Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
42 days ago.
by Ohwiseone
Ithink
#1

Who Lied About the Attack on 9/11/12?

It is incredible that democrats keep blathering about Romney lying, when we have the shock and disgust of seeing the president and his administration lying to us about the security of Americans. Unbelievable .

 
 

Member Comments

harryanderson

Tiredofit:

Workers who pay into Social Security aren’t entering into a contract with the government that ensures them any particular benefits. Statutes govern the level of benefits, not contract. Congress and the President can change the benefit level at any time without the consent of workers. The government can also unilaterally change the tax rate at any time. In fact, it just did.

One might argue that there’s an implied social, moral contract, but there is no formal, legal contract. There is only current law.

It’s always been this way. When SS started, it paid out benefits immediately to retirees who had never paid in.

Some Republicans want to move SS towards a system such as you describe when they talk of “personal retirement accounts.” However, personal retirement accounts aren’t here yet.

We all need to understand what SS is and what it isn’t.

Posted 500 days ago.

harryanderson

That’s the big picture. Now we need to delve into the details and see where we want to cut. You’ve already mentioned one place, Libya, which falls under defense spending.

I think we should cut SS. We can “means test” it and use the “chained CPI.”

I also think we can save Medicare and Medicaid money by requiring recipients to live more healthy lifestyles. If we’re paying for their healthcare, we have the right to demand that they contribute to their own health.

I think unemployment has grown too much.

I personally know people who manipulate their circumstances in order to qualify for government payments, even Earned Income Credits. We need to encourage honesty.

I favor reducing our military presence in the world. We’re already on the hook for tons of veterans’ benefits.

Posted 500 days ago.

harryanderson

I’m not attempting to, as you say, “defend” government spending. I think we should try to economize, and that it’s useful to look at where the money was spent.

We can find that information at

htt p://cbo.gov/publication/43904

This site provides a link to a book of spreadsheets. Of particular interest are the “mandatory outlays” and “discretionary outlays” sheets.

Under mandatory outlays, more was spent on SS than anything else. From 2000-2012, income security grew the most. Income security pays people with limited resources, and includes unemployment, SSI, etc.

Discretionary outlays are divided into defense and non-defense spending. In 2000, defense spending was lower than nondefense. In 2012, defense spending was higher. So defense spending accounted for a lot of the growth during that time.

Mandatory outlays grew from 0.95T to 2.0T. Discretionary outlays grew from 0.61T to 1.29T.

Posted 500 days ago.

It’s really too bad because it has the makings of a good debate. It seems that no liberal I encounter can defend our government’s annual trillion dollar deficits over a time when revenues increased so drastically. Even with the dip in 2008, by 2009 revenues were back on a positive trend and by 2010, the US was once again seeing near record level revenues.

With so much money coming in then, why was President Obama forced to impose the Sequester on American finances? Why couldn’t cuts have been made in areas like the billion plus we spent on the Libyan revolution arming rebels to fight against Gadaffi? After all, those rebels we armed in 2010 fought against and killed Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan prior to 2010.

In all likelihood those very rebels were responsible for the dozens of attacks in and around Benghazi leading up to the 9/11/12 attack on our Consulate. The bad part is we likely provided the weapons and bullets used in that attack.

Posted 500 days ago.

Thank you Harry. I apologize for allowing this conversation to get this far off track. I should have ignored Scott a long time ago. While I enjoy interactions with reasonable people, sometimes I just can't let people like Scott get the last word. Enough is enough though. I apologize for allowing it to go this far.

Posted 501 days ago.

I'm done here Scott. We all know you're a joke as all of your posts demonstrate. Even your fellow liberal posters ignore you. You have added nothing to this or any other conversation and the reason is simple; you are not intelligent.

Occasionally you can forth a decent point that has the potential to spark a healthy debate, as was the case with the Sewell link but when you have to respond to legitimate questions, you have no clue thus you resort to obfuscation and whimsical nonsense.

It really is too bad because what we need is intelligent people from both sides of the spectrum willing to engage in reasonable dialogue, to meet in the middle when possible and when it’s clear the two cannot agree, to disagree agreeably. Instead, we get the likes you. Despite numerous opportunities to add to the conversation, we get “show your work.” Sad.

Now you can have the final word which I’m sure you believe makes you the winner. Sadder.

Posted 501 days ago.

harryanderson

AaronS has shown ample evidence to satisfy any reasonable person.

Posted 501 days ago.

I'm not the one Scott whose actions were so atrocious thEy warranted my being banned nor am I so childish that were I banned from a site where a dozen or so people routinely post that I would feel the need to reemerge under the guise of a poorly written 30 year old pop tune.

So when can I expect those numbers from you?

Posted 501 days ago.

My work? You are not a smart man Scott. No wonder you were banned.

Posted 501 days ago.

I'll tell you what Scott, if you can definitively prove me wrong, I'll skim out of my account and never post on this site again, under any moniker.

Posted 501 days ago.

L M A O, is that all you have Scott?

Seriously?

Posted 501 days ago.

What was the revenue in 2001 skippy, what will it be this year and what's the percentage increase?

Lack of intelligence got your fingers?

Posted 501 days ago.

Am I mad? Not in the least. I rather enjoy when I interact with people like you and I get to show them for what that are.

You say I'm wrong on the revenue increase but you've offered no numbers to counter my statement.

Why is that Scooter. Make it a good one because I'm putting your responses on a couple of sites. So far they think you're funnier then armature night at the Appolo.

Posted 501 days ago.

Revenue in 2001 versus 2013. Put up or shut up time Skippy.

Posted 501 days ago.

What were they busted for Scooter. Naming the agencies involved? A Republican congressman put 'State Department' and 'CIA' where the emails had 'they' and 'the agency.'

That's real damming compared to months of Obama lies. Now quit changing the subject, running like the b**** you are and address the facts that you link confirmed.

Or continue to squirm like the ***** you are!!!!!

Posted 501 days ago.

What were they busted for Scooter. Naming the agencies involved? A Republican congressman put 'State Department' and 'CIA' where the emails had 'they' and 'the agency.'

That's real damming compared to months of Obama lies. Now quit changing the subject, running like the b**** you are and address the facts that you link confirmed.

Or continue to squirm like the ***** you are!!!!!

Posted 501 days ago.

What then were the revenues in 2001, what are they in 2013 and what is the increase?

I don't believe you can say because I don't think you're smart enough to read the chart.

Posted 501 days ago.

Your link is a picture of a chart that says exactly what I've been saying for a week you d***a**, i******, moron. Your picture begins in 2002 with revenues slightly below the 2 trillion mark, which I believe 1.9 trillion is and shows 2013 well above the 3 trillion mark (my numbers use a more conservative estimate of 2.7 trillion) thus what you’ve provided evidence of is an increase that is GREATER than the 50% I stated. Seriously dude, I don’t mean to be rude and I’m not trying to put you down but you’re really not very smart, are you?

As for the link from the Congresswoman, it’s an interesting PowerPoint. Highly misleading but interesting. I’m not surprised that have that as a talking point. I just wish you were smart enough understand it and carry on intelligent conversation regarding the contents.

One issue. It claims that unemployment is down, which is true for the U3 number but it makes no mention of the more important U6 number. Why?

Posted 502 days ago.

I'm still not getting your point scooter. You disagree with my statement that revenues have increased 50% over the past dozen years and cry like at 8!+@h for days DEMANDING I PROVE my claim. When I do, you add more 8!+@h crying about how you’re not smart enough to use Excel because it's too difficult for you to point and click thus you demand I copy and paste the information. I do that and now you’re still 8!+@h crying about lord knows what and you cap that by trying to add links to a site that you claim disproves my claim, even though it supports it if you have an IQ above 3, don’t spend all day 8!+@h crying and have a clue what you’re talking about. And you still have no point.

So if revenues have not increased by 50% over the past dozen years, then pray tell Scooter8!+@hcrierburningwithaleberalfeevercantthinkforyourself Betsy, how much have they increased by? Think you can figure that one out without wetting your keyboard from all your 8!+@h crying?

Posted 502 days ago.

Three things scooter.

One, neither chart opens, even when closing the gaps on the ****. Just list the link without any breaks and I can figure out the * in the link.

2, I've used the site you tried to link, usgovernmentrevenue****. It's not a good site because it's hard to get information into easily searchable formats. Even so, if one knows how to use the site, they can find that doesn't disagree with me. 2001 shows total Federal revenue of 1.9 trillion dollars. 2013 shows estimated revenue is 2.7 trillion for a difference of .8 trillion. That’s a 50% increase DA.

3, I just left my 3 year old granddaughters house and she was showing me a game she’s playing that teachers her math. It’s an Excel based spreadsheet and she was navigating it perfectly. And she’s 3. Her 84 year old GG Grandmother was there and she navigated it as well. That made me think of you and just how dense one has to be in this day and age to not be able to open a spread sheet.

Baaaaahaaa

Posted 502 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or