• 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!

Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits'

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Another slush fund? I suppose the "others" are Medicare and SS. And YES they make the people happier and more secure, is that what you hate? Happy people? No wonder your type are so rapidly becoming dinosaurs.

Yep, you nailed it. Ever since LBJ and Congress put SS and Medicare on budget the money was used for things other than SS and Medicare. What would you call it if not a slush fund? Only in the liberal world is taking money dedicated to a long term retirement supplement and having it used for other items in the budget not a slush fund

Now I really wonder why anyone would call you naïve, gullible, and poorly informed?
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Do you get paid to post for the Obama Administration? How is the govt. shutdown affecting you and your family? You spout the DNC talking points ignoring that the House is doing exactly what the people who sent them to D.C. told them to do. You see, like all liberals a 17 trillion debt that exceeds our yearly GDP doesn't matter at all.

WAAHH WAAAHHH ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS USING DNC TALKING POINTS:cry:
~Conservative

What about the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency? The people want PPACA.
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

The ACA was never about cutting spending, it was about creating access. If you have concerns about spending then you should contact your congresscritter and have them cut spending from the three sacred cows: military, social security, and medicare.

Two out of three of those are entitlements for senior citizens.

You lie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LRcLMScEqo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tTgr3fG_tg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4rkKzajF7Y

Obama claiming premiums would decrease by 3000% because of Obamcare

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUd-slJc-GY

Obama promising premiums will decrease by 2500$ a year

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66bgpRRSDD4
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Yep, you nailed it. Ever since LBJ and Congress put SS and Medicare on budget the money was used for things other than SS and Medicare. What would you call it if not a slush fund? Only in the liberal world is taking money dedicated to a long term retirement supplement and having it used for other items in the budget not a slush fund

Now I really wonder why anyone would call you naïve, gullible, and poorly informed?

The excess money from SS is used to purchase T bills, the safest investment on the planet. Only in your Govt hating paranoid world would T-bills be called a slush fund.
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

WAAHH WAAAHHH ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS USING DNC TALKING POINTS:cry:
~Conservative

What about the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency? The people want PPACA.

There has to be some reason for this loyalty to a failed ideology. What about them? Why do you want ACA? How does ACA lower costs and improve quality? Do you think or just spout talking points?
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

The excess money from SS is used to purchase T bills, the safest investment on the planet. Only in your Govt hating paranoid world would T-bills be called a slush fund.

Wrong, the excess money was put on budget and used to show a lower deficit. IOU's replaced the SS money. Where do you get your information? Do you have any clue as to how TBills are funded? Damn, you people make me want to cry.
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

There has to be some reason for this loyalty to a failed ideology. What about them? Why do you want ACA? How does ACA lower costs and improve quality? Do you think or just spout talking points?

Answer the question.

The Senate, The Supreme Court, and the Presidency. If you're going to use "the will of the people" as an argument then explain how and why Democrats have maintained those sections of the government. The American people and the laws have spoken.
 
Last edited:
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Answer the question.

The Senate, The Supreme Court, and the Presidency. If you're going to use "the will of the people" as an argument then explain how and why Democrats have maintained those sections of the governmetn. The American people and the laws have spoken.

The "Peoples' House is under Republican control, Democrats lost seats in the Senate and Obama registered millions of votes less than in 2008. The American people spoke and told the Republican House what to do and they are doing it. Now answer my question, why do you support ACA?

You really don't understand the supreme court ruling, do you? Not surprising
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Wrong, the excess money was put on budget and used to show a lower deficit. IOU's replaced the SS money. Where do you get your information? Do you have any clue as to how TBills are funded? Damn, you people make me want to cry.

Yes they show a lower deficit but are still added to the Debt. Which is why the debt didn't go down when Clinton had his surpluses.
T-bills are the "IOU's" you are claiming. I find it funny that someone who claims to have economic sense thinks we should have stuffed the $2.5 Trillion SS trust fund in a mattress instead of earning interest on it.
Here is some info from SS that explains why we have "special" T-bills for Govt. trust funds of which there are many.

By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds.

In the past, the trust funds have held marketable Treasury securities, which are available to the general public. Unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value. Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss, or enjoy a gain, if sold before maturity. Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#a0=1
 
Last edited:
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

T-bills are the "IOU's" you are claiming. I find it funny that someone who claims to have economic sense thinks we should have stuffed the $2 Trillion SS trust fund in a mattress instead of earning interest on it.
Here is some info from SS that explains why we have "special" T-bills for Govt. trust funds of which there are many.



Trust Fund Data

The interest on the re-issuance of the SS trust fund as public debt will outpace the gain of loaning it to other government agencies.
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

The "Peoples' House is under Republican control, Democrats lost seats in the Senate and Obama registered millions of votes less than in 2008. The American people spoke and told the Republican House what to do and they are doing it. Now answer my question, why do you support ACA?

You really don't understand the supreme court ruling, do you? Not surprising
Wait a minute, now your using number of votes as an argument? Ok then...

Democrats received 2 million more votes than Republicans during the House elections. The House Republicans should recognize the will of the people.

And f.y.i., in case you're a little slow on the uptake, these aren't DNC talking points these are your talking points.:lamo
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

The interest on the re-issuance of the SS trust fund as public debt will outpace the gain of loaning it to other government agencies.

And your point is?
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Wait a minute, now your using number of votes as an argument? Ok then...

Democrats received 2 million more votes than Republicans during the House elections. The House Republicans should recognize the will of the people.

And f.y.i., in case you're a little slow on the uptake, these aren't DNC talking points these are your talking points.:lamo

In regards to your "2 million more votes"....
One variant of this argument posits that because gerrymandering is so severe, Republicans can lose the popular vote badly and still win the House. This weakens their incentive to reach out to the median voter (and to some observers, it erodes the Republicans’ democratic legitimacy). There’s no doubt that the GOP won more seats than you would expect given its share of the popular vote: Common sense would dictate that 49 percent of the two-party vote would not entitle you to 54 percent of the seats.

But as is usually the case, common sense has its limits. First, as Theodore Arrington has observed, these vote counts are complicated by the fact that some states don’t count votes for unopposed candidates, while others, like California, employ a runoff system that frequently pitted Democrats against Democrats and Republicans against Republicans. When you account for this, the Democrats’ lead in the popular vote total shrinks.



Read more: Gerrymandering Isn't to Blame for D.C. Impasse | RealClearPolitics
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

And your point is?

You lose money by "investing" the SS trust fund. In other words, it would have been more cost effective bury it in a coffee can under the White House lawn.
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

You lose money by "investing" the SS trust fund. In other words, it would have been more cost effective bury it in a coffee can under the White House lawn.

Cost effective for who? You think borrowing the same money from China would be better or cheaper? Why shouldn't SS make interest on that money? It comes from the hard work of the American people.
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Yes they show a lower deficit but are still added to the Debt. Which is why the debt didn't go down when Clinton had his surpluses.
T-bills are the "IOU's" you are claiming. I find it funny that someone who claims to have economic sense thinks we should have stuffed the $2.5 Trillion SS trust fund in a mattress instead of earning interest on it.
Here is some info from SS that explains why we have "special" T-bills for Govt. trust funds of which there are many.



Trust Fund Data

So when you go to the grocery store do they take those T-bills? Where does the money come from to pay those T-Bills?

Aw, now you are getting it, they showed a lower deficit but are added to the debt!! Hear that liberals who claim Clinton had a surplus? The 2.5 trillion in unfunded liabilities are stored no question about it and are coming due, now tell me where the money comes from to fund them?

Hard for some to believe but this country is broke, doesn't have the money so it will print it or borrow it. Tell me the effects of both?
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Wait a minute, now your using number of votes as an argument? Ok then...

Democrats received 2 million more votes than Republicans during the House elections. The House Republicans should recognize the will of the people.

And f.y.i., in case you're a little slow on the uptake, these aren't DNC talking points these are your talking points.:lamo

Read post 363 before making claims that you cannot support or spout because that is what you were told. The will of the people is the House of Representatives. now I am waiting for you to tell me why you are for ACA?
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Cost effective for who? You think borrowing the same money from China would be better or cheaper? Why shouldn't SS make interest on that money? It comes from the hard work of the American people.

2T trust fund invested in special funds that pay 3% interest.
Federal Government pays the 3% interest(60billion) plus principle for a total of 2.06T
Federal Government doesn't have 2.06T, so issues public debt of 2.06T
Federal Government pays the 3% interest plus principle, and issues more debt to pay off this debt.
Rinse & Repeat.

The Trust fund got an extra 60 billion at an initial cost of 66.18B, for a loss of 6.18 billion.
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

I'm using the numbers presented by the FEC federal elections results.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federalelections2012.pdf

Yep, and if you read page 2, it states exactly what I did. If someone ran unopposed, they report 0 votes. Feel free to read the RCP article, quite a good read.

From the fec pdf:
In some states, there were unopposed candidates whose names did not appear on a ballot and
therefore received no votes.

 “Total Votes,” “Total State Votes,” “Party Votes,” and “District Votes” represent all the valid
votes cast for the candidates in the election. State totals (and the totals for the territories and the
District of Columbia) are found in the summary charts and at the end of each state/territory
section. Blank, void, under and over votes are not included.
“Combined Parties” represents all the valid votes cast for one candidate, regardless of party.
(This method is used where a candidate may be listed on the ballot more than once, with
different party designations; i.e., in Connecticut, New York and South Carolina.)
These votes
are then broken down and listed by party. The party votes are enclosed by brackets [ ].
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Read post 363 before making claims that you cannot support or spout because that is what you were told. The will of the people is the House of Representatives. now I am waiting for you to tell me why you are for ACA?

The minority does not determine what the Govt. can and cannot do. This is basic civics class stuff.
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Do you not understand that not all votes are counted and reported? Are you really this naïve?
OK, what? Are you now trying to move the goalposts for yet again? After you've brought up how the Republicans lost the popular vote in the house you're now trying to say votes don't matter? Your arguments get weaker by the minute.
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

2T trust fund invested in special funds that pay 3% interest.
Federal Government pays the 3% interest(60billion) plus principle for a total of 2.06T
Federal Government doesn't have 2.06T, so issues public debt of 2.06T
Federal Government pays the 3% interest plus principle, and issues more debt to pay off this debt.
Rinse & Repeat.

The Trust fund got an extra 60 billion at an initial cost of 66.18B, for a loss of 6.18 billion.

You mean a GAIN for the trust fund and the American workers that paid into it.

And I repeat, who would you rather the Govt. borrow its money from and pays interest to?
 
Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

The number of votes matter, until they aren't in my favor, then the number of votes don't matter or perhaps only sometimes matter...
~A summation of Conservative's argument
 
Back
Top Bottom