• 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!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
pbrauer said:
With Bain Capital, Mitt Romney was a job killer AND Perry stupidly told the nation that SS is a Ponzi scheme. Do you remember when in 2005 Bush decided to spend his political capital on privatizing SS? It didn't go so well for him.
Click to expand...

SS has the same results of a Ponzi scheme and it was right of Perry to claim it is time to tell it like it is. Your money contributed was paid to someone else and someone else's money is paid to you. What do you call that?
 
Conservative said:
What violation of your civil liberties would you have supported based upon the intelligence we had at the time coming off that close election of 2000? Not sure they had the intelligence information of guys training to fly but not land jets until after 9/11. Didn't know that was against the law in order to get a wire tapping order?
Click to expand...
As you've been shown, Clinton responded to a similar PDB by having airport security raised at some airports in the northeast until the perceived threat passed ... who complained their civil liberties were being infringed?
 
What if...? said:
Yes, they did have that intel prior to 9/11, and a mechanism was already in place to allow a court order to be obtained for a wiretap after the fact in special circumstances. This was one of the primary reasons folks squawked about warrantless wiretaps in the Patriot Act. It was unnecessary, as the court in charge of issuing after the fact warrants never denied a single one.
Click to expand...

then cite the legislation in place that would have authorized a wire tap for someone learning how to fly and plane and not learning how to land?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
As you've been shown, Clinton responded to a similar PDB by having airport security raised at some airports in the northeast until the perceived threat passed ... who complained their civil liberties were being infringed?
Click to expand...

Right, he did it for 30-60 days through the end of January 1999. Stop with the lies and diversions, you are embarrassing yourself with your BDS
 
1Perry said:
My arguement is that they are doing too much and it's doing more harm than good.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, that is what Obama thinks the role of govt. is and he has done too much harm.
 
What if...? said:
Wellll, they had intel of a couple guys training to fly but not land jets. I bet following them around, tapping their phones, bugging their homes would have gone a long way without telling the American people anything.

And did anybody ever find out whether the civil air defense drill on 9/11 was scheduled before or after the hijackers bought their tickets? I've always wondered about that one, and the story about this aspect has morphed in every documentary I've seen.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see this intel say a couple of guys training to fly but not land jets. I'm sure when you make such a statement you do have links right?

I also seem to remember something called the Patriot Act, that was passed "after" 9/11 that had liberals likes yourself running around screaming bloody murder about, can't help but to wonder what you would have said about that act being passed as a Preventative measure.
 
pbrauer said:
With Bain Capital, Mitt Romney was a job killer AND Perry stupidly told the nation that SS is a Ponzi scheme. Do you remember when in 2005 Bush decided to spend his political capital on privatizing SS? It didn't go so well for him.
Click to expand...

What would you call SS if not a Ponzi scheme?
 
The Barbarian said:
What would you call SS if not a Ponzi scheme?
Click to expand...

I don't think Pb has a clue about SS and he claims he is retired. All he cares about is getting a check and doesn't care who he gets it from nor does he care where his contribution went or who it pays.
 
Conservative said:
Right, he did it for 30-60 days through the end of January 1999. Stop with the lies and diversions, you are embarrassing yourself with your BDS
Click to expand...
There is no lie. I said he had airport security raised until the perceived theat had passed. You ask what Bush could have done ... he could have done that.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
There is no lie. I said he had airport security raised until the perceived theat had passed. You ask what Bush could have done ... he could have done that.
Click to expand...

What did the 9/11 Commission say about that recommendation and both Clinton and Bush's actions?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Perhaps it's just your reading comprehension that is the problem? The PDB didn't say the FBI couldn't corroborate a potential hijacking, it read they couldn't corroborate a potential hijacking for the purpose of using a hijacking to gain the release of other Muslim extremists, incarcerated by the U.S. as was thought back in 1998.

This is painfully obvious as the very next words read:


Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings ...

​
Click to expand...

yep and right after that it says “The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full flied investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in may saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.”

But I guess that really couldn't have been going on .. .because according to you . . why Bush just turned his back on terrorism right ? Now remember we have 35 days from that report to 9/11 and no I repeat .. NO specific intel on anything
 
Last edited:
The Barbarian said:
I also seem to remember something called the Patriot Act, that was passed "after" 9/11 that had liberals likes yourself running around screaming bloody murder about, can't help but to wonder what you would have said about that act being passed as a Preventative measure.
Click to expand...
So your position is it was better for Bush to do nothing and hope we would not be attacked rather than take some proactive action because Liberals would scream bloody murder?

Clinton was pushing for more domestic counter-terrorism measures in the face Republicans screaming bloody murder, do you think he should have shied away from doing so because he feared the opposition party?
 
And remember that we had eight full months leading up to 9/11 during which time the President ignored his terrorism czar's repeated, urgent requests for a cabinet level meeting focused on the threat posed by al Qaeda. Never forget that.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
So your position is it was better for Bush to do nothing and hope we would not be attacked rather than take some proactive action because Liberals would scream bloody murder?

Clinton was pushing for more domestic counter-terrorism measures in the face Republicans screaming bloody murder, do you think he should have shied away from doing so because he feared the opposition party?
Click to expand...

Why are you even reliving this? Get over your BDS, this is embarrassing. Nothing you say or anything we counter is going to change what happened 10 years ago, but we can do a lot about what is going on right now. "Your" President is a disaster NOW and the results show it, results that will be on the ballot in 2012. Listening to "your" President tonight? Analyze it for us and tell us what is different from Stimulus One that failed to do anything but increase the debt
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
That's a strawman. What's fraudulent about it?
Click to expand...

Aw, that is your problem, the legality of it knowing that ponzi schemes are illegal? SS is a legal ponzi scheme where your money is paying for someone else and when you retire someone else will pay for yours. How isn't that a Ponzi scheme?
 
Conservative said:
I don't think Pb has a clue about SS and he claims he is retired. All he cares about is getting a check and doesn't care who he gets it from nor does he care where his contribution went or who it pays.
Click to expand...

You are either ignorant of the facts or an abject liar

Office of Payroll Administration

Office of Payroll Administration

Most employees and employers each pay up to 7.65% of PAYROLLcovered wages for social security and Medicare taxes. Together these taxes comprise FICA ...
Click to expand...

Take out your calculator and add 7.65% plus 7.65% and what do you get 15.30%? Thats what every working american pays and has paid to secure a retirement pension. I won't have you or anyone else steal 15.30% of my pay for the over 40 years that I worked. But I hope that you and your conservative buddies stick your fingers into the SS pot that millions of Americans have paid into all of thier working lifes.
 
The Barbarian said:
yep and right after that it says “The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full flied investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in may saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.”

But I guess that really couldn't have been going on .. .because according to you . . why Bush just turned his back on terrorism right ? Now remember we have 35 days from that report to 9/11 and no I repeat .. NO specific intel on anything
Click to expand...
Riiight, Bush needed to know which airlines, flight number and seat assignments, in order to do something, anything, about a potential hijacking that he was warned about before 9.11.

Please, he didn't think it was important enough to interrupt a book-reading with 7 year olds after learning a second plane hit the WTC and that America was under attack.
 
EarlzP said:
You are either ignorant of the facts or an abject liar



Take out your calculator and add 7.65% plus 7.65% and what do you get 15.30%? Thats what every working american pays and has paid to secure a retirement pension. I won't have you or anyone else steal 15.30% of my pay for the over 40 years that I worked. But I hope that you and your conservative buddies stick your fingers into the SS pot that millions of Americans have paid into all of thier working lifes.
Click to expand...

why do you support the government stealing that out of your paycheck when anyone with an IQ of normal or better can invest that money at far better rates
 
EarlzP said:
You are either ignorant of the facts or an abject liar



Take out your calculator and add 7.65% plus 7.65% and what do you get 15.30%? Thats what every working american pays and has paid to secure a retirement pension. I won't have you or anyone else steal 15.30% of my pay for the over 40 years that I worked. But I hope that you and your conservative buddies stick your fingers into the SS pot that millions of Americans have paid into all of thier working lifes.
Click to expand...

LOL, what is secure about it? You haven't a clue as you have no idea where your contributions are going because like all liberals you never do any research and buy everything another liberal tells you. SS has had the surplus on budget for decades meaning that after the yearly payouts if there was a surplus instead of saving that surplus for your retirement it was spent on everything other than SS. You don't understand that? It is scary that people like you think the way you do and never research before making dumb statements
 
Conservative said:
SS has the same results of a Ponzi scheme and it was right of Perry to claim it is time to tell it like it is. Your money contributed was paid to someone else and someone else's money is paid to you. What do you call that?
Click to expand...
Insurance...
 
Conservative said:
LOL, what is secure about it? You haven't a clue as you have no idea where your contributions are going because like all liberals you never do any research and buy everything another liberal tells you. SS has had the surplus on budget for decades meaning that after the yearly payouts if there was a surplus instead of saving that surplus for your retirement it was spent on everything other than SS. You don't understand that? It is scary that people like you think the way you do and never research before making dumb statements
Click to expand...

More total BS from you, monies "borrowed" from the SS Trust Fund were guaranteed with US Treasury Securities

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "Social Security Trust Fund" comprises two separate funds that hold federal government debt obligations related to what are traditionally thought of as Social Security benefits. The larger of these funds is the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which holds in trust special interest-bearing federal government securities bought with surplus OASI payroll tax revenues.[3] The second, smaller fund is the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund, which holds in trust more of the special interest-bearing federal government securities, bought with surplus DI payroll tax revenues.[4]

The trust funds are "off-budget" and treated separately in certain ways from other federal spending, and other trust funds of the Federal Government. From the U.S. Code:


EXCLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY FROM ALL BUDGETS Pub. L. 101-508, title XIII, Sec. 13301(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104Stat. 1388-623, provided that: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of - (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President, (2) the congressional budget, or (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

The trust funds run surpluses in that the amount paid in by current workers is more than the amount paid out to current beneficiaries. These surpluses are given to the U.S. Treasury (and thus become part of the general federal budget) in exchange for special U.S. government securities, which are deposited into the trust funds. If the trust funds begin running deficits, meaning more in benefits are paid out than contributions paid in, the Social Security Administration is empowered to redeem the securities and use those funds to cover the deficit.
Click to expand...

You can read right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom