Quantcast

Should the USA suspend democracy until the economy recovers? Democrats say yes.

FanOreilly 2011/09/28 13:54:57
Yes, suspend elections until the economy recovers
No, democracy is not the problem, government is the problem
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Should the USA suspend democracy until the economy recovers?
Democrats say yes!

Remember all the insane allegations that Bush was a dictator?

cancel elections

To my knowledge, Republicans never called for the end of democracy...or just a temporary suspension.

Why would the Democrats who only a few years ago cry shrill screams of 'dictator!' at Bush then suddenly oppose elections?

Let me see...why would the Democrats not want to have elections....?

Could this be why?



Here is Obama's director of the OMB, a huge leftist and of course a Democrat on why the answer to America's problems is LESS democracy.

"To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize
the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies
and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other
words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our
political institutions by making them a bit less democratic
."

Wait what? 'a bit less democratic'? You mean like no voting?

A sitting government official wants to decrease democracy a little? WTH?



Yes, that's exactly what liberals mean:

"Speaking to a Cary Rotary Club today, N.C. Gov. Bev Perdue suggested
suspending Congressional elections for two years so that Congress can
focus on economic recovery and not the next election.

"I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two
years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever
decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I
really hope that someone can agree with me on that," Perdue said. "You
want people who don't worry about the next election
."




Should the USA suspend democracy until the economy recovers?

Read More: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/27/nc-gov-bev-p...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • FanOreilly 2011/09/28 13:55:49
    No, democracy is not the problem, government is the problem
    FanOreilly
    +37
    Do you see now why the right calls you liberals Marxists? Because if you are not, you stole their playbook.

    obama marxist

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Meg RighCraobh 2011/11/01 00:31:29
    Meg
    My point is that the Democrats push legislation in favor of the poor; whereas, Republicans push legislation in favor of the wealthy. Just because Democrats have suddenly begun to represent more wealthy constituencies, does not mean that the Democrats "favor" the wealthy. In addition, you wording is not correct. You stated that Democrats hold most of the wealth, which is not true. They have recently begun to represent a larger share of wealthy constituencies. I still knew what you meant, but you should be careful how you state this fact. I can't see why it's even pertinent to compare the wealth of senators. That's just silly. I could just as easily say that the poorest senator is a Democrat, but that still doesn't make it significant or relevant.
  • RighCraobh Meg 2011/11/15 19:30:51
    RighCraobh
    The only poor people that interest the Dems are those that they can put on some form of welfare in order to buy their votes.

    There is more money held by those that vote Democratic than those that vote Republican.
  • Meg RighCraobh 2011/11/16 19:42:27
    Meg
    You might find it interesting to know that your statistic can easily be flipped around on you. Although Democrats hold approximately 80% of the wealth in the Senate, Republicans hold approximately 80% of the wealth in the House. Actually the two wealthiest members of Congress are Republicans. Like I said before, these stats don't mean anything.

    As far as the fact that Red states are poorer than blue states, consider the following factors:
    1. Those with a college education are more liberal than those without.
    2. The stars of pop culture (Hollywood, pro athletes) are both rich and liberal.
    3. Public employees at the managerial level, politicians, lawyers, all make good money, and of course they are overwhelmingly Democrats.
    4. Brainwashing: Republicans, the media, and other opinion leaders have been able to divert people’s attention away from economics and towards cultural issues, such as abortion, gay rights, religion, patriotism, race, etc. It’s easier to influence uneducated people, as evidenced by terror groups in the Mideast.

    At the local level, Americans may vote based upon economical interests, but as a nation, they frequently do the opposite. Ironically, it's the poor rifle toting hillbillies and little old ladies living off SS that elect Republicans. Basically, poor regions...

    You might find it interesting to know that your statistic can easily be flipped around on you. Although Democrats hold approximately 80% of the wealth in the Senate, Republicans hold approximately 80% of the wealth in the House. Actually the two wealthiest members of Congress are Republicans. Like I said before, these stats don't mean anything.

    As far as the fact that Red states are poorer than blue states, consider the following factors:
    1. Those with a college education are more liberal than those without.
    2. The stars of pop culture (Hollywood, pro athletes) are both rich and liberal.
    3. Public employees at the managerial level, politicians, lawyers, all make good money, and of course they are overwhelmingly Democrats.
    4. Brainwashing: Republicans, the media, and other opinion leaders have been able to divert people’s attention away from economics and towards cultural issues, such as abortion, gay rights, religion, patriotism, race, etc. It’s easier to influence uneducated people, as evidenced by terror groups in the Mideast.

    At the local level, Americans may vote based upon economical interests, but as a nation, they frequently do the opposite. Ironically, it's the poor rifle toting hillbillies and little old ladies living off SS that elect Republicans. Basically, poor regions, such as the deep south are far more conservative. This trend is indicative of the rising importance of social issues over economical issues.

    I have to ask you, why is this pertinent? You are making these remarks as if they have some bearing on legislative values. Can you explain why you believe this fact to be relevant?
    (more)
  • RighCraobh Meg 2011/12/01 19:21:06
    RighCraobh
    You made it relavent when you implied that the Republicans represent the wealthy and the Democrats represent the poor and the working class.

    You have a lot of verbiage there to mask the the lack of facts on your side.
  • Meg RighCraobh 2011/12/10 00:05:42
    Meg
    No, I did not imply that Republicans represent the wealthy and that Democrats represent the poor. This must be the third time that I have had to clarify this to you.

    The word "represent" is indicative of the congressional districts each party serves. I did state that Democrats push legislation in favor of the poor, which you took out of context. I never emphasized whether or not Democrats or Republicans have more money, you did.

    I proceeded to illustrate how this fact is irrelevant and asked you why you felt the need to focus on this topic. You then claimed, once again, that I implied something that I did not. If you look back, I explained to you several posts ago that I was referring to legislation, not congressional districts or personal wealth.

    While we are on the topic: If you believe this to be false, please name at least ten pieces of legislation authored recently in favor of the poor that were overwhelmingly supported by Republicans. Have you not noticed their obvious disregard for the middle-class tax cuts? The party of lower taxes is refusing to renew the payroll tax cut decrease. You cannot argue with facts.
  • RighCraobh Meg 2011/12/12 19:50:47
    RighCraobh
    The middle class has been under attack since the 1960s. The middle class must be destroyed if the country is to go down the tubes.

    Social Security and Medicare are broke and it makes little sense to reduce those taxes. By doing that the bankruptch occurs sooner rather than later.

    You seem to state a lot, then when called on it, there is nothing but double talk,.
  • Meg RighCraobh 2011/12/13 16:56:35
    Meg
    This is one of the more laughable responses I have ever been presented with! Truthfully, I expected much more from you...

    The middle class has been attacked by Republicans. Unions were responsible for the formation of the middle class and Republicans have been trying to crush them ever since.

    Your statement in regards to the payroll tax is beyond idiotic. First off, the cuts would be paid for. There have been several propositions as to what and how, but none of it directly affects either program. Anyone who pays attention would know this. In addition, this is not the Right's argument. They have simply used this as a bartering tool to make way for more ideological provisions in the legislation.

    When the Bush cuts were up for extension, the Right held unemployment insurance hostage until the most wealthy people in the country were allowed to keep their tax cuts. Basically, they threatened mostly poor and middle class people to gain benefits for the wealthy. Now, they are once again threatening the middle class to gain benefits for big oil. Get a clue!!

    By the way, you haven't "called" me on anything. I have been waiting for you to add some substance to your argument, but you have yet to do so. In addition, you have not legitimately countered even one of my arguments.
  • RighCraobh Meg 2012/01/20 18:59:36
    RighCraobh
    The middle class has been under attack since the early 1960s if not before.

    You have nothing but hate and babble to post here. This nation headed down the tubes well before Bush became president.
    Your inability to see beyond your Bush hatred is part of the problem and it is the part that will destroy the US.

    If all this was Bush's fault, it would have been fixed the first 2 weeks of the Obama adminstration because Obama is a milion times smarter than Bush, right?

    Obama adds $4 trillion to the debt in 18 months, it took Bush 8 years to add the same amount.
  • Meg RighCraobh 2012/01/22 19:55:10
    Meg
    I agree wholeheartedly that the middle class has been under attack for at least thirty years. It's not even so much congressional action, but more political drift that has led us to where we are now.

    I also agree that the nation was headed in the wrong direction long before Bush took office. Furthermore, I don't blame everything on Bush. You, however, are failing to see how much of an impact Bush did have on the nation's fiscal stability.

    Most of the debt incurred under Obama is the result of continued Bush policies that could not be easily overturned. Long term spending on Medicare D, wars, interest, etc. has led to the greatly increasing debt. I challenge you to look up the US deficit and determine the contributing factors leading to the deficit. You will see that very little of the debt has been a result of Obama's policies.

    Your statements in regards to Obama are just ludicrous. Even the most conservative economists estimate that it will be another 5-6 years before credit markets open up and the economy begins to see some real growth. Essentially, this is our version of "the lost decade". Actually, when Japan's housing market collapsed in 1990, it wasn't just a decade, but 16 years before their ailing economy really began to heal. This is the real world we are living in. Ma...
    I agree wholeheartedly that the middle class has been under attack for at least thirty years. It's not even so much congressional action, but more political drift that has led us to where we are now.

    I also agree that the nation was headed in the wrong direction long before Bush took office. Furthermore, I don't blame everything on Bush. You, however, are failing to see how much of an impact Bush did have on the nation's fiscal stability.

    Most of the debt incurred under Obama is the result of continued Bush policies that could not be easily overturned. Long term spending on Medicare D, wars, interest, etc. has led to the greatly increasing debt. I challenge you to look up the US deficit and determine the contributing factors leading to the deficit. You will see that very little of the debt has been a result of Obama's policies.

    Your statements in regards to Obama are just ludicrous. Even the most conservative economists estimate that it will be another 5-6 years before credit markets open up and the economy begins to see some real growth. Essentially, this is our version of "the lost decade". Actually, when Japan's housing market collapsed in 1990, it wasn't just a decade, but 16 years before their ailing economy really began to heal. This is the real world we are living in. Macro-economies don't just turn around in a matter of weeks. The fact is, we are starting to see jobs reappearing and the economy is starting to slowly pick up. If you really think that McCain, or anyone else for that matter, could have done better, I'd love to know how.
    (more)
  • RighCraobh Meg 2012/01/27 20:15:45
    RighCraobh
    History did not begin with Bush, If the problems began with Bush, then Obama should have had it straightened out already.
    Bush spent to much money, Obama spending more money will not fix the problem, it will make it worse.
    Obama's policies have continued the downward spiral.

    Refusal to build the pipeline is the most recent example. Study the other dozen pipelines crossing that area. If it is not safe, remove them.
  • Meg RighCraobh 2012/02/04 01:59:49
    Meg
    As I mentioned before, the problems created by Bush were not of a temporary nature. You cannot just shut off a prescription drug program, two wars, etc. The problems have continued because Obama has not been able to reverse many of the poor policies and decisions that his predecessor made. No, it's not all Bush's fault, but a great deal of it is.

    Obama's policies slowed our declining economy greatly, as agreed by most economists. In addition, our economy is picking up by the day. Of course, you probably already know this.

    No one is refusing to build the pipeline. Actually, a large faction of the Democratic electorate is pushing for the pipeline, as it will benefit union workers. The State Department is responsible for researching the options and reporting on the pros and cons of implementing such a project. The problem is that they have not yet completed their study. Obama is simply advocating that we wait until we have all of the information before we make a decision. This is a rather large undertaking, in which other countries and big oil stand to gain the most. Republicans, siding with big oil as usual, are attempting to fast track the project. I, personally, believe that it would be irresponsible for the government to expedite such a project without all of the information, especially since we are dealing with the dirtiest oil available. This needs to be done right. Otherwise, the disastrous consequences from hasty policy will fall on us.
  • RighCraobh Meg 2012/02/13 17:59:58
    RighCraobh
    That is one war against the same enemy on different fronts.
    A problem that should have been taken care of well before Bush got into office. Islamic terrorists began killing Americans in the 1960s, first idividually, then in larger and larger groups.
    But the fact we are at war with Islamic terrorists should be expected because they are at war with everyone else.

    That prescription drug program is minimal compared to the other problems I have cited.
  • Meg RighCraobh 2012/02/14 02:34:59
    Meg
    I'm going to have to disagree with your first statement. There was absolutely NO terror link to Iraq prior to our invasion. We invaded Iraq because Saddam failed to comply with UN weapons inspectors. Actually, even Bush discusses his mistakes in launching war with Iraq in his book, "Decision Points". He says that he may have been too hasty and misinterpreted the intelligence that was collected. If Bush knew then what we know now, we would never have been in Iraq. Even Bush has emphatically stated that Iraq and 911 are two completely separate issues. After we invaded Iraq, of course, terrorists swarmed there just for the simple fact that they could kill Americans.

    I do agree with you that the Al Qaeda uprising in Afghanistan never should have happened. After helping the Mudja Hadine fight off the communists, we essentially turned our backs on Afghanistan. When the rebels turned their guns on each other, Al Qaeda began its ascent to power. Had we spent more time there in the 80s/90s, perhaps it would never have happened. Who knows?
  • RighCraobh Meg 2012/05/09 19:33:16
    RighCraobh
    I really do not care what Bush says and I only voted for him becasue he was not Gore or Kerry.

    If you send me a reply, so I can find you, I will send you a couple of books that lays out htis case.

    When Islamic terrorists began swarming in there, Bush should have had someone ask the Mad Mollos and Assad what they would like destroyed or they could shut down the terrorist pipeline.

    The was an AQ training camp in northern Iraq. Half in Iraq and half in Iran. So no matter which way they were attacked they could run into the other country.
  • Meg RighCraobh 2012/06/06 16:23:43
    Meg
    I'm not sure what you are getting at. Perhaps the war in Iraq became an ongoing battle due to the increased presence of terrorists, however, it didn't start that way. We went into Iraq because Saddam was deemed to be a threat, despite accurate IAEA reports that he was not. After discovering that there were no WMD, the mission turned to overthrowing Saddam to implement democracy. Afterward, we were forced to maintain a presence because of the terrorists, which posed a security risk. I think that we both agree with the above information, correct?

    The Ansar training camp you are referring to was implemented right before we invaded. Actually, intelligence has shown that these terrorists fled Afghanistan following the presence of the US. Most importantly, however, US analysts determined that they were low-level and didn't pose a threat to the US at the time. A lot of people tried to manipulate this data as a link between Iraq and Al-qaida to push for an invasion. Intelligence showed that there was no link between Baghdad and the Ansar training camp, though.

    I'm not sure what you mean by your statement regarding the terrorists swarming into Iraq. Are you saying that Bush should have threatened other countries, such as Syria, if they didn't stop terrorists from funneling through their countries into Iraq? Do you really think it would be wise to wage war with Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, etc. all at once? Perhaps I misunderstood your point?
  • RighCraobh Meg 2012/08/28 18:57:49
    RighCraobh
    it's been a while since I was around.

    We did not have time to look for WMD until after Saddam was overthrown.
    Saddam had been funding Islamic terrorists around the world.
    We were not forced to maintain a presence.

    I don't know when the Ansar camp was founded, it was there.
    When do terrorists become a threat. Many said the same about Osama before 9-11. By 9-11 the were very dangerous but it was too late to stop them.

    Al Answar was in Iraq and that is the link. Well half was in Iraq and the other half was in Iran. That is a level of cooperation that cannot be allowed to stand. If Iran thought 3 leftist American hikers were a threat, I am sure they would see problems with a terrorist camp.

    BTW: The Islamic terrorists, proudly and loudly proclaiming their eagerness for martyrdom, built their camp so they could escape. If Iraq was invaded, they flee to Iran. If Iran was invaded, they flee to Iraq.

    Terrorists were entering Iraq through Syria or Iran. That is a breach of International Law. I seriously doubt that either would have went to war to continue the flow of AQ into Iraq. Call it a threat, or whatever,, they should have been alerted to possible consequences for their hostile actions.

    There is no doubt in my mind that if Clinton had told Afghanistan to turn over ...

    it's been a while since I was around.

    We did not have time to look for WMD until after Saddam was overthrown.
    Saddam had been funding Islamic terrorists around the world.
    We were not forced to maintain a presence.

    I don't know when the Ansar camp was founded, it was there.
    When do terrorists become a threat. Many said the same about Osama before 9-11. By 9-11 the were very dangerous but it was too late to stop them.

    Al Answar was in Iraq and that is the link. Well half was in Iraq and the other half was in Iran. That is a level of cooperation that cannot be allowed to stand. If Iran thought 3 leftist American hikers were a threat, I am sure they would see problems with a terrorist camp.

    BTW: The Islamic terrorists, proudly and loudly proclaiming their eagerness for martyrdom, built their camp so they could escape. If Iraq was invaded, they flee to Iran. If Iran was invaded, they flee to Iraq.

    Terrorists were entering Iraq through Syria or Iran. That is a breach of International Law. I seriously doubt that either would have went to war to continue the flow of AQ into Iraq. Call it a threat, or whatever,, they should have been alerted to possible consequences for their hostile actions.

    There is no doubt in my mind that if Clinton had told Afghanistan to turn over Osama, or he would send them all to Allah, 9-11 would never have happened. They may not have turned him over,but they would have put him out of commission and we would have been notified.

    Threats, with the belief that they will be followed upon, often solve problems and prevent them from becoming larger. Instead Clinton went to the UN when Osama blew up 2 embassies in Africa. A lot of good they did us.
    (more)
  • Grammar... Omnix 2011/09/30 16:39:42
    Grammar Freak
    +3
    Unbelievably well said.
  • Preside... Omnix 2011/09/30 19:57:18
    President Camacho
    +2
    wow, you sure wrote a lot of BS that no one will read.
  • wysiwis Preside... 2011/10/01 15:41:06
    wysiwis
    +1
    I'll say, I couldn't through the third paragraph.
  • Preside... wysiwis 2011/10/02 14:14:24
    President Camacho
    +1
    I didn't get that far - it is obvious bull crap.
  • RighCraobh Preside... 2011/10/24 18:44:10 (edited)
    RighCraobh
    Exactly.
  • jaeman Omnix 2011/10/01 10:43:47
    jaeman
    +2
    "Insanity" - doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Suspending elections and keeping the same people is insanity!

    Omnix, what an extensive vocabulary! It always amazes me, how blindly people follow this president. So, cutting spending, capping taxes and balancing the budget, are wrong and blindly following the Dems to the death of America and Democracy is right?

    Do you actually believe what you have written?
  • Omnix jaeman 2011/10/01 17:16:20
    Omnix
    +1
    A) You imply a false dichotomy. Despite the right-wing propaganda, most Democrats do NOT want to blindly increase spending; and most Republicans would NOT follow through with their promise to cut spending, reduce your taxes, or balance the budget. In fact, if you (personally) take the time to study our history (using academically reviewed and verified sources), you will learn that it has been Republicans (and blue-dog Democrats) who have borrowed and spent recklessly, increased your taxes (while decreasing taxes on themselves and their wealthy benefactors), engaged in imperialization which is largely the reason for foreign aggression, and removed economic regulations which provided over 50 years of economic stability. Democrat-controlled administrations, typically, have stabilized the economy, and frequently created a better balance between individual/workers and business interests. But what makes your claim a false dichotomy is that you imply if someone doesn't support the Republicans (right-wing), then they must be opposed to cutting spending, capping taxes, and balancing the budget. It's a classic example of, you're either for us or against us.

    B) I've spent a large portion of my life studying many facets of history, science, sociology, psychology, philosophy, economics...





    A) You imply a false dichotomy. Despite the right-wing propaganda, most Democrats do NOT want to blindly increase spending; and most Republicans would NOT follow through with their promise to cut spending, reduce your taxes, or balance the budget. In fact, if you (personally) take the time to study our history (using academically reviewed and verified sources), you will learn that it has been Republicans (and blue-dog Democrats) who have borrowed and spent recklessly, increased your taxes (while decreasing taxes on themselves and their wealthy benefactors), engaged in imperialization which is largely the reason for foreign aggression, and removed economic regulations which provided over 50 years of economic stability. Democrat-controlled administrations, typically, have stabilized the economy, and frequently created a better balance between individual/workers and business interests. But what makes your claim a false dichotomy is that you imply if someone doesn't support the Republicans (right-wing), then they must be opposed to cutting spending, capping taxes, and balancing the budget. It's a classic example of, you're either for us or against us.

    B) I've spent a large portion of my life studying many facets of history, science, sociology, psychology, philosophy, economics, and business (which I have a degree in), which has given me the opportunity to evaluated multiple "ideologies". However, I have found I'm a rare exception. Instead, most people are unwilling or incapable of doing their own research; so they are unable to put aside their biases and objectively analyze the facts. If everyone did this, more people would see that the right-wing plutocrats are spinning a trail of lies (fraud), instead of repeatedly believing them that "It'll be different this time". Talk about "insanity"... Put another way, before the right-wing propaganda machine (News Corp, Limbaugh, Drudge, etc) reached it's current prominence, the majority of Americans (like most compassionate humans) were left-leaning centrist, capitalists. In fact, in most places around the world and throughout history, it has been necessary for oligarchs/plutocrats to propagandize in order to establish a base. Their arguments/claims are always the same, and they play to people's fears, base desires (namely greed), self-loathing, and ignorance. The latter is why the right-wing opposes educating, and contrives mechanisms like sports, movies, theme parks, inane television shows, etc as distraction - effectively time control. Fundamentally, they know that the more educated the electorate is, the less likely they are to buy their claptrap. In many cases, they spend an amazing amount of money and time trying to defame and besmirch their opposition by distorting history and spewing populist rhetoric like the canard that Democrats are "socialists". By continually painting this picture, and dumbing-down the laborers, they create an environment where those laborers become infantilized - meaning dumb, docile, and dependent. While spinning this fraud and deception (a classic con-game), those same people use their wealth, power, and influence to increase their wealth, power, luxury, and influence. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory, it is a well-documented, historical (and quite successful) strategy of despots and tyrants throughout history. And it is in full play in the US - I'm sorry you can't see it...

    C) President Obama is not a bad president (especially compared to several of his predecessors), although he has not been as effective as most of us would like. His negotiating skills are non-existent, and his unwillingness to call out the right-wing plutocrats for their misfeasance/malfeasance almost makes us believe he is in league with them. But, in comparison to the far-right to radical-right set of candidates being considered for the Republican nomination (and considering our dysfunctional electoral system), I would rather vote for a president I consider to be a right-leaning moderate than the others. This president has reduced your taxes, cut the deficit, attempted to stabilize the economy using a strategy that has been used dozens of times by Republican presidents (you call it stimulus), fought for your rights, has repeatedly shown his willingness to cooperate (aka bipartisanship), and attempted (despite incredible opposition) to improve the lives of the majority of "middle-class" Americans.

    The right-wing plutocrats, though, have waged a campaign against this president (and the country) that I consider an act of terrorism, organized crime, and an insurrection. A few of them have been indicted for their actions; but, because of the level of corruption in our government (all branches and levels), especially our justice system, very few are convicted. And those that have been convicted often get off with little to no punishment.

    However, if there were a better (ie strong, progressive centrist) candidate that had a reasonable chance of beating the Republicans, I would happily give them my vote. Personally, I would like to abolish the political parties, and reform our government (all aspects) to restore/establish a mutually beneficial (uniquely syncretic) republic/democracy - just as our founders attempted to do. In short, I am an advocate for a separation of politics and government, just as our founders advocated a separation of church and state, and for much the same reason.
    (more)
  • RighCraobh Omnix 2011/10/24 18:50:49
    RighCraobh
    While you claim to have spent your life studying history, economics, etc., di you bother to learn anything while you were at it.

    The government began spending the Social Security and Medicare trust funds in 1968 and have not stopped. Which is why it is bankrupt. I have yet to see the Democrats attempt to control spending.

    Over half the population does not pay income taxes. That is being the bottom half of the wage earners.
  • Meg RighCraobh 2011/10/25 03:41:25 (edited)
    Meg
    The government does not possess the ability to directly spend money out of the SS trust-fund. Essentially, the SS Act provides that by law, operative word there being law, any surplus reported by the SS administration may be utilized to purchase government securities. These securities are then paid back with interest in the future, thus providing excess funding for the program from what was paid in. The key concept to gather here is that any securities purchased with SS money are equivalent to intergovernmental debt. Therefore, the only responsible way for the government to spend this money temporarily "profited" is to pay down the private debt, which offsets the intergovernmental debt and makes it more reasonable to accommodate the future payments. If you remember correctly, Clinton did just this. The tech boom in the 90s provided an overload of payroll taxes and SS income. It should also be remembered that in the 80s the Greenspan Commission knocked out some stellar bipartisan agreements to fund SS for at least 75 more years. All of this was working impressively well, until Bush was "elected". Bush touted the apparent surplus, knowingly hiding the 2 trillion owed to SS, as an ideal reason to present the wealthiest people in the country with massive tax cuts. Furthermore, he ...





    The government does not possess the ability to directly spend money out of the SS trust-fund. Essentially, the SS Act provides that by law, operative word there being law, any surplus reported by the SS administration may be utilized to purchase government securities. These securities are then paid back with interest in the future, thus providing excess funding for the program from what was paid in. The key concept to gather here is that any securities purchased with SS money are equivalent to intergovernmental debt. Therefore, the only responsible way for the government to spend this money temporarily "profited" is to pay down the private debt, which offsets the intergovernmental debt and makes it more reasonable to accommodate the future payments. If you remember correctly, Clinton did just this. The tech boom in the 90s provided an overload of payroll taxes and SS income. It should also be remembered that in the 80s the Greenspan Commission knocked out some stellar bipartisan agreements to fund SS for at least 75 more years. All of this was working impressively well, until Bush was "elected". Bush touted the apparent surplus, knowingly hiding the 2 trillion owed to SS, as an ideal reason to present the wealthiest people in the country with massive tax cuts. Furthermore, he implemented Medicare D, a permanent spending increase, while ignoring simple accounting facts. The deficit is comprised of both the private and intergovernmental debt, but sadly most people are only concerned with the private debt.

    In addition, before you go spouting off income tax data which has been recited incessantly by desperate conservatives, perhaps you should stop to consider the income disparity in this country. This statistic sounds disconcerting at first, but once you stop to consider that the top 20% of households receive 85% of the country's wealth, it starts to make more sense.

    Approximately 44% of Americans who do not pay income tax are claiming benefits for the elderly, such as SS payments. Furthermore, approximately 30% claim credits for children and the working poor, such as the child-care tax credit. It should also be noted that the Bush tax cuts were instrumental in forming this demonized tax structure. Not only did Bush’s policies expand the Earned Income Tax Credit among married taxpayers, but it doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1000. The other half of households not paying income tax are literally deemed too poor to pay them. Naturally, our tax structure exempts subsistence levels of income from paying the tax. Unfortunately, this group of people has been rising as incomes decline, disparity rises, and social mobility remains stagnant. Remember that millions of households have lost wage earners. Most importantly, people should remember that even the bottom end of the economic ladder is paying payroll taxes.

    Republicans are now proposing that we replace our progressive form of taxation with a devil's version of the fair tax or 999. In 2010, Obama lowered payroll taxes to 6.45%. Herman Cain misleads the public by alleging that this is a tax decrease to all. When half of Americans are paying 6.45% in payroll taxes only, how is imposing a 9% income tax and 9% consumption tax a decrease? He must not understand that employers are responsible for the other half of the payroll tax. Even when this temporary measure expires and rates resume at 8.45%, this will still be an increase. In addition, this would impose a high tax on non-taxable, limited income for the poor and the elderly, such as SS recipients. Do I even need to mention that this half-cocked plan would require eliminating the SS trust-fund and thus re-writing the SS Act? Let's not forget that he advocates abolishing the capital gains and estate tax, which would allow the wealthy to invest larger portions of their income and collect untaxed, unrealized gains. This is a direct attempt to mollify the wealthy and place the tax burden on the poor. Anyone with even a small background in economics should understand that equal monetary contributions do not constitute a shared burden. For example, employer and employee share the monetary contribution to SS currently; however, 95% of the SS burden is absorbed by the employee. The fact that this 999 Plan has been greeted with praise by Republicans is obvious proof that the right feeds off of vitriol and propaganda. This simple income tax statistic has acted as a catalyst to fuel the hate of Republicans and contribute to just another form of class warfare.
    (more)
  • RighCraobh Meg 2011/10/31 18:34:37
    RighCraobh
    The Finance Reform Act of 1968, placed all incoming tax revenues into one account and paid all bills out of the same account. On the surface this seems to make for more efficiency, but on the contrary it looted the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.

    True, US governemnt securities are purchased. Government securities being a nice word for loans. Loans with interest, don't want to forget that. The problem is that the government does not have the abilitiy to repay those loans,even if the interest is knocked off the bill.

    Your so-called intergovernmental debt now totals, about $125 trillion dollars. While deceptively called intergovernmental debt, it is actually owed the people who have paid into the fund. I don't recall Bush saying anything about a $2 trillion surplus. If he did say that, he was either lying or he had not idea of what he was talking about. Even if he did say this, someone should have climbed all over his lies.

    This problem was set up when Bush was in college. It was a Democratically controlled Congress that passed it and a Democrat President that signed it. I am willing to say that Republicans signed it and more kept their mouths shut across the years. The media also failed to report on this.

    Included in this law was the provision that Congress wou...



    The Finance Reform Act of 1968, placed all incoming tax revenues into one account and paid all bills out of the same account. On the surface this seems to make for more efficiency, but on the contrary it looted the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.

    True, US governemnt securities are purchased. Government securities being a nice word for loans. Loans with interest, don't want to forget that. The problem is that the government does not have the abilitiy to repay those loans,even if the interest is knocked off the bill.

    Your so-called intergovernmental debt now totals, about $125 trillion dollars. While deceptively called intergovernmental debt, it is actually owed the people who have paid into the fund. I don't recall Bush saying anything about a $2 trillion surplus. If he did say that, he was either lying or he had not idea of what he was talking about. Even if he did say this, someone should have climbed all over his lies.

    This problem was set up when Bush was in college. It was a Democratically controlled Congress that passed it and a Democrat President that signed it. I am willing to say that Republicans signed it and more kept their mouths shut across the years. The media also failed to report on this.

    Included in this law was the provision that Congress would be exempt from Medicare and Social Sercurity and would have their own programs.

    You have a lot meanlingless words in your comment. The words of any understandable value attack the Republcans and defend the Democrats. The latter comment means that if it made sense, it was a lie.

    Have you ever considered rising above being a liberal attack dog?
    (more)
  • Meg RighCraobh 2011/11/01 01:24:03
    Meg
    Oh where to begin...I hate it when I'm exhausted and I feel forced to correct silly errors.

    Social Security finance and investment has not been changed since its creation. The money has never been placed into a general fund or different account. You are confused. The legislation you are referring to altered the way in which SS funds were accounted for in the Federal budget, but not the way the program functions. Essentially, all Federal programs with trust funds were accounted for in the budget beginning in 1969. Congress did not have a budget process during this period, but they would soon adopt procedures for setting budget goals with the usage of budget resolutions. The resolutions were to reflect a budget that included SS in the total. That was the only difference. They basically created what is known as a “unified budget”. This simply changes the accounting practices, but it does not change the operation of the program or where the money is placed. Long story short, this form of accounting for SS in the Federal budget was eliminated in 1990.

    I think that you really need to re-read my post, as you clearly did not understand it. For one, I did point out the interest that must be paid when SS bonds are retrieved. I also mentioned that the government does not have the money to...





    Oh where to begin...I hate it when I'm exhausted and I feel forced to correct silly errors.

    Social Security finance and investment has not been changed since its creation. The money has never been placed into a general fund or different account. You are confused. The legislation you are referring to altered the way in which SS funds were accounted for in the Federal budget, but not the way the program functions. Essentially, all Federal programs with trust funds were accounted for in the budget beginning in 1969. Congress did not have a budget process during this period, but they would soon adopt procedures for setting budget goals with the usage of budget resolutions. The resolutions were to reflect a budget that included SS in the total. That was the only difference. They basically created what is known as a “unified budget”. This simply changes the accounting practices, but it does not change the operation of the program or where the money is placed. Long story short, this form of accounting for SS in the Federal budget was eliminated in 1990.

    I think that you really need to re-read my post, as you clearly did not understand it. For one, I did point out the interest that must be paid when SS bonds are retrieved. I also mentioned that the government does not have the money to maintain this obligation as a result of poor policy decisions. I never claimed that Bush touted a $2 trillion surplus. What I said is that he touted the projected surplus, while blatantly ignoring a $2 trillion deficit that was already owed to SS. Rather than acknowledge the increasing intergovernmental debt, Bush claimed the proposed “surplus” as a reason to implement large tax breaks and increase Medicare spending by creating a prescription drug program.

    Congress has not been exempt from payroll tax for over two decades. Prior to 1984, members of Congress were covered only by a separate Civil Service Retirement System that was criticized as being overly generous. Because they did not pay SS taxes, they received no SS credit for their time in office. In 1984, congressional members were required to begin paying into the SS program.

    I suppose I wouldn't have to act as a “liberal attack dog” if you could improve your reading comprehension and get your facts straight.

    Happy Halloween!
    (more)
  • RighCraobh Meg 2011/11/15 19:56:17
    RighCraobh
    ".All of this was working impressively well, until Bush was "elected". Bush touted the apparent surplus, knowingly hiding the 2 trillion owed to SS, as an ideal reason to present the wealthiest people in the country with massive tax cuts. Furthermore, he implemented Medicare D, a permanent spending increase, while ignoring simple accounting facts. The deficit is comprised of both the private and intergovernmental debt, but sadly most people are only concerned with the ... "

    "touted the apparent surplus "

    Touting something puts it into the present time.


    "I never claimed that Bush touted a $2 trillion surplus. What I said is that he touted the projected surplus, while blatantly ignoring a $2 trillion deficit that was already owed to ... "
    "touted the projected surplus"

    You never used the word 'projected' in your first post. Projecting something is placing it into the future,


    Apparent and Projected do not mean the same thing.

    You have no idea what you are writing let alone understanding what you have written before.

    You are putting out a bunch of babbled, it is irrelevant if it is true, but most of the rest is false.

    Bush could not hide anything while campaigning as he had no authority to do that.

    How about you stop avoiding the topic and stop dumping meaningless babble into the discussion to disguise your ignorance and lack of understanding.
  • Meg RighCraobh 2011/11/17 17:13:09
    Meg
    You are clearly misinformed. Your anger and petty attempts to attack the facts that I have presented serve only to further demonstrate your obvious ignorance.

    “Touting something puts it into the present time.”

    I’m not sure what you mean by this. Bush did “tout” the supposed surplus as a means of implementing legislation that would increase the debt, while purposefully ignoring the growing intergovernmental debt.
    Of course it was a “projected” surplus, as it didn’t actually exist at the time. In addition, “apparent” is a suitable substitute for “projected” in this context. Merriam Webster’s definition of apparent: appearing as actual to the eye or mind; manifest to the mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may not be factually valid.

    Rather than focusing on semantics, you would be well served to do some research and attempt to actually counter the argument that I have made. You dismiss factual claims as unfounded, yet you offer no evidence to support your assertions.

    You say that “Bush could not hide anything while campaigning, as he had no authority to do that”. I never stated that he officially hid documents or evidence of an increasing debt. Clearly, that is not what I am proposing. Bush did, however, present choice information without openly presenting other pe...




    You are clearly misinformed. Your anger and petty attempts to attack the facts that I have presented serve only to further demonstrate your obvious ignorance.

    “Touting something puts it into the present time.”

    I’m not sure what you mean by this. Bush did “tout” the supposed surplus as a means of implementing legislation that would increase the debt, while purposefully ignoring the growing intergovernmental debt.
    Of course it was a “projected” surplus, as it didn’t actually exist at the time. In addition, “apparent” is a suitable substitute for “projected” in this context. Merriam Webster’s definition of apparent: appearing as actual to the eye or mind; manifest to the mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may not be factually valid.

    Rather than focusing on semantics, you would be well served to do some research and attempt to actually counter the argument that I have made. You dismiss factual claims as unfounded, yet you offer no evidence to support your assertions.

    You say that “Bush could not hide anything while campaigning, as he had no authority to do that”. I never stated that he officially hid documents or evidence of an increasing debt. Clearly, that is not what I am proposing. Bush did, however, present choice information without openly presenting other pertinent pieces of data. All presidential candidates and politicians do this. They manipulate public sentiment by emphasizing one side of an argument. Many people were against his policies for the exact reasons I have stated. Unfortunately, when Bush lobbied for tax cuts, he failed to acknowledge the actual debt held by the public and instead chose to present the projected surplus as a valid means of convincing the people that they were indeed entitled to tax cuts.

    Alan Greenspan is a well-known economist and Republican. I suggest you read his book “The Age of Turbulence.” In the book, Greenspan clearly explains the cautions Bush was implored to heed and his blatant disregard for responsible fiscal policy. The projected surplus began to disappear not long after Bush was in office, yet he refused to change course from his campaign promises. He insisted on rebate checks, long-term spending increases, and tax cuts with no way to pay for them.
    All of the aforementioned information is documented and easy to verify. You can choose to remain ignorant and throw empty insults or you can choose to become informed.

    By the way, I find it quite amusing that you have made numerous attempts to insult my writing ability, while demonstrating a clear lack of aptitude for writing yourself. If your grammar weren’t so poor, I might actually give your complaints some consideration. Moreover, if you are having difficulty discerning a message from my writing, I suggest that you brush up on your reading comprehension skills.
    (more)
  • RighCraobh Meg 2011/12/01 19:23:38
    RighCraobh
    I am not sure which part of that I do not care what Bush said or did not say. I really do not care what Bush knew or did not know.

    The fact is the govt began spending Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund revenues in the 1960s. Bush was a college boy at this time.
  • Meg RighCraobh 2011/12/09 23:49:25
    Meg
    You sound like a broken toy that keeps repeating the same meaningless phrase over and over again. I completely debunked your theory regarding the 1960s legislation in regards to Social Security, yet you just keep insisting that this is true. I seem to remember explaining why you were confused, providing many facts, and even an explanation. All you have done is try to insult me and repeat the same obvious "myths". Some people just can't admit when they are wrong...
  • RighCraobh Meg 2011/12/12 19:52:51
    RighCraobh
    You have debunked nothing and you will not do so unless you can debunk the Government Finance Reform Act of 1968,

    It gets repeated because it is the whole truth.
  • Meg RighCraobh 2011/12/13 17:03:11
    Meg
    I already did, but once again, since you seem to be a bit slow at grasping the point:

    Social Security finance and investment has not been changed since its creation. The money has never been placed into a general fund or different account. You are confused. The legislation you are referring to altered the way in which SS funds were accounted for in the Federal budget, but not the way the program functions. They basically created what is known as a “unified budget”. This simply changes the accounting practices, but it does not change the operation of the program or where the money is placed. Long story short, this form of accounting for SS in the Federal budget was eliminated in 1990.

    Instead of being a rock head, why don't you look it up yourself and see how this legislation affected the program. You are relying on longtime myths and political rhetoric that is designed to confuse and distract voters.
  • RighCraobh Meg 2012/01/20 19:01:38
    RighCraobh
    More hate for the US and mindless prattle..

    You have no clue as to the purpose of the Government Finance Reform Act of 1968, and you have no intention of learning anything.

    Your cup runneth over with your self styled importance.
  • Meg RighCraobh 2012/01/22 20:09:59
    Meg
    Okay. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume for a moment that you are correct. I challenge you to provide just one credible source that will confirm your statements in regards to the Government Finance Reform Act of 1968. My guess is that you won't be able to...
  • RighCraobh Meg 2012/01/27 20:16:52
    RighCraobh
    That is easy, send a message back and I will be sure to find you.
    Did you even enter that into a search engine? Odds favor you not liking any source I list.
  • Meg RighCraobh 2012/02/04 02:03:33
    Meg
    Of course I have searched the legislation. If you look it up, it's going to confirm everything that I mentioned above. I am not going to complain about your source, so long as it's credible. Just attach a link to a site that clearly states and confirms your claims. If it's true, it won't be that hard.
  • RighCraobh Meg 2012/02/13 18:00:55
    RighCraobh
    It has been a while and I forgot to look it up reply so I can find you again.
  • Meg RighCraobh 2012/02/14 02:36:39
    Meg
    +1
    I know, I hate that function of Sodahead. Once you click on a comment, you are forced to respond right then or else it disappears. There should be a way to flag comments for later use.
  • RighCraobh Meg 2012/05/09 19:33:58
    RighCraobh
    Did you change your name?

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/24 18:58:24

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals