• 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.
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Would you mind providing a quote of when he said he would end the war in Afghanistan? He did say that about Iraq and he did pull our combat troops out as promised.
Click to expand...

Pulling the troops out would reduce the expense, wouldn't it? Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between the budget and how it affects the deficits. The budget is a guideline for spending, the deficits reflect all the money spent during the years and may or may not be reflected in the budget. The costs of the wars whether or not on budget are included in the deficits during the Bush years just like they are included in the Obama deficits now. You really need to seek some help although I believe much of this is an act on your part.
 
pbrauer said:
Whether you realize it or not the Tea Party is ruining your party, their radical agenda may cause a reversal in 2012. It's also affecting the race for the WH, whether you like it or not. Obama is blessed.
Click to expand...

Actually it looks to me like Obama is ruining yours as it will be his record on the ballot in 2012
 
Conservative said:
Pulling the troops out would reduce the expense, wouldn't it? Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between the budget and how it affects the deficits. The budget is a guideline for spending, the deficits reflect all the money spent during the years and may or may not be reflected in the budget. The costs of the wars whether or not on budget are included in the deficits during the Bush years just like they are included in the Obama deficits now. You really need to seek some help although I believe much of this is an act on your part.
Click to expand...
Once again, you retreat to your weakened position of moving the goal posts.

You were talking about how much the president seeks in their budget and complaining that Obama sought too much.

Now you're talking about how much was actually spent.

Moving the goal posts back to where they were, Obama's budget proposal was significantly higher than Bush's because he included the cost of the wars in his budget, whereas Bush hid that from his budget in order to keep his budget proposal lower.

Apparently, you fell for the exact reason Bush kept those costs out of his budget proposals.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Once again, you retreat to your weakened position of moving the goal posts.

You were talking about how much the president seeks in their budget and complaining that Obama sought too much.

Now you're talking about how much was actually spent.

Moving the goal posts back to where they were, Obama's budget proposal was significantly higher than Bush's because he included the cost of the wars in his budget, whereas Bush hid that from his budget in order to keep his budget proposal lower.

Apparently, you fell for the exact reason Bush kept those costs out of his budget proposals.
Click to expand...

The moving goalpost continues to be on your part as you always divert from the thread topic and try to make it about Bush. You are nothing more than a partisan hack unless this is all a game for you. Obama's budget aren't slightly higher they are 500 billion dollars higher and the Iraq War is winding down. Keep diverting from Obama's record which will be on the ballot in 2012. Deficits are yearly, debt is cumulative.
 
Conservative said:
Actually it looks to me like Obama is ruining yours as it will be his record on the ballot in 2012
Click to expand...
I am sure it looks that way to you, but Obama has a lot in his favor. Including that either Romney or Perry will be his opposition - two very flawed candidate on the national stage. As a Mormon, I think Romney will have a tough time making it out of the fundamentalist south/Bible belt. And Perry in the general...:mrgreen:
 
Conservative said:
The moving goalpost continues to be on your part as you always divert from the thread topic and try to make it about Bush. You are nothing more than a partisan hack unless this is all a game for you. Obama's budget aren't slightly higher they are 500 billion dollars higher and the Iraq War is winding down. Keep diverting from Obama's record which will be on the ballot in 2012. Deficits are yearly, debt is cumulative.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Con, but you can't project your shortcomings onto me.

You were the one complaining that Obama's FY2010 budget was too much higher than Bush's and after the reason for why it was higher was pointed out to you, you were the one to move the goal posts in a failed attempt to make the discussion about spending, not budget proposals.

This is why your self-serving delusion that you "beat up" on us Liberals is so funny. You're playing three card monty and you think you're winning at poker.
 
Conservative said:
The moving goalpost continues to be on your part as you always divert from the thread topic and try to make it about Bush. You are nothing more than a partisan hack unless this is all a game for you. Obama's budget aren't slightly higher they are 500 billion dollars higher and the Iraq War is winding down. Keep diverting from Obama's record which will be on the ballot in 2012. Deficits are yearly, debt is cumulative.
Click to expand...

This coming from you, Conservative? The irony!!
 
pbrauer said:
I am sure it looks that way to you, but Obama has a lot in his favor. Including that either Romney or Perry will be his opposition - two very flawed candidate on the national stage. As a Mormon, I think Romney will have a tough time making it out of the fundamentalist south/Bible belt. And Perry in the general...:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Republican Bob Turner holds a six-point lead in next week's special election to replace disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., according to a new Siena College poll released early Friday that shows voters in the overwhelmingly Democratic district are poised to deliver a stinging rebuke to President Obama and his party.

I have no desire to argue the fact that the (R) is simply a (D) with an (R) after his name or that Turner may not even win but if Obama wasn't a drag, we would never have articles like this.

Poll: Republicans On Verge Of Shocking NYC Upset - Hotline On Call
 
pbrauer said:
I am sure it looks that way to you, but Obama has a lot in his favor. Including that either Romney or Perry will be his opposition - two very flawed candidate on the national stage. As a Mormon, I think Romney will have a tough time making it out of the fundamentalist south/Bible belt. And Perry in the general...:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Doesn't really matter, the Obama record is on the ballot in 2012 and it is that record with his arrogance that will lead to a one termer
 
1Perry said:
Republican Bob Turner holds a six-point lead in next week's special election to replace disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., according to a new Siena College poll released early Friday that shows voters in the overwhelmingly Democratic district are poised to deliver a stinging rebuke to President Obama and his party.

I have no desire to argue the fact that the (R) is simply a (D) with an (R) after his name or that Turner may not even win but if Obama wasn't a drag, we would never have articles like this.

Poll: Republicans On Verge Of Shocking NYC Upset - Hotline On Call
Click to expand...
I am not sure I would call it rebuke of the President his party, candidates have to earn the vote, they can't just assume. This what happened with the election to fill Kennedy's seat in the Senate. The Democratic candidate ran a piss poor campaign.
 
pbrauer said:
I am not sure I would call it rebuke of the President his party, candidates have to earn the vote, they can't just assume. This what happened with the election to fill Kennedy's seat in the Senate. The Democratic candidate ran a piss poor campaign.
Click to expand...

When do you think Obama will ever stop campaigning and actually act like a leader. Effective leaders don't dictate and that is all Obama ever does along with blaming everyone else for his own failures. How about that Jobs Speech last night. Didn't you just get a warm tingling up your leg?
 
American said:
Paul Krugman and Bernie Sanders...... ;)
Click to expand...

And the FED themselves agreeing, keeping records of transactions ... nothing new. All banks do it. A finite amount of recorded transactions and an auditor. Doesn't mean some were missed ... I doubt it though. If someone thinks there were more then the recorded 16 trillion ... records could have been destroyed ... I know only what was in the GAO report.
 
Conservative said:
When do you think Obama will ever stop campaigning and actually act like a leader. Effective leaders don't dictate and that is all Obama ever does along with blaming everyone else for his own failures. How about that Jobs Speech last night. Didn't you just get a warm tingling up your leg?
Click to expand...
Are you willing to admit you were wrong about SS being a Ponzi scheme?:2razz:



More recently, Mitchell Zuckoff, a Boston University journalism professor who has written a book on Ponzi, noted critical dissimilarities between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme, which by definition is both fraudulent and unsustainable.

"First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled," Zuckoff's January 2009 article in Fortune magazine says. "...Social Security is exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns."

Second, he writes, "A Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number of potential investors is eventually exhausted. That's when the last people to participate are out of luck; the music stops and there's nowhere to sit. It's true that Social Security faces a huge burden — and a significant, long-term financing problem — in light of retiring Baby Boomers...But Social Security can be, and has been, tweaked and modified to reflect changes in the size of the taxpaying workforce and the number of beneficiaries. It would take great political will, but the government could change benefit formulas or take other steps, like increasing taxes, to keep the system from failing."
Click to expand...

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...rick-perry-says-social-security-ponzi-scheme/
 
Conservative said:
When do you think Obama will ever stop campaigning and actually act like a leader. Effective leaders don't dictate and that is all Obama ever does along with blaming everyone else for his own failures. How about that Jobs Speech last night. Didn't you just get a warm tingling up your leg?
Click to expand...

When do you think the republican party will start worrying more about the middle class and poor and less about pleasing thier corporate buddies, when do you think America and Americans will mean more to them then the dollars thier corporate buddies give to them?

Contextually I though his speech was good he could have delivered it with a bit more fire but I think his message was clear.

Do I remember you saying that you ran a 200,000,000 dollar company?
 
EarlzP said:
When do you think the republican party will start worrying more about the middle class and poor and less about pleasing thier corporate buddies, when do you think America and Americans will mean more to them then the dollars thier corporate buddies give to them?

Contextually I though his speech was good he could have delivered it with a bit more fire but I think his message was clear.

Do I remember you saying that you ran a 200,000,000 dollar company?
Click to expand...

When did you first learn that it was the Government's job to take care of you from cradle to grave?

Yes, I ran a $200 million dollar a year company with over 1200 employees. I never taught them that it was the government's job to provide for them and that there weren't consequences for personal failure and poor choices made. Seems you never learned that.
 
Conservative said:
Would love to but the reality is there aren't enough people to fund your retirement income today and that makes it a Ponzi scheme. It was never intended that someone else would pay for your supplemental SS payments

Santelli & Friedman's Heated Debate - CNBC
Click to expand...
Again, you're wrong that's exactly the way Social Security was intended - for current workers to pay for the previous generation. Where the hell would the money come from if that were not the case???

Btw, I saw the debate last night, Santelli doesn't know his ass and a hole in the ground. Two idiots debating - so what?
 
Conservative said:
When did you first learn that it was the Government's job to take care of you from cradle to grave?

Yes, I ran a $200 million dollar a year company with over 1200 employees. I never taught them that it was the government's job to provide for them and that there weren't consequences for personal failure and poor choices made. Seems you never learned that.
Click to expand...
So if some of them find themselves in the gutter, you let them rot there? How does that fit with the Preamble of our Constitution?
 
pbrauer said:
Again, you're wrong that's exactly the way Social Security was intended - for current workers to pay for the previous generation. Where the hell would the money come from if that were not the case???

Btw, I saw the debate last night, Santelli doesn't know his ass and a hole in the ground. Two idiots debating - so what?
Click to expand...

Wrong, SS was never intended to be paid in the first place, retirement was 65 and life expectancy was 62. then as life expectancy changed there was still more going into the system than was being paid out so LBJ saw a source of money to fund th Vietnam War and got passed the unified budget bill which put SS on budget. Surpluses intended for future use were then used to fund other programs instead of being put aside for the future. Now there are trillions in IOU's that have to be funded and Obama proposes extenion of the tax cuts for payroll taxes that actually fund SS. Liberals buy the rhetoric because that is what they want to believe. Pb, nothing is going to change your mind including the facts posted. Guess the question is why?

Social Security Online - HISTORY: Budget Treatment of Social Security Trust Funds
 
pbrauer said:
So if some of them find themselves in the gutter, you let them rot there? How does that fit with the Preamble of our Constitution?
Click to expand...

Some of them? why don't you find out who truly needs help and solve the problem instead of lumping the clueless and the abusers with those truly in need?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom