Obama, intellectual or empty suit?

[scaredyclassic]

We’re depressed. Well I’m depress ed anywY.

[NotCranky]

[quote=walterwhite]We’re depressed. Well I’m depress ed anywY.[/quote]
I haven’t voted since 1980, out of moral conviction. I feel more vindicated every year.

[NotCranky]

[quote=Jacarandoso][quote=walterwhite]We’re depressed. Well I’m depress ed anywY.[/quote]
I haven’t voted since 1980***, out of moral conviction. I feel more vindicated every year.[/quote]

*** I voted for Clinton once, but only to score points with my future wife.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=flu]Romney is the candidate that people are going to think is out of touch with reality…He’s the “rich” person people just hate. and Obama and crew is going to have a field day on the Caymen Island accounts. Question: why do americans these days hate successful people?[/quote]
To be fair, I agreed with most of what you wrote, and I’m cherry-picking your final question.

I think a lot of people have a hard time accepting that a multi-millionaire who thinks 360K isn’t a lot of money to make in a year paid a lower effective tax rate on his income than they did. I understand how these tax incentives work, and I’m struggling with how it is fair. He’s actually the best incentive of a modified “fair tax” I’ve encountered, assuming it’s a version of the fair tax that gets rid of capital gains being taxed at a lower rate.

I’m actually surprised to see so many Republicans mutiny against him. Mitt Romney is a “Job Creator” in the truest Republican ideal. If you honestly believe in trickle down, he’s the ideal candidate. But maybe southern conservatives still hate Mormons that much?

[Anonymous]

[quote=no_such_reality]The only difference between Newt and Obama is that Obama has charisma. They’re the same guy, just opposite sides of the political coin.[/quote]This statement is as retarded as Palin’s kid.

Obama couldn’t hold a candle to Gingrich’s level of sociopath behavior. Obama at best is just your run of the mill narcissist.

GWB was by far the least intelligent of the last four presidents. 12 steppers shouldn’t even be included in a discussion on intelligence.

[Anonymous]

[quote=SK in CV]I think there’s a bit of a misconception about the borrowing from social security. It’s not an option.[/quote]Not true.

The Social Security surplus can and was (prior to the 60’s) invested primarily in marketable securities. The link below can answer all the basic questions.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/

Johnson brought SS on budget to reduce annual deficits. The 83 act took it off budget, but shithead Phil Gramm, wrote the legislation to bring it back on budget by 1985.

Here’s the real annual surplus/deficit numbers w SS excluded.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

Concho, there was a true surplus in 1999 and 2000, don’t believe articles from any side, look at the numbers.

SS cannot add to the federal debt and the SS trust fund has a $2.5+ trillion surplus. All federal spending is an unfunded liability so don’t even bother with that ignorant BS. Read the legislation and spare the world the partisan bullshit.

Ron Paul supporters don’t know what an audit is. rucking fetards.

[svelte]

[quote=flu]
Romney is the candidate that people are going to think is out of touch with reality…He’s the “rich” person people just hate. and Obama and crew is going to have a field day on the Caymen Island accounts. Question: why do americans these days hate successful people?[/quote]

I don’t think Americans hate successful people. They definitely don’t like people who rig the system in their favor, who they feel do questionable things to avoid taxes, or who buy elections/votes.

[scaredyclassic]

Romneys success story is kind of hard to embrace. He’s basically management extreme. He didn’t really build anything right. He just reorganized. Is that a story that inspires? Is it really quslitatively different than doing remodrls on messed up houses?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=walterwhite]Romneys success story is kind of hard to embrace. He’s basically management extreme. He didn’t really build anything right. He just reorganized. Is that a story that inspires? Is it really quslitatively different than doing remodrls on messed up houses?[/quote]

Scaredy: Except he wasn’t even really management. From the mid-1970s (as the US manufacturing base began to erode and migrate) through the 1980s, you saw massive asset and value destruction as companies like Bain stepped in and began stripping carcasses.

In terms of “value”, Romney hasn’t produced any. He’s destroyed plenty, though.

[SK in CV]

[quote=John Ogre]
The Social Security surplus can and was (prior to the 60’s) invested primarily in marketable securities. The link below can answer all the basic questions.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/

[/quote]

I’ll take your word for it that you’ve read that somewhere. But on the linked site i found:

Q27: Do the Social Security Trust Funds earn interest?

A: Yes they do. By law, the assets of the Social Security program must be invested in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest. The Trust Funds hold a mix of short-term and long-term government bonds. The Trust Funds can hold both regular Treasury securities and “special obligation” securities issued only to federal trust funds. In practice, most of the securities in the Social Security Trust Funds are of the “special obligation” type. (See additional explanation from SSA’s Office of the Actuary.)

and

The Social Security trust funds, managed by the Department of the Treasury, are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds. Since the beginning of the Social Security program, all securities held by the trust funds have been issued by the Federal Government.

There are two general types of such securities:
1.special issues—securities available only to the trust funds; and
2.public issues—securities available to the public (marketable securities).
The trust funds now hold only special issues, but they have held public issues in the past.

I think maybe the disconnect is in #2 of the second quoted section. It refers to marketable securities. But that’s not stocks. It’s marketable securities issued by the US government. The same debt instruments that you or I could buy. Either way, the only investment option for SS trust funds is now, and has always been, to lend the money to the federal government.

[Anonymous]

[quote=SK in CV]Either way, the only investment option for SS trust funds is now, and has always been, to lend the money to the federal government.[/quote]There’s no disconnect and your claim is 100% false. Sorry for being stern on this but the misinformation from those on the right has been repeated over and over for decades.

There’s nothing stopping the SS fund from demanding only marketable treasuries that you and I can purchase, it’s just that the original rules of SS “custodianship” have been bastardized.

The 2 reasons the SS trust fund now exclusively holds special issue securities is because SS surpluses reduced the reported annual deficits (as seen in http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf) and special issue securities pay a lower than market rate.

Most people don’t understand the difference between debt and deficits let alone the concept of intra-fund debt. It’s easier for people to just believe any bullshit their side tells them. Hell I’d lie to you too if I had something to gain.

I can loan you $10 but that doesn’t make you $10 richer. I’m sure Ron Paulites’ brains are smoldering right now.

[markmax33]

[quote=flu][quote=markmax33][quote=SK in CV]Here’s what the polls look like right now. I have to admit, unlike some of the other GOP candidates, Ron Paul has shown consistency. And for him and his supporters, it’s good, his support is pretty continuously rising.

The only bad part about it is, at this rate of gains in his support, he’ll be the Republican nominee in 2024.[/quote]

Seeing as he has only campaigned in 3 states so far and the media doesn’t talk about him and outright lies about him, 15% nationally is pretty good and it’s all grassroots. Remember 4 years ago was 0% so by the end of this election he should easily be a solid 25% or greater.

It’s really a two man race right now anyway. Romney and Paul are the only 2 with that are on all of the ballots, only two with organization in every state, only two with money. Gingrich and Santorum won’t be around much longer.[/quote]

Wrong again. Paul is a non-compute in these states.[/quote]

FLU,
Your comments are a non-compute as usual. The GOP has promoted a different candidate per week. There are 564 delegates that Paul and Romney only have a shot at since they are the only ones on the ballot.

[markmax33]

[quote=John Ogre][quote=SK in CV]Either way, the only investment option for SS trust funds is now, and has always been, to lend the money to the federal government.[/quote]There’s no disconnect and your claim is 100% false. Sorry for being stern on this but the misinformation from those on the right has been repeated over and over for decades.

There’s nothing stopping the SS fund from demanding only marketable treasuries that you and I can purchase, it’s just that the original rules of SS “custodianship” have been bastardized.

The 2 reasons the SS trust fund now exclusively holds special issue securities is because SS surpluses reduced the reported annual deficits (as seen in http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf) and special issue securities pay a lower than market rate.

Most people don’t understand the difference between debt and deficits let alone the concept of intra-fund debt. It’s easier for people to just believe any bullshit their side tells them. Hell I’d lie to you too if I had something to gain.

I can loan you $10 but that doesn’t make you $10 richer. I’m sure Ron Paulites’ brains are smoldering right now.[/quote]

John,
You should take a look at the national debt clock. Can’t escape that one or dance around it. At some point the currency goes boom and Ron Paul was right.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[SK in CV]

[quote=John Ogre][quote=SK in CV]Either way, the only investment option for SS trust funds is now, and has always been, to lend the money to the federal government.[/quote]There’s no disconnect and your claim is 100% false. Sorry for being stern on this but the misinformation from those on the right has been repeated over and over for decades.

There’s nothing stopping the SS fund from demanding only marketable treasuries that you and I can purchase, it’s just that the original rules of SS “custodianship” have been bastardized.

The 2 reasons the SS trust fund now exclusively holds special issue securities is because SS surpluses reduced the reported annual deficits (as seen in http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf) and special issue securities pay a lower than market rate.

Most people don’t understand the difference between debt and deficits let alone the concept of intra-fund debt. It’s easier for people to just believe any bullshit their side tells them. Hell I’d lie to you too if I had something to gain.

I can loan you $10 but that doesn’t make you $10 richer. I’m sure Ron Paulites’ brains are smoldering right now.[/quote]

Ok, I’m not sure where you think I was wrong. I wasn’t. The SS trust fund must buy either marketable US debt, or special issue debt. Either way, they are lending money to the federal government. Go back to my original comment. I never claimed differently.

And if you’re arguing that I’m repeating right wing talking points, eh….whatever. Politically, i’m somewhere to the south and left of gandhi. But I don’t let other’s ideologies get in the way of facts.

[justme]

Both, but Obama needs to shape up. no doubt.

[Author]

Posts