jungle

Cliff, it is always better to speak of the merits of a particular idea rather than try to drag a deception across the the discussion. I find that the use of the term "racist" is most common with those who have no real understanding of the meaning of the term.

Would this mean they are racist against the black or the white half?

Let us try to keep any discussion directed towards merit and not fly off the handle with broad and unwarranted brushstrokes of racism. That concept is so far removed from the real issue as to be laughable.

How is it even possible to connect a criticism of communism with a racist intent?
Marxism has nothing to do with race, it is a cultural and idealogical manifestation of a sick mind.

FighterHayabusa

You know who else used Alarmism and fearmongering? Hitler!

as long as we're trading non sequiturs ...

jungle

Good point, National Socialism proved to be almost as large a failure as communism among the various schemes of centralized ecomomic planning.
The point is, and always will be that centralized economic planning has proven deadly to perhaps 100 million humans during the last century.


I wish we could all learn to distinguish between fear mongering and the careful presentation of facts.

"The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes next year and in 2011, a first since the early 1980s, when Congress last overhauled Social Security.

Social Security is projected to start generating surpluses again in 2012 before permanently returning to deficits in 2016 unless Congress acts again to shore up the program. Without a new fix, the $2.5 trillion in Social Security's trust funds will be exhausted in 2037. Those funds have actually been spent over the years on other government programs. They are now represented by government bonds, or IOUs, that will have to be repaid as Social Security draws down its trust fund."

SteamJet

"The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes next year and in 2011, a first since the early 1980s, when Congress last overhauled Social Security.

Social Security is projected to start generating surpluses again in 2012 before permanently returning to deficits in 2016 unless Congress acts again to shore up the program. Without a new fix, the $2.5 trillion in Social Security's trust funds will be exhausted in 2037. Those funds have actually been spent over the years on other government programs. They are now represented by government bonds, or IOUs, that will have to be repaid as Social Security draws down its trust fund."[/quote]


Too many people think the SS "trust fund" actually has real money in it. This is just another example of the federal government's shell game with tax dollars. They (it?) reminds me of Wimpy from Popeye trying to money borrow for a burger today that he will "gladly repay" later.

Speaking from a purely financial point of view, is there a sane person amongst us that actually thinks ObamaCare would really be "deficit neutral", "pay for itself" or any other of the rosy $$ projections of ObamaCare supportors? If so, I have a bridge for sale. . .

FighterHayabusa

So wait, I'm confused, which part is bad, the umpteen other places both parties in congress have recklessly overspent money we didn't have? Or the carefully planned social program that was designed to run autonomously (and amazingly is projected to continue for 60 years) without intervention?

jungle

Do us all a big favor and start another thread on this if you want more input.
It doesn't belong in this thread and you will get better response with(another) seperate thread. Thanks.

Perhaps you could phrase the question to ask if people would prefer to handle their own income or prefer a government agency to do it for them. Amazing performance and projections indeed.
If 2.5 trillion in the hole constitutes a carefully planned and well run program for you, I am certain I won't be able to offer much help.

FighterHayabusa

Too many people aren't aware that a congressperson voting to specifically default on a group of government bonds held by mostly voters is not just political suicide, but probably real suicide as well.

Why would you blame the entity responsible for the surplus, rather than the entities that squandered it?

jungle

You do understand there is no "surplus", just a 2.5 trillion dollar debt?



Locked for drift.