What do liberals want the US to be?

[Dad2three]

Says the K/K/Klown not understanding payroll taxes are REQUIRED by law to buy US Gov't bonds!

You just proved you have no clue what bonds are and what they are used for.

ANOTHER K/K/Klown shocking

The fund is required by law to be invested in non-marketable securities ... federal government securities bought with surplus OASI payroll tax revenue

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What do we call them? lol

OK, lets step back a little. Can you cite or link the law that require government to buy bonds.

The fund is required by law to be invested in non-marketable securities ...

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Hmmmmm . . . so?

How does that make the bonds it "buys" worth anything?

Same as EVERY other US backed bond. Is there a problem with them I'm unaware of? Is the US lacking people wanting to buy them? lol

 

[Dad2three]

There are issues with the fed, but the US had a HORRIBLE period with boom and busts pre fed.

The boom/bust cycle was entirely the creation of the federal government and it's constant attempts to meddle in the economy.

LOL , Yes, booms and busts were ONLY the creation of Gov't policy, not like there is ANY history of it being 'free markets' trying to manipulate, think Hunt brothers and silver? lol

I MEAN IT NEVER HAPPENED IN NATIONS WITHOUT A FED RESERVE RIGHT? LOL



List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nope, there is no such history. The hunt brothers went bankrupt trying to corner the silver market. The end result of the billions they spent? Nada, zip, zero.

Government caused all the pre fed recessions and all the post fed recessions, just like this last recession.

OK, As usual, ignore the link showing what a putz you are. And yes, Dubya and the Banksters in charge of the 'free markets' believed in 'markets will self regulate'


Dubya/GOP's great recession


Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.



http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

"Neil Fligstein and Adam Goldstein
Department of Sociology
University of California
Berkeley, Ca. 94720"

You expect us to believe a couple of commie sociologists from Berkeley?

Seriously?

When would you EVER 'believe' the truth or facts especially on a world wide Bankster bubble and bust? I know, it was the poor and people of colors fault right? LOL

 

[Conservative65]

Is success not currently attainable by anyone? Is anyone legally banned from being successful?

For all intent and purposes, some may as well be. Here is a graphic you'll ignore immediately of course but here it is anyway:

It shows the percentage of blacks who get LIPNP vs. whites charged with comparative crimes. I'm not debating whether they are guilty or what put them there...just the sentencing. The upshot of this is that for every green and blue pixel, someone is growing up without a father or mother; aunt or uncle perhaps.

Maybe, just maybe, had there been a clearer path to success for these individuals, they would have taken it. Shame on them for not taking it.

To tell if the numbers in the chart mean anything I would have to have more information. Information about the crimes committed, information about the past history of the individuals involved, information about the mental state and attitude of the individuals involved, etc. Without that information it isn't really anything but a pretty graphic. That said, if there is really an imbalance it should be addressed. I fully believe in punishing equally for equal crimes, with equal history and equal mental state.

What would you do to create a "clearer path to success?"

Invest heavily in a federal vocational program to where every district in the nation could have a vocational education center that would teach kids the trades like carpentry, plumbing, welding, etc.
Kids can walk right off the graduation platform and into a job.

Expand the JROTC programs.

Expand intramural but eliminate inter-murals that extend past the normal school day. This would free up funding to expand the number of teachers, reduce class size, etc....

As for out of school programs; create a program by which the first 2 years of college are paid for by uncle sam. I've described this before.

Tying this together with regular income people being able to keep more of their income would help in the areas of fairness.

I would guess that the groups you mention disagree with the positions of "the party that represents 'conservative values'" or at least what they think those positions are. Personally I think it is a mistake to lump people into groups and assume you know what is motivating all of their actions or even that the members of the "groups" are all motivated by the same things.

Are there women who vote Republican?
Are there blacks who vote Republican?
Are there Hispanics who vote Republican?
Are there non-Christians who vote Republican?
Are there lower income voters who vote Republican?

Which is why I put it in terms of "as a group".

Are you or are you not proposing that the 1st dollar you earn, no matter how you earn it, be taxed the same as the 10,000,000,000,000th dollar you earn, no matter how you earn it?

If not, what specifically are you proposing?

That is what I'm proposing.

The "flat tax" often means ridding ourselves of deductions. I don't mean for that. Just income being taxed the same regardless of where they come from.

So your contention is that police should pay more attention to race rather than less? As in I have already pulled over one drunk-driving white guy, so now I need to let the next few drunk-driving white guys go by until I can pull over a drunk-driving black guy? Then I need to let any drunk-driving white or black guys go by until I can get me a drunk-driving Hispanic?

What do I do on nights where I only ever see one race driving drunk? "It's your lucky night guys, I couldn't find any drunk black guys to pull over, so you white and Hispanic guys get a free pass tonight."

No but if you pull over a white dude for drunk driving, you do a warrant sweep if that is police procedure. Just don't do it for black folks. If you're going to let 1 in 3 whites go with a warning, let 1 in 2.85 blacks go. I'm sure most of the time there is no way of knowing the race of a driver but once it's determined, it shouldn't matter.

As for what I think? Let's deal with what I know.

This guy shot a US Congress woman:

View attachment 35100

This guy shot a cop:

This guy punched a cop

This guy...I'm not even sure what he did:
View attachment 35101

Minorites who performed much less violent acts seem to e getting killed by the authorities than whites who commit much more violent acts.

So fair means simply handing some people what the rest of us have to earn?

 

[Conservative65]

What about the half in this country that don't pay a dime in income taxes? When are they going to pay their fair share of income taxes? Hate to break it to you but zero isn't a fair share.

Why do you choose to go after the 40% of Americans that only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of our total wealth when you look for additional revenue?

Guess which slice of the pie I would look to for additional tax revenue?

The distribution of wealth is not the distribution of capital gains, or personal income. This is the part that you democrats can't seem to get through your stubborn skulls.

The reason everyone should pay the same tax rates is so that everyone has some skin in the game.

In days gone by taxes were a percentage of wealth, for example a percentage of property, or cows, etc. Not sure why democrats don't understand the difference. Sales taxes and property taxes are ways to tax the evil rich. Capital gains and personal income taxes are ways to stop people from becoming rich.

Who said it was?

It shows where the money is....and it ain't with the bottom 40%

I'll ask again, cause it just does not seem to be able to penetrate democrat skulls.

Why do you think higher personal income and higher capital gains taxes is going to change the distribution of wealth?

Good question

Less wealth is being left at the upper levels. Less to "trickle down" (in other words, less for them to pocket)

Now, what do we do with that wealth?
Should we just hand it to the poor and working Americans?

Nooooooooo....
We use it to reduce the burden of healthcare, we use it to fund education and post secondary education, we use it to improve infrastructure and create ....JOBS

By doing that we end up with less wealth in the 1% and more wealth in the 40%

So simply give some people something the rest of us have to earn?

 

[Conservative65]

Seattle venture capitalist Nick Hanauer

Hanauer said he doesn't consider himself a "job creator." If no one can afford to buy what he's selling, the jobs his companies create will evaporate, he reasons. In his view, what the nation needs is more money in the hands of regular consumers.

"A higher minimum wage is a very simple and elegant solution to the death spiral of falling demand that is the signature feature of our economy,"

How does the minimum wage create more money?

Take an economics course Bubba. It's called a multiplier effect! Or we just keep giving it to the top 1/10th of 1% of US who hold it offshore out of circulation?

The so-called "multiplier effect" is keynesian Voo Doo. It's obvious horseshit. Politicians love it because it allows them to delude themselves and the public that they are doing something beneficial when they spend us into bankruptcy. It's like getting an award for peeing in the punch bowl.

Got it, you don't like the field of economics, you prefer to live in myths and fairy tales of libertarian bullshit!

And they think the rich want what is fair for their broke asses. Not a chance. This reminds me. Did you notice that the airlines didn't lower their prices when gas went down? So much for right wing logic that the corporations will pass the costs on to us if we tax them. The fact is, the corporations will charge us whatever they think they can get away with. Give them tax breaks or let them buy cheap shit from China aint going to lower prices any. Just fatten the CEO bonus'.

Fortunately for me, I don't NEED to fly. But I do need to drive a car.

This also reminds me of how "they" have slowed our progress towards hydrogen cars or battery cars because their business is coal or oil based. I was watching the Cosmos again and they were talking about this one person and how if it weren't for them we wouldn't have satellites. ONE PERSON! It got me thinking about how these mega corporations have shelved competing technology while they burn up all the planets oil. How far have they held our civilization back? How much more might we know? How many great ideas have been shelved? They discussed how every great civilization rose and fell and lost all their advancements and here we are the same thing is going to happen because humans are self destructive.

No one is forcing you to buy anything. If you think it costs too much, don't buy it.

 

[Dad2three]

Gawd you right wingers are pathetic. What happens to excess tax revenues in payroll taxes? Oh right they buy bonds that then create debt. Yes, paying off PUBLIC debt while excess INTRA Govt debt (excess tax revenues buying US bonds as required by law) grows, is possible dummy


Bill Clinton touts fiscal record as president during campaign stop in New Jersey PolitiFact New Jersey

Then you'll be able to explain how much government debt was paid off with Clinton surplus. Oh wait...

Sure, PUBLIC DEBT WAS PAID OFF, and excess payroll taxes, as required by law, were put unto bonds that created more INTRA Gov't obligations (DEBT)


What should they have done with excess payroll taxes?

Clinton paid down public debt by over $400+ billion, BTW

Clinton actually claims that his administration paid off $600 billion of public debt. Your number of $400 billion is closer to actual $452 billion. But those numbers are public debt, and we both know that public debt is part of national debt. Taking money from SS funds to pay off other funds doesn't count as paying off the debt. The result is national debt increase for every year he was in office.

I could use my credit card to pay my car payment, or to pay off the whole loan, then I can claim that my car is paid in full. In reality, I just owe more on my credit card. That's pretty much what Clinton did.

So you'll ignore the part where I explain US INTRA Gov't debt was created under Clinton because the US received to much revenues in payroll taxes, and by law that money was required to be INVESTED in US bonds? Stop trying to equate a Gov't with a personal finance situation, it makes you look dumb!

What should've happened with the EXCESS payroll taxes? lol

And yes, thanks for agreeing, Clinton had 4 straight surpluses in the annual budgets, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut!

1) SS steals 15% of everyone's lifetime income and gives back dog food money when it should give you back $1.4 million

2) Clinton never cared to balanced a budget in his life , it was forced on him by first Republican Congress in 40 years under Newt.

3) dumbto 3 lacks the IQ to be here

1) It's called INSURANCE dummy. Check out the meaning sometime

2) lmarog... Yeah, the one passing a $700+ billion tax cut AFTER Bill's first surplus

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit



"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

Wow BEFORE THE GOPers took over Congress???lol


"Clinton's 1993 (Dem Congress) budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997



The Clinton Presidency Historic Economic Growth

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The boom/bust cycle was entirely the creation of the federal government and it's constant attempts to meddle in the economy.

LOL , Yes, booms and busts were ONLY the creation of Gov't policy, not like there is ANY history of it being 'free markets' trying to manipulate, think Hunt brothers and silver? lol

I MEAN IT NEVER HAPPENED IN NATIONS WITHOUT A FED RESERVE RIGHT? LOL



List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nope, there is no such history. The hunt brothers went bankrupt trying to corner the silver market. The end result of the billions they spent? Nada, zip, zero.

Government caused all the pre fed recessions and all the post fed recessions, just like this last recession.

OK, As usual, ignore the link showing what a putz you are. And yes, Dubya and the Banksters in charge of the 'free markets' believed in 'markets will self regulate'


Dubya/GOP's great recession


Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.



http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

"Neil Fligstein and Adam Goldstein
Department of Sociology
University of California
Berkeley, Ca. 94720"

You expect us to believe a couple of commie sociologists from Berkeley?

Seriously?

When would you EVER 'believe' the truth or facts especially on a world wide Bankster bubble and bust? I know, it was the poor and people of colors fault right? LOL

The Socialist Policy was the 'fault' of the socialists who advocated for it, who coerced the lending industry into it and who defended it when it was readily apparent that it was inevitably going to fail catastrophically...

(The Reader should understand that the above facts are not presented as a means to convince the Left, they are presented to simply reiterate the truth. You see individuals who comprise the Ideological Left are incapable of sound reason; they're Relativists who lack the objectivity to discern truth. Thus where we find them, we let them speak, then merely set the truth beside their speech, so that its light will return it to the ether, from which it came.)

 

[Conservative65]

Yeah and any company that has a federal contract has to promote women and minorities irregardless of qualifications or loose the federal contract. Thus white male professionals get screwed again and again and again. What do you have against older women?

No they don't

They have to demonstrate that they promote and hire regardless of race, sex or creed. If they can demonstrate they do not have qualified applicants, they are not forced to hire anyone
Prior to civil rights, it seemed only white male christians were qualified. That is why we needed affirmative action

ROFL what a load of horse manure. They are FORCED to hire based on race, sex, and creed to "correct" the NUMBERS based on some BULLSHIT ASSUMPTION that the people working for a company should have a certain percentage of each, and until you get their the people in the wrong group are screwed over.

White males no longer had exclusive access to skilled and management positions. affirmative action changed that
Federal contractors were forced to justify their lack of diversity or lose contracts

Affirmative Action was hugely successful

Yeah you can tell how successful it was by all of the how well our economy and companies are doing.. oh yeah NVM I guess putting shitty people in charge isn't working is it.

The number of women and minorities now occupying skilled positions and management is a tribute to affirmative action

That's not a tribute. It's a disaster. Affirmative action uses to benefit certain groups what, if used to deny those same groups, would be wrong. What it means is that some more qualified person didn't get a job.

 

[Conservative65]

Then you'll be able to explain how much government debt was paid off with Clinton surplus. Oh wait...

Sure, PUBLIC DEBT WAS PAID OFF, and excess payroll taxes, as required by law, were put unto bonds that created more INTRA Gov't obligations (DEBT)


What should they have done with excess payroll taxes?

Clinton paid down public debt by over $400+ billion, BTW

Clinton actually claims that his administration paid off $600 billion of public debt. Your number of $400 billion is closer to actual $452 billion. But those numbers are public debt, and we both know that public debt is part of national debt. Taking money from SS funds to pay off other funds doesn't count as paying off the debt. The result is national debt increase for every year he was in office.

I could use my credit card to pay my car payment, or to pay off the whole loan, then I can claim that my car is paid in full. In reality, I just owe more on my credit card. That's pretty much what Clinton did.

So you'll ignore the part where I explain US INTRA Gov't debt was created under Clinton because the US received to much revenues in payroll taxes, and by law that money was required to be INVESTED in US bonds? Stop trying to equate a Gov't with a personal finance situation, it makes you look dumb!

What should've happened with the EXCESS payroll taxes? lol

And yes, thanks for agreeing, Clinton had 4 straight surpluses in the annual budgets, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut!

1) SS steals 15% of everyone's lifetime income and gives back dog food money when it should give you back $1.4 million

2) Clinton never cared to balanced a budget in his life , it was forced on him by first Republican Congress in 40 years under Newt.

3) dumbto 3 lacks the IQ to be here

1) It's called INSURANCE dummy. Check out the meaning sometime

2) lmarog... Yeah, the one passing a $700+ billion tax cut AFTER Bill's first surplus

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit



"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

Wow BEFORE THE GOPers took over Congress???lol


"Clinton's 1993 (Dem Congress) budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997



The Clinton Presidency Historic Economic Growth

I did check out the definition of insurance. If you think what we have is insurance, you're an idiot. With true insurance, a person wanting it approaches the person selling it and pays a price based on the risk the person poses using past history. If the person is a higher risk, they either pay more or they can be denied due to their risks potentially costing the one providing the coverage more than they can get from that person.

With Obamacare, we don't have insurance although idiots like you call it that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why do you choose to go after the 40% of Americans that only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of our total wealth when you look for additional revenue?

Guess which slice of the pie I would look to for additional tax revenue?

The distribution of wealth is not the distribution of capital gains, or personal income. This is the part that you democrats can't seem to get through your stubborn skulls.

The reason everyone should pay the same tax rates is so that everyone has some skin in the game.

In days gone by taxes were a percentage of wealth, for example a percentage of property, or cows, etc. Not sure why democrats don't understand the difference. Sales taxes and property taxes are ways to tax the evil rich. Capital gains and personal income taxes are ways to stop people from becoming rich.

Who said it was?

It shows where the money is....and it ain't with the bottom 40%

I'll ask again, cause it just does not seem to be able to penetrate democrat skulls.

Why do you think higher personal income and higher capital gains taxes is going to change the distribution of wealth?

Good question

Less wealth is being left at the upper levels. Less to "trickle down" (in other words, less for them to pocket)

Now, what do we do with that wealth?
Should we just hand it to the poor and working Americans?

Nooooooooo....
We use it to reduce the burden of healthcare, we use it to fund education and post secondary education, we use it to improve infrastructure and create ....JOBS

By doing that we end up with less wealth in the 1% and more wealth in the 40%

So simply give some people something the rest of us have to earn?

Please understand, the Ideological Left lives and dies on "Trickle Down" economics... as THAT is the definition of socialism. Claim all the capital, then through social subsidy, trickle down a small percentage of it to those whose votes sustain your power. It's the same method used by all parasitic infections.

 

[Dad2three]

LOL , Yes, booms and busts were ONLY the creation of Gov't policy, not like there is ANY history of it being 'free markets' trying to manipulate, think Hunt brothers and silver? lol

I MEAN IT NEVER HAPPENED IN NATIONS WITHOUT A FED RESERVE RIGHT? LOL



List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nope, there is no such history. The hunt brothers went bankrupt trying to corner the silver market. The end result of the billions they spent? Nada, zip, zero.

Government caused all the pre fed recessions and all the post fed recessions, just like this last recession.

OK, As usual, ignore the link showing what a putz you are. And yes, Dubya and the Banksters in charge of the 'free markets' believed in 'markets will self regulate'


Dubya/GOP's great recession


Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.



http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

"Neil Fligstein and Adam Goldstein
Department of Sociology
University of California
Berkeley, Ca. 94720"

You expect us to believe a couple of commie sociologists from Berkeley?

Seriously?

When would you EVER 'believe' the truth or facts especially on a world wide Bankster bubble and bust? I know, it was the poor and people of colors fault right? LOL

The Socialist Policy was the 'fault' of the socialists who advocated for it, who coerced the lending industry into it and who defended it when it was readily apparent that it was inevitably going to fail catastrophically...

(The Reader should understand that the above facts are not presented as a means to convince the Left, they are presented to simply reiterate the truth. You see individuals who comprise the Ideological Left are incapable of sound reason; they're Relativists who lack the objectivity to discern truth. Thus where we find them, we let them speak, then merely set the truth beside their speech, so that its light will return it to the ether, from which it came.)

WHY would it fail? Germany's used the basic thing for 130+ years? And we know how conservatives HATE ANY social safety net, they are disappointed the US doesn't look like a 3rd world nation anymore, thanks to PROGRESSIVE policies!

 

[Dad2three]

Sure, PUBLIC DEBT WAS PAID OFF, and excess payroll taxes, as required by law, were put unto bonds that created more INTRA Gov't obligations (DEBT)


What should they have done with excess payroll taxes?

Clinton paid down public debt by over $400+ billion, BTW

Clinton actually claims that his administration paid off $600 billion of public debt. Your number of $400 billion is closer to actual $452 billion. But those numbers are public debt, and we both know that public debt is part of national debt. Taking money from SS funds to pay off other funds doesn't count as paying off the debt. The result is national debt increase for every year he was in office.

I could use my credit card to pay my car payment, or to pay off the whole loan, then I can claim that my car is paid in full. In reality, I just owe more on my credit card. That's pretty much what Clinton did.

So you'll ignore the part where I explain US INTRA Gov't debt was created under Clinton because the US received to much revenues in payroll taxes, and by law that money was required to be INVESTED in US bonds? Stop trying to equate a Gov't with a personal finance situation, it makes you look dumb!

What should've happened with the EXCESS payroll taxes? lol

And yes, thanks for agreeing, Clinton had 4 straight surpluses in the annual budgets, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut!

1) SS steals 15% of everyone's lifetime income and gives back dog food money when it should give you back $1.4 million

2) Clinton never cared to balanced a budget in his life , it was forced on him by first Republican Congress in 40 years under Newt.

3) dumbto 3 lacks the IQ to be here

1) It's called INSURANCE dummy. Check out the meaning sometime

2) lmarog... Yeah, the one passing a $700+ billion tax cut AFTER Bill's first surplus

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit



"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

Wow BEFORE THE GOPers took over Congress???lol


"Clinton's 1993 (Dem Congress) budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997



The Clinton Presidency Historic Economic Growth

I did check out the definition of insurance. If you think what we have is insurance, you're an idiot. With true insurance, a person wanting it approaches the person selling it and pays a price based on the risk the person poses using past history. If the person is a higher risk, they either pay more or they can be denied due to their risks potentially costing the one providing the coverage more than they can get from that person.

With Obamacare, we don't have insurance although idiots like you call it that.

'true insuance'???? lol

Fuckkking morons on the right. And NO, Obamacares ISN'T insurance dummy, it's called a LAW that GETS tens of millions more covered under insurance!

 

[bripat9643]

You just proved you have no clue what bonds are and what they are used for.

ANOTHER K/K/Klown shocking

The fund is required by law to be invested in non-marketable securities ... federal government securities bought with surplus OASI payroll tax revenue

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What do we call them? lol

OK, lets step back a little. Can you cite or link the law that require government to buy bonds.

The fund is required by law to be invested in non-marketable securities ...

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Hmmmmm . . . so?

How does that make the bonds it "buys" worth anything?

Same as EVERY other US backed bond. Is there a problem with them I'm unaware of? Is the US lacking people wanting to buy them? lol

I've already explained this about 1000 times on this forum, but I'll do it one more time for the morons: A bond a bank issues to itself is worth exactly zero to the bank. The same goes for government issued bonds that the government purchases. They are worth zero to the government and the taxpayers. They're nothing but an attempt to con you.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope, there is no such history. The hunt brothers went bankrupt trying to corner the silver market. The end result of the billions they spent? Nada, zip, zero.

Government caused all the pre fed recessions and all the post fed recessions, just like this last recession.

OK, As usual, ignore the link showing what a putz you are. And yes, Dubya and the Banksters in charge of the 'free markets' believed in 'markets will self regulate'


Dubya/GOP's great recession


Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.



http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

"Neil Fligstein and Adam Goldstein
Department of Sociology
University of California
Berkeley, Ca. 94720"

You expect us to believe a couple of commie sociologists from Berkeley?

Seriously?

When would you EVER 'believe' the truth or facts especially on a world wide Bankster bubble and bust? I know, it was the poor and people of colors fault right? LOL

The Socialist Policy was the 'fault' of the socialists who advocated for it, who coerced the lending industry into it and who defended it when it was readily apparent that it was inevitably going to fail catastrophically...

(The Reader should understand that the above facts are not presented as a means to convince the Left, they are presented to simply reiterate the truth. You see individuals who comprise the Ideological Left are incapable of sound reason; they're Relativists who lack the objectivity to discern truth. Thus where we find them, we let them speak, then merely set the truth beside their speech, so that its light will return it to the ether, from which it came.)

WHY would it fail? Germany's used the basic thing for 130+ years? And we know how conservatives HATE ANY social safety net, they are disappointed the US doesn't look like a 3rd world nation anymore, thanks to PROGRESSIVE policies!

Two companies can be the "same basic thing," but one can fail while the other one prospers. It all depends on whether the management is competent. Our management isn't competent.

 

[Dad2three]

OK, As usual, ignore the link showing what a putz you are. And yes, Dubya and the Banksters in charge of the 'free markets' believed in 'markets will self regulate'


Dubya/GOP's great recession


Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.



http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

"Neil Fligstein and Adam Goldstein
Department of Sociology
University of California
Berkeley, Ca. 94720"

You expect us to believe a couple of commie sociologists from Berkeley?

Seriously?

When would you EVER 'believe' the truth or facts especially on a world wide Bankster bubble and bust? I know, it was the poor and people of colors fault right? LOL

The Socialist Policy was the 'fault' of the socialists who advocated for it, who coerced the lending industry into it and who defended it when it was readily apparent that it was inevitably going to fail catastrophically...

(The Reader should understand that the above facts are not presented as a means to convince the Left, they are presented to simply reiterate the truth. You see individuals who comprise the Ideological Left are incapable of sound reason; they're Relativists who lack the objectivity to discern truth. Thus where we find them, we let them speak, then merely set the truth beside their speech, so that its light will return it to the ether, from which it came.)

WHY would it fail? Germany's used the basic thing for 130+ years? And we know how conservatives HATE ANY social safety net, they are disappointed the US doesn't look like a 3rd world nation anymore, thanks to PROGRESSIVE policies!

Two companies can be the "same basic thing," but one can fail while the other one prospers. It all depends on whether the management is competent. Our management isn't competent.

Perspective. Elect guys (Reagan, Dubya/GOP) who don't 'believe in' Gov't, thenm are shocked when they run it into the ground?

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."
Thomas Jefferson

 

[Dad2three]

ANOTHER K/K/Klown shocking

The fund is required by law to be invested in non-marketable securities ... federal government securities bought with surplus OASI payroll tax revenue

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What do we call them? lol

OK, lets step back a little. Can you cite or link the law that require government to buy bonds.

The fund is required by law to be invested in non-marketable securities ...

Social Security Trust Fund - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Hmmmmm . . . so?

How does that make the bonds it "buys" worth anything?

Same as EVERY other US backed bond. Is there a problem with them I'm unaware of? Is the US lacking people wanting to buy them? lol

I've already explained this about 1000 times on this forum, but I'll do it one more time for the morons: A bond a bank issues to itself is worth exactly zero to the bank. The same goes for government issued bonds that the government purchases. They are worth zero to the government and the taxpayers. They're nothing but an attempt to con you.

Got it, you don't believe in good governance so no, you wouldn't accept US Gov't backing. Shocking, try going to a 3rd world nation. I have a 'friend' who moved to Panama, bought a house in a 'development' then the owner died before everything in the development was completed, and he's pissed at the dead mans wife, lol. Gawdddamn right wingers (he's as far right libertarian as you could go)...

But I bet like Ayn Rand, you'll accept the Gov't money via SS/Medicare, lol

 

[Conservative65]

Clinton actually claims that his administration paid off $600 billion of public debt. Your number of $400 billion is closer to actual $452 billion. But those numbers are public debt, and we both know that public debt is part of national debt. Taking money from SS funds to pay off other funds doesn't count as paying off the debt. The result is national debt increase for every year he was in office.

I could use my credit card to pay my car payment, or to pay off the whole loan, then I can claim that my car is paid in full. In reality, I just owe more on my credit card. That's pretty much what Clinton did.

So you'll ignore the part where I explain US INTRA Gov't debt was created under Clinton because the US received to much revenues in payroll taxes, and by law that money was required to be INVESTED in US bonds? Stop trying to equate a Gov't with a personal finance situation, it makes you look dumb!

What should've happened with the EXCESS payroll taxes? lol

And yes, thanks for agreeing, Clinton had 4 straight surpluses in the annual budgets, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut!

1) SS steals 15% of everyone's lifetime income and gives back dog food money when it should give you back $1.4 million

2) Clinton never cared to balanced a budget in his life , it was forced on him by first Republican Congress in 40 years under Newt.

3) dumbto 3 lacks the IQ to be here

1) It's called INSURANCE dummy. Check out the meaning sometime

2) lmarog... Yeah, the one passing a $700+ billion tax cut AFTER Bill's first surplus

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit



"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

Wow BEFORE THE GOPers took over Congress???lol


"Clinton's 1993 (Dem Congress) budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997



The Clinton Presidency Historic Economic Growth

I did check out the definition of insurance. If you think what we have is insurance, you're an idiot. With true insurance, a person wanting it approaches the person selling it and pays a price based on the risk the person poses using past history. If the person is a higher risk, they either pay more or they can be denied due to their risks potentially costing the one providing the coverage more than they can get from that person.

With Obamacare, we don't have insurance although idiots like you call it that.

'true insuance'???? lol

Fuckkking morons on the right. And NO, Obamacares ISN'T insurance dummy, it's called a LAW that GETS tens of millions more covered under insurance!

True insurance would allow a carrier to say no to a person if they are too much of a costs risk.

Obamacare isn't insurance. It mandates that people have it and that a company providing coverage can't say no even if they know they'll lose money by doing it. It also mandates that those millions, if they can't afford it, have some honorable, hardworking person pay taxes to fund a subsidy so many of them can get yet ANOTHER handout.

If you're one that was able to afford coverage because of a subsidy, **** you. I don't owe you a damn thing.

 

[Dad2three]

So you'll ignore the part where I explain US INTRA Gov't debt was created under Clinton because the US received to much revenues in payroll taxes, and by law that money was required to be INVESTED in US bonds? Stop trying to equate a Gov't with a personal finance situation, it makes you look dumb!

What should've happened with the EXCESS payroll taxes? lol

And yes, thanks for agreeing, Clinton had 4 straight surpluses in the annual budgets, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut!

1) SS steals 15% of everyone's lifetime income and gives back dog food money when it should give you back $1.4 million

2) Clinton never cared to balanced a budget in his life , it was forced on him by first Republican Congress in 40 years under Newt.

3) dumbto 3 lacks the IQ to be here

1) It's called INSURANCE dummy. Check out the meaning sometime

2) lmarog... Yeah, the one passing a $700+ billion tax cut AFTER Bill's first surplus

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit



"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

Wow BEFORE THE GOPers took over Congress???lol


"Clinton's 1993 (Dem Congress) budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997



The Clinton Presidency Historic Economic Growth

I did check out the definition of insurance. If you think what we have is insurance, you're an idiot. With true insurance, a person wanting it approaches the person selling it and pays a price based on the risk the person poses using past history. If the person is a higher risk, they either pay more or they can be denied due to their risks potentially costing the one providing the coverage more than they can get from that person.

With Obamacare, we don't have insurance although idiots like you call it that.

'true insuance'???? lol

Fuckkking morons on the right. And NO, Obamacares ISN'T insurance dummy, it's called a LAW that GETS tens of millions more covered under insurance!

True insurance would allow a carrier to say no to a person if they are too much of a costs risk.

Obamacare isn't insurance. It mandates that people have it and that a company providing coverage can't say no even if they know they'll lose money by doing it. It also mandates that those millions, if they can't afford it, have some honorable, hardworking person pay taxes to fund a subsidy so many of them can get yet ANOTHER handout.

If you're one that was able to afford coverage because of a subsidy, **** you. I don't owe you a damn thing.

Moron. Insurance don't HAVE to accept anyone, if they don't want tto play, get the fuk out!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

True insurance would allow a carrier to say no to a person if they are too much of a costs risk.

That's correct, and why as a society we can't rely on just that. You're welcome.

 

[Conservative65]

1) SS steals 15% of everyone's lifetime income and gives back dog food money when it should give you back $1.4 million

2) Clinton never cared to balanced a budget in his life , it was forced on him by first Republican Congress in 40 years under Newt.

3) dumbto 3 lacks the IQ to be here

1) It's called INSURANCE dummy. Check out the meaning sometime

2) lmarog... Yeah, the one passing a $700+ billion tax cut AFTER Bill's first surplus

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit



"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

Wow BEFORE THE GOPers took over Congress???lol


"Clinton's 1993 (Dem Congress) budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997



The Clinton Presidency Historic Economic Growth

I did check out the definition of insurance. If you think what we have is insurance, you're an idiot. With true insurance, a person wanting it approaches the person selling it and pays a price based on the risk the person poses using past history. If the person is a higher risk, they either pay more or they can be denied due to their risks potentially costing the one providing the coverage more than they can get from that person.

With Obamacare, we don't have insurance although idiots like you call it that.

'true insuance'???? lol

Fuckkking morons on the right. And NO, Obamacares ISN'T insurance dummy, it's called a LAW that GETS tens of millions more covered under insurance!

True insurance would allow a carrier to say no to a person if they are too much of a costs risk.

Obamacare isn't insurance. It mandates that people have it and that a company providing coverage can't say no even if they know they'll lose money by doing it. It also mandates that those millions, if they can't afford it, have some honorable, hardworking person pay taxes to fund a subsidy so many of them can get yet ANOTHER handout.

If you're one that was able to afford coverage because of a subsidy, **** you. I don't owe you a damn thing.

Moron. Insurance don't HAVE to accept anyone, if they don't want tto play, get the fuk out!

So, your answer is they have to cater to leeches or don't be in business?
Spoken like a true leech.