Obama (aka whiner) treated like a dog?

**Cancel 2018. 3** · 09-08-2010, 04:01 PM

seriously...what is wrong with this guy? he goes off his prepared speech to claim that republican treat him like a dog...and all he does the entire speech is bash republicans....the party of no, no, no, no, nope....

i thought he wanted to end partisan politics? everytime this guy gives a speech, he rips into republicans and plays full contact partisan politics....

the guy is nothing but a charleton...he tells you what you want to hear, but he never means it, nor does he follow his own advice....imo...he makes bush look non partisan

**Cancel 2018. 3** · 09-08-2010, 04:04 PM

really obama....you're really treated like a dog

**apple0154** · 09-09-2010, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by Yurt

seriously...what is wrong with this guy? he goes off his prepared speech to claim that republican treat him like a dog...and all he does the entire speech is bash republicans....the party of no, no, no, no, nope....

i thought he wanted to end partisan politics? everytime this guy gives a speech, he rips into republicans and plays full contact partisan politics....

the guy is nothing but a charleton...he tells you what you want to hear, but he never means it, nor does he follow his own advice....imo...he makes bush look non partisan

It looks like he's had enough. For example, the Repubs talking about privatizing SS when we just narrowly missed a financial meltdown. Imagine if the privatizing had gone through a few years ago when first suggested by the Repubs and people had invested on their own. What would a retired person's income look like today?

The government would have no responsibility to the elderly. One wouldn't be able to enter Wal-Mart due to the number of greeters. :eek3:

**Jarod** · 09-09-2010, 07:13 AM

And Bush did not whine about the way he was treated?

Come on, what president has not complained about being treated unfairly?

**Cancel 2016.2** · 09-09-2010, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by apple0154

It looks like he's had enough. For example, the Repubs talking about privatizing SS when we just narrowly missed a financial meltdown. Imagine if the privatizing had gone through a few years ago when first suggested by the Repubs and people had invested on their own. What would a retired person's income look like today?

The government would have no responsibility to the elderly. One wouldn't be able to enter Wal-Mart due to the number of greeters. :eek3:

once again.... privatization DOES NOT mean putting everything into the stock market. It means taking the money out of the control of the government and putting it back in the hands of the people. It means that YOUR account IS YOURS and YOUR HEIRS. So if you die at 60, your benefits go on to your beneficiaries instead of to Uncle Sam.

the fear mongering from the left on this topic is pathetic... 'oh, the Reps want to take Grandma's social security away from her' and 'oh, if you invest in the stock market you would have lost it all'

**Jarod** · 09-09-2010, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by Superfreak

once again.... privatization DOES NOT mean putting everything into the stock market. It means taking the money out of the control of the government and putting it back in the hands of the people. It means that YOUR account IS YOURS and YOUR HEIRS. So if you die at 60, your benefits go on to your beneficiaries instead of to Uncle Sam.

the fear mongering from the left on this topic is pathetic... 'oh, the Reps want to take Grandma's social security away from her' and 'oh, if you invest in the stock market you would have lost it all'

One of the problems with America, and old Europe was that money was never spread around. I see it now, people whose parents inherited money dont do shit for society. They sit around and cause problems.....

**apple0154** · 09-09-2010, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by Superfreak

once again.... privatization DOES NOT mean putting everything into the stock market. It means taking the money out of the control of the government and putting it back in the hands of the people. It means that YOUR account IS YOURS and YOUR HEIRS. So if you die at 60, your benefits go on to your beneficiaries instead of to Uncle Sam.

the fear mongering from the left on this topic is pathetic... 'oh, the Reps want to take Grandma's social security away from her' and 'oh, if you invest in the stock market you would have lost it all'

The average person does not know much about investing, not to mention so-called professionals at places like Lehman Brothers that went belly-up.

The problem is SS is looked at as being the only "idea" ever tried. People tend to forget there is a reason SS was implemented. In the past people had all the freedom they wanted to invest and the result was many of the elderly died in squalor.

Then there's the problem of what would constitute a government approved investment vehicle as governments would put regulations on the type of investments people could make or favor certain companies. If the government didn't specify and people were allowed free reign why wouldn't a person be allowed to use the money to put a new roof on their house. After all, if the roof is leaking their investment in their home will sharply decline as the home rots. Or maybe college money for their children. A person has a much better chance at a decent retirement if they have to live with a child if that child makes $100,000/yr compared to $25,000/yr.

In the end it would revert to the ways things were before SS. The abandoned elderly, homeless and starving. The very reasons SS was implemented.

**Cancel 2016.2** · 09-09-2010, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Jarod

One of the problems with America, and old Europe was that money was never spread around. I see it now, people whose parents inherited money dont do shit for society. They sit around and cause problems.....

that is a moronic generalization.

**Jarod** · 09-09-2010, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Superfreak

that is a moronic generalization.

It is my observation, clearly there are plenty of exceptions, but large inheratances are harmfull to a free democratic society.

Your use of the word, "Moronic" lets me know I hit a good point.

**Cancel 2016.2** · 09-09-2010, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by apple0154

The average person does not know much about investing, not to mention so-called professionals at places like Lehman Brothers that went belly-up.

and the government knows even less... no one is suggesting that there be no guidance or that investors should be able to invest in anything they want.

Take a broad index... the S&P 500 or even the Wilshire 5000 and use that index as the investment choice for those that want equity market exposure.

The rest goes into treasury bonds.

period.

The problem is SS is looked at as being the only "idea" ever tried. People tend to forget there is a reason SS was implemented. In the past people had all the freedom they wanted to invest and the result was many of the elderly died in squalor.

the above is complete bullshit. SS was implemented due to the number of unemployed in the great depression and due to the fact that people were beginning to outlive their 'working years'.

Then there's the problem of what would constitute a government approved investment vehicle as governments would put regulations on the type of investments people could make or favor certain companies. If the government didn't specify and people were allowed free reign why wouldn't a person be allowed to use the money to put a new roof on their house. After all, if the roof is leaking their investment in their home will sharply decline as the home rots. Or maybe college money for their children. A person has a much better chance at a decent retirement if they have to live with a child if that child makes $100,000/yr compared to $25,000/yr.

More bullshit from you above. Simply feeble attempts on your part to 'scare' others into thinking the government should be making the decisions because by golly, the people just can't do it on their own.

In the end it would revert to the ways things were before SS. The abandoned elderly, homeless and starving. The very reasons SS was implemented.

As I stated... the fear mongering from the left on the issue of privatizing Social Security is pathetic. Thank you for proving my point.

**Cancel 2016.2** · 09-09-2010, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Jarod

It is my observation, clearly there are plenty of exceptions, but large inheratances are harmfull to a free democratic society.

Your use of the word, "Moronic" lets me know I hit a good point.

HOW are large inheritances harmful to a free democratic society???

No... the use of the word moronic should let you know that your original assertion was MORONIC.... you have NO data to substantiate such a pathetic generalization.

**Canceled2** · 09-09-2010, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Jarod

It is my observation, clearly there are plenty of exceptions, but large inheratances are harmfull to a free democratic society.

Your use of the word, "Moronic" lets me know I hit a good point.

Large inheritances are harmful? How so?

So says the Heinz/Kerry's? The Al Gores? I wonder will Obama leave his money to the poor or his children?

**cawacko** · 09-09-2010, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Superfreak

and the government knows even less... no one is suggesting that there be no guidance or that investors should be able to invest in anything they want.

Take a broad index... the S&P 500 or even the Wilshire 5000 and use that index as the investment choice for those that want equity market exposure.

The rest goes into treasury bonds.

period.

the above is complete bullshit. SS was implemented due to the number of unemployed in the great depression and due to the fact that people were beginning to outlive their 'working years'.

More bullshit from you above. Simply feeble attempts on your part to 'scare' others into thinking the government should be making the decisions because by golly, the people just can't do it on their own.

As I stated... the fear mongering from the left on the issue of privatizing Social Security is pathetic. Thank you for proving my point.

It's Apple dude, he's been repeating that same line over and over - people are going to end up homeless and starving on the streets.

No matter how many times you tell him that the option for a personal account was 7% of one's SS money (notice 7% in NOT 100%) and the investing options available were not individual stocks so even if one knows nothing about investing the options they have are very conservative by nature. And even if you take a worse case senario of a person losing their 7% that is not going make them homeless or starving. So Apple is straight up lying and fear mongering.

**SmarterthanYou** · 09-09-2010, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by apple0154

The average person does not know much about investing,

gee, if only there was some way we could motivate people to LEARN about new things, instead of being so dependent on government.

**apple0154** · 09-09-2010, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Superfreak

and the government knows even less... no one is suggesting that there be no guidance or that investors should be able to invest in anything they want.

Take a broad index... the S&P 500 or even the Wilshire 5000 and use that index as the investment choice for those that want equity market exposure.

The rest goes into treasury bonds.

period.

I see. Let people invest their own money but have government tell them where they can invest it and how much they can invest.

(Apple)The problem is SS is looked at as being the only "idea" ever tried. People tend to forget there is a reason SS was implemented. In the past people had all the freedom they wanted to invest and the result was many of the elderly died in squalor.

the above is complete bullshit. SS was implemented due to the number of unemployed in the great depression and due to the fact that people were beginning to outlive their 'working years'.

Hello??? Outliving ones 'working years' is exactly what happens to the elderly. And when one no longer works they no longer receive money. And when they no longer receive money they are no longer able to pay for rent and groceries. And when one does not have food or shelter they end up living in squalor.

More bullshit from you above. Simply feeble attempts on your part to 'scare' others into thinking the government should be making the decisions because by golly, the people just can't do it on their own.

They didn't do it on their own. That's the point. That's why there is SS.

As I stated... the fear mongering from the left on the issue of privatizing Social Security is pathetic. Thank you for proving my point.

Fear mongering? It was you who said SS was implemented because people started to "outlive their working years". Being unable to work and having no money to pay for a place to live or food to eat....that's not fear mongering. That was the reality before SS.

Check out a library and educate yourself.