problems with social security and medicare have not gone away

[Onceler]

How great. Within a week, Dixie has come out in support of higher taxes for small businesses, and for deficit spending.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How great. Within a week, Dixie has come out in support of higher taxes for small businesses, and for deficit spending.

See.... this is what happens when you spend all day spinning in circles, it makes everything around you seem to spin after you stop!

OneCell, I don't know how you distorted my comments in such a retarded way, and frankly, I don't really care. I never said what you are claiming.

 

[apple0154]

It's called 'The Shock Doctrine'...

Excellent movie. One has to wonder what has to happen, what does the unbridled, Capitalistic, anti-social policy crowd have to be shown in order to understand.

 

[apple0154]

What the fuck are you talking about? Our economic problems are being caused by Marxist Socialists who took over the Democrat party. I blame THEM!!

Did you watch the movie or are you going to remain ignorant? Try, try really hard to grasp the BIG picture. Open your back gate and step out of your back yard. From medical care to so-called Socialism you haven't a fuckin' clue. Your stupidity is becoming annoying.

 

[Don Quixote]

And the above is why you get no credit. You pretend the only person that matters is the President. The President does not control the purse strings. Congress does.

Reagan had Tip O'Neals House to deal with... together they raised the nations debt by $1.6 Trillion in 8 years

Bush also had a Dem Congress.... he raised the nations debt by $1.4 Trillion in 4 years

Clinton began with a Dem Congress... but in the years that the deficit was reigned in, it was with a Rep Congress.... together they raised the nations debt by $1.6 Trillion (Note that amount is very similar to Reagan's tenure... though it needs to be adjusted for inflation)

Bush Jr. had a Rep Congress for the first six years and a Dem Congress in 2007/2008... those ass clowns raised the debt by about $5 Trillion in 8 years.

Obama had a Dem Congress with Supermajorities in the first two years, A Rep House since 2011. He has raised the debt by almost $4 Trillion in less than four years.

Your chart assumes that the spending for year 2009 is all on Bush. It is not. The approx $800B that the Dem Congress passed in early 2009 and signed by Obama is on him. Not Bush.

If you want to see why the chart you posted is silly... take a look at Clinton. The spending picked up at a faster pace in his second term... yet those were the years that the deficit spending was the least. It is not spending on its own that matters... it is spending relative to revenue that matters.

highlighted is incorrect, the dem senate super majority was lost when kennedy died

also, the chart is correct, just because you do not like something does not automatically make it wrong

 

[Banned]

The immediate problem with SS is our govt "leaders" who have spent the surplus do not want to pay it back.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Did you watch the movie or are you going to remain ignorant? Try, try really hard to grasp the BIG picture. Open your back gate and step out of your back yard. From medical care to so-called Socialism you haven't a fuckin' clue. Your stupidity is becoming annoying.

Let me make it clear to you one more time. I have no intention of promoting propaganda by supporting it with my clicks. If I watch the video, my viewing is counted into the demographic this idiot and you will use, to parade around boasting about how many people "agree" with you, because they watched the video. I don't intend to participate in that, I will assume this is an attack piece on Milton Friedman, and a bunch of trumped up hyperbole and conjecture. It doesn't "prove" anything, except that you can manage to persuade some people to click a link and support this moron. Sorry, you didn't persuade me. Find a credible news report from Reuters or somebody, who has some credibility in this area. Get back to me when you have one of those sources, because I am not clicking on anything else. I'm on a boycott.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The immediate problem with SS is our govt "leaders" who have spent the surplus do not want to pay it back.

And that problem remains as long as you have a system which consists of a trust fund in their hands. When you privatize the system, and give people a personal retirement account, the 4th Amendment forbidding illegal searches and seizures comes into play, and they CAN'T steal the money. It ELIMINATES the problem.

That is the whole point here! Your party wants to continue to kick the can down the road and pretend there is no crisis, and we just need to thrash those mean old greedy republicans who keep stealing the money... the system is going broke, no matter what we do, no matter how we try to fix things... that is a reality. Inevitably, the burden of 70 million Baby Boomer's is going to take it's toll, and the ship will sink. There is no formula in the world to prevent that from happening with the current Social Security system as it is structured. We can prolong this by increasing the cap or increasing the eligibility age, or cutting benefits across the board... but eventually, the system will have to support 70 million Baby Boomers, and it can't. The money has been stolen and spent!

You nailed the problem... We have a system which it's easy for politicians to pilfer. We need a system they can't pilfer. That's where privatization comes in. But you don't really want that, because then you can't run around scaring old people anymore, and how else would you get the old farts to vote for you????

 

[Rune]

Hmm.. well let's see... would I rather have had my own personal retirement fund which broke even in 6 years, and is now starting to grow again... or would I rather hope and pray the government has enough money the politicians haven't stolen, to send me my check each month? Hmmmmm...such a hard fucking choice there!

Idiot!

Rolling on the floor, laughing my ass off. Sometimes I forget you are a moron for a few minutes.

 

[Rune]

Rune isn't even deliberately stupid, folks. Leave the poor mental midgit alone.

Finally you say something funny. It's taken you five months, but I guess there is a slight hope for you at least.

 

[Rune]

Let me make it clear to you one more time. I have no intention of promoting propaganda by supporting it with my clicks. If I watch the video, my viewing is counted into the demographic this idiot and you will use, to parade around boasting about how many people "agree" with you, because they watched the video. I don't intend to participate in that, I will assume this is an attack piece on Milton Friedman, and a bunch of trumped up hyperbole and conjecture. It doesn't "prove" anything, except that you can manage to persuade some people to click a link and support this moron. Sorry, you didn't persuade me. Find a credible news report from Reuters or somebody, who has some credibility in this area. Get back to me when you have one of those sources, because I am not clicking on anything else. I'm on a boycott.

One more time for the irony impaired; he said it and he meant it. He will not learn. No way, no how. Sorry, not going to happen.

 

[Rune]

And the above is why you get no credit. You pretend the only person that matters is the President. The President does not control the purse strings. Congress does.

Reagan had Tip O'Neals House to deal with... together they raised the nations debt by $1.6 Trillion in 8 years

Bush also had a Dem Congress.... he raised the nations debt by $1.4 Trillion in 4 years

Clinton began with a Dem Congress... but in the years that the deficit was reigned in, it was with a Rep Congress.... together they raised the nations debt by $1.6 Trillion (Note that amount is very similar to Reagan's tenure... though it needs to be adjusted for inflation)

Bush Jr. had a Rep Congress for the first six years and a Dem Congress in 2007/2008... those ass clowns raised the debt by about $5 Trillion in 8 years.

Obama had a Dem Congress with Supermajorities in the first two years, A Rep House since 2011. He has raised the debt by almost $4 Trillion in less than four years.

Your chart assumes that the spending for year 2009 is all on Bush. It is not. The approx $800B that the Dem Congress passed in early 2009 and signed by Obama is on him. Not Bush.

If you want to see why the chart you posted is silly... take a look at Clinton. The spending picked up at a faster pace in his second term... yet those were the years that the deficit spending was the least. It is not spending on its own that matters... it is spending relative to revenue that matters.

That would be a great speech if presidents din't sign or veto, Simplespin.

 

[apple0154]

Let me make it clear to you one more time. I have no intention of promoting propaganda by supporting it with my clicks. If I watch the video, my viewing is counted into the demographic this idiot and you will use, to parade around boasting about how many people "agree" with you, because they watched the video. I don't intend to participate in that, I will assume this is an attack piece on Milton Friedman, and a bunch of trumped up hyperbole and conjecture. It doesn't "prove" anything, except that you can manage to persuade some people to click a link and support this moron. Sorry, you didn't persuade me. Find a credible news report from Reuters or somebody, who has some credibility in this area. Get back to me when you have one of those sources, because I am not clicking on anything else. I'm on a boycott.

A boycott! :lol: The only boycotts you've supported are educational and common sense. How the hell does watching a video mean you agree with what is presented? How can one agree or disagree before they've seen it?

Ah, what's the use. I'm trying to converse with an idiot.

 

[Banned]

And that problem remains as long as you have a system which consists of a trust fund in their hands. When you privatize the system, and give people a personal retirement account, the 4th Amendment forbidding illegal searches and seizures comes into play, and they CAN'T steal the money. It ELIMINATES the problem.

That is the whole point here! Your party wants to continue to kick the can down the road and pretend there is no crisis, and we just need to thrash those mean old greedy republicans who keep stealing the money... the system is going broke, no matter what we do, no matter how we try to fix things... that is a reality. Inevitably, the burden of 70 million Baby Boomer's is going to take it's toll, and the ship will sink. There is no formula in the world to prevent that from happening with the current Social Security system as it is structured. We can prolong this by increasing the cap or increasing the eligibility age, or cutting benefits across the board... but eventually, the system will have to support 70 million Baby Boomers, and it can't. The money has been stolen and spent!

You nailed the problem... We have a system which it's easy for politicians to pilfer. We need a system they can't pilfer. That's where privatization comes in. But you don't really want that, because then you can't run around scaring old people anymore, and how else would you get the old farts to vote for you????

It would just be simpler to prohibit them from spending the money and rerquire it to be banked in a vault.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It would just be simpler to prohibit them from spending the money and rerquire it to be banked in a vault.

The money is not sitting in a corner in the Congressional chambers, you know? I think they had it safely put away somewhere...supposedly... and the idea was, it would be there when we retired, but you see... a funny thing happened on the way to Baby Boomer retirement... Politicians paid for this program and that, mostly at the behest of liberals such as yourself, who begged and pleaded and writhed in the floor in agony over the humanity... and eventually, you got your way and we funded whatever stupidity you wanted out of the trust fund. The most recent thing funded was $600 billion for Obamacare. That came out of Medicare's trust fund.

There are a LOT of "simple" things we could do, that wouldn't fix the problem you nailed. Again, I said it... you nailed the problem, you of all people, got it absolutely right, and I commend you for that! The PROBLEM is the fund is vulnerable to politicians who want to pilfer it. IF the fund wasn't a fund, but instead, individual personal retirement accounts, the politicians COULDN'T steal it. To me, that is just as "simple" an idea, and one that would FIX the problem YOU nailed!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

One more time for the irony impaired; he said it and he meant it. He will not learn. No way, no how. Sorry, not going to happen.

One more time for the profoundly retarded, I will not support propaganda and will not be propagandized. I refuse to be brainwashed. I won't drink the kool aid.

Now go home sulking and whimpering, and tell mommy you couldn't convince anyone to click through to your propaganda site today. SORRY!