emissions and most certainly there were safety issues (tires, brakes, structural damage, cracked windows, etc). Pretending that cheap cars are, well, cheap is naive. You're playing the car lottery and got lucky, that's no excuse to claim a stable market as such exists. Buying a car for such a price is usually a blunder, and examined over the long term, very rarely a good deal. It's more fair to use the circumstance quoted above to demonstrate how the poor are stuck in a vicious cycle of over-expediture with low-quality products.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Let's be fair, if you didn't have to dump a couple grand in each of those to keep them going, you were lucky. Further, you probably got terrible gas mileage and had perhaps messed up emissions. Pretending that cheap cars are, well, cheap is naive. You're playing the car lottery and got lucky, that's no excuse to claim a stable market as such exists. Buying a car for such a price is usually a blunder, and examined of the long term, very rarely a good deal.
Click to expand...

We didn't, and it wasn't luck. They build cars that good back in the day. Plus, the mister was a backyard mechanic. And yeah, we did have to pass emissions tests.
 
Boo Radley said:
I prefer used cars, and will be buying one tomorrow. Who says they are more expensive? Where?
Click to expand...

the price of used cars went up due to the drop in supply and the competing buyer. though I am of a like mind as you when it comes to the superiority of purchasing used vehicles.
 
Boo Radley said:
In 2000, I bought a junker for $1000. Got three years out of the car. I'm looking at one tommorow, equivilent, for $800 (I bet he'll take $500). Doesn't seem that much different to me. Still, the problem you allude to is the price of scrap, and not as CP suggested that Obama made them more expensive. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

The clunker program could cause prices to rise 5% to 10% more, especially for vehicles worth $4,500 or less, says Alec Gutierrez, senior market analyst for Kelley Blue Book. "It's going to drive prices up of some of the most affordable vehicles we have on the road."...

The much ballyhooed Cash for Clunkers program has had the unintended consequences of driving up the cost of new and used vehicles and used auto parts, according to independent studies of the auto markets.

"Cash for Clunkers" Provides Windfall for Some, High Prices for All, According to Edmunds.com

etc. and so on and so forth. The Obama Administration never really seems to have gotten the hang of the fact that static scoring has low fidelity to a dynamic economy.
 
American said:
republicans-want-the-poor-and-seniors-to-eat-dog-food-and-di-political-poster-1291324009.jpg
Click to expand...



Actually it is the democrata who are currently giving the oK tomfeedimg achool kids dog food via the school lunch program.

Pink Slime and Ammonia: Two Main Ingredients in Some Ground Beef - Planet Green
 
Personally, I'm more comfortable with them consuming byproducts.
 
cpwill said:
The clunker program could cause prices to rise 5% to 10% more, especially for vehicles worth $4,500 or less, says Alec Gutierrez, senior market analyst for Kelley Blue Book. "It's going to drive prices up of some of the most affordable vehicles we have on the road."...

The much ballyhooed Cash for Clunkers program has had the unintended consequences of driving up the cost of new and used vehicles and used auto parts, according to independent studies of the auto markets.

"Cash for Clunkers" Provides Windfall for Some, High Prices for All, According to Edmunds.com

etc. and so on and so forth. The Obama Administration never really seems to have gotten the hang of the fact that static scoring has low fidelity to a dynamic economy.
Click to expand...

I can only get two of the three up, but they were 2009. Any chance this was just temporary? Like I said, I see no evidence at the lot.
 
An newer article. Notice the resons cited for prices today:


The Kelley Blue Book web site reports that prices for fuel-efficient compacts and subcompacts dropped 1% to 2% in June — about in line with the overall used-car market. But analysts project that overall prices — which have been up sharply this year — will go down only about 3 to 5% more by year’s end, while small, high-MPG models will drop an average 15%.

Why the turnaround? Used-car prices rose this spring in reaction to both near-record gas prices and supply shortages resulting from the Japanese earthquake and tsunami. Those shortages hit high-MPG cars produced in Japan in particular; as a result, prices on fuel-efficient used cars jumped. Now, however, Toyota, Nissan and other Japanese automakers say they expect to resume full production by September — hence the falling price forecast as supply eases.



Read more: Used-Car Prices Set to Plunge for High-MPG Cars - CBS MoneyWatch.com

The cause for the dip in costs is likely due to the fact that gas prices are starting to come back down after reaching especially high levels. If gas prices continue to drop or stay where they are Kelly Blue Book believes used car prices will fall by around 5 percent by the end of the summer. With that in mind, industry insiders suggest waiting a few months to make purchases.

Used car prices on the way down | Auto Industry News News from New Jersey State Auto
 
cpwill said:
:shock: :lamo

wow. someone outside the administration actually claims cash for clunkers was a success. :lol:

Cash for Clunkers didn't save a single American job. All it did was shift when people bought new cars - and furthermore, it made used vehicles more expensive for the ranks of the un and under employed who now need cheaper vehicles. Auto sales slumped way below historic averages after the program. Furthermore, 8 of the top 10 selling vehicles were made by Japanese and South Korean companies
Click to expand...
Not to mention that it added to the deficit. Given that most people who took advantage of the program were going to buy new cars anyway... one estimate found that the true stimulative effect (getting ppl to spend money they otherwise would not) worked out to about $24,000 per car.
 
Mainstream Media Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3
Click to expand...
Seems Obama was correct ...

Default could 'sink the whole boat'

The first major hurdle comes on Aug. 3, when the U.S. government is scheduled to pay $23 billion in benefits to Social Security recipients. Only $12 billion in revenue is expected that day, leaving the Treasury $11 billion short — and $20 billion in the red when other scheduled payments for that day are taken into account.

Obama said in an interview with CBS News last week that he couldn’t guarantee Social Security payments will go out, a statement that could send retirees and disability recipients into a panic.

“I’d say it’s at risk,” said Jay Powell, a former senior Treasury Department official now with the Bipartisan Policy Center. “The president’s statement is correct on its face. He said he can’t guarantee those payments will be made. Even if you pay nothing other than interest, you can’t guarantee it.”​
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Seems Obama was correct ...

Default could 'sink the whole boat'

The first major hurdle comes on Aug. 3, when the U.S. government is scheduled to pay $23 billion in benefits to Social Security recipients. Only $12 billion in revenue is expected that day, leaving the Treasury $11 billion short — and $20 billion in the red when other scheduled payments for that day are taken into account.

Obama said in an interview with CBS News last week that he couldn’t guarantee Social Security payments will go out, a statement that could send retirees and disability recipients into a panic.

“I’d say it’s at risk,” said Jay Powell, a former senior Treasury Department official now with the Bipartisan Policy Center. “The president’s statement is correct on its face. He said he can’t guarantee those payments will be made. Even if you pay nothing other than interest, you can’t guarantee it.”​
Click to expand...

Somebody, please email the above info to Michele Bachmann.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
What's irrelevant. You righties bitch and moan about spending like it's a new thing. Bush was one of the biggest spenders in history. That fact is entirely relevant to this discussion. He went from a surplus to doubling the debt. Tax cuts for the rich didn't create any jobs and they only put us deeper in the hole. Be delusional all you want, but those of us who live in reality know that Bush's policies ****ed this country up.
Click to expand...

You just haven't been keeping up.

Certainly the spending of George Bush was criticized which is why his numbers during his last couple of years in office went into the tank. You genuinely don't know this?

Now, to make matters worse for the American people, they have a president who not only lies to them, but continues to outspend his predecessor. That's why the American people find themselves in this bleak situation today. Ignoring history, or trying to change the facts around to suit your political biases, only guarantees this tailspin will continue and will not help the present problems the country faces.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Seems Obama was correct ...

Default could 'sink the whole boat'

The first major hurdle comes on Aug. 3, when the U.S. government is scheduled to pay $23 billion in benefits to Social Security recipients. Only $12 billion in revenue is expected that day, leaving the Treasury $11 billion short — and $20 billion in the red when other scheduled payments for that day are taken into account.

Obama said in an interview with CBS News last week that he couldn’t guarantee Social Security payments will go out, a statement that could send retirees and disability recipients into a panic.

“I’d say it’s at risk,” said Jay Powell, a former senior Treasury Department official now with the Bipartisan Policy Center. “The president’s statement is correct on its face. He said he can’t guarantee those payments will be made. Even if you pay nothing other than interest, you can’t guarantee it.”​
Click to expand...

And yet again....we are told over and over that S.S. is a seperate entity fully funded. A fully funded program should have no problem paying out. Or maybe they are not being truthful somewhere?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom