President Obama threatens Social Security recipients

Ton80 said:

Providing a video from 2002 about conclusions not reached until 2006 when the President admits there were no WMD's constitutes a fail on your part.

YouTube - ‪Bush admits that Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11‬‏

Click to expand...

If you listened to the video Bush also said Hussein had the 'capacity to make more'.

I bake cookies but if someone inspected my home today they would find no cookies at all. They would find flour, butter, salt, granulated sugar, brown sugar, vanilla extract. chocolate chips, various types of nuts, peanut butter etc. but NO cookies. My home could be declared a cookie free zone yet in a couple of hours because I know how to take the ingredients I've mentioned and turn them into cookies, I could have a proliferation of cookies. So it is with Iraq and wmd.

And for what it matters Hussein had months to move, hide or destroy the wmd he was reputed to have. Also our troops experienced numerous chemical weapon alarms going off during our invasion of Iraq and several soldiers came home experiencing symptons that are consistant with exposure to chemical weapons. Another also, we did find wmd as a result of our invasion of Iraq. Some of it was quite old dating back to the Iraq/Iran war but some of it had been made much more recently.

I'm not sure what people expect a President to do when he is being told that a murderous, imperialistic, terror supporting dictator who has made and used wmd still has such weapons in violation of the Gulf War ceasefire especially in light of 9/11. Bush has been soundly damned by his critics for doing, it is easy to imagine what would have happened if Bush dismissed the intelligence reports he was receiving and Saddam Hussein did attack us or our key allies with wmd.

Maybe we ought to threaten Obama and his administration-that if the don't cut the budget-they are going to lose their jobs-live in tents and share an out house. Thus, they will feel the true pain of being homeless and what its like to be broke. I'm sure all of a sudden they will get something done.

EdwinWillers said:

I apologize in advance for starting a similar thread on the same topic at virtually the same time... (I'll ask the mods to delete it).

My comments from there:

This is the worst form of demagoguery - the president of the United States playing his trump card in the debt ceiling battle by threatening seniors with not paying their social security checks. If anyone wonders why the August 3rd "deadline" to raise the debt ceiling - now you know why - political scheming.

First, it's a bald-faced lie. There is PLENTY of money to pay social security obligations - indeed, there's PLENTY of money to pay ALL our debt obligations.

Second, it's political terrorism of the first order. There's simply no other way to characterize it (though I'm sure we'll see attempts herein).

Third, it's a tacit admission we're paying our entitlements on BORROWED MONEY.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, EW, but wasnt there a thread just recently where leftists were arguing that the SS trust fund was solvent for another 30 years and that the IOU's in the 'lock box' D) were sound and backed by the full faith and credit of the US? If that is the case, then why should SS recipients not get checks in the event a budget deal is not reached. Those IOU's could just be redeemed and paid to SS recipients. Unless, of course, there is nothing in that 'lock box' but worthless paper.

As far as the negotiations themselves, the republicans should just walk away, pass a $1 trillion raise in the debt ceiling in the House that is tied to $1 trillion in cuts and sent it to the Senate. That puts the ball in the democrats and Obamas court to either pass or veto the thing. Negotiations are a waste of time. Pass a take it or leave it bill and get it over with.

BondiHarry said:

Saddam Hussein HAD wmd, USED wmd and RETAINED the ability to make more wmd. And since you seem to have forgotten, here are some folks you might know of who had the same concerns about Iraqi wmd as Bush did: YouTube - ‪Democrats, WMD's & The Iraq War‬‏

Click to expand...

Thank you so much for posting the video. I saved articles from back then and was astounded at how viciously hypocritical the democrats were once Bush was in office and they decided to completely change their stance on Saddam purely for political leverage.

Traitors, plain and simple, and that video proves it 100%.

BondiHarry said:

If you listened to the video Bush also said Hussein had the 'capacity to make more'.

I bake cookies but if someone inspected my home today they would find no cookies at all. They would find flour, butter, salt, granulated sugar, brown sugar, vanilla extract. chocolate chips, various types of nuts, peanut butter etc. but NO cookies. My home could be declared a cookie free zone yet in a couple of hours because I know how to take the ingredients I've mentioned and turn them into cookies, I could have a proliferation of cookies. So it is with Iraq and wmd.

And for what it matters Hussein had months to move, hide or destroy the wmd he was reputed to have. Also our troops experienced numerous chemical weapon alarms going off during our invasion of Iraq and several soldiers came home experiencing symptons that are consistant with exposure to chemical weapons. Another also, we did find wmd as a result of our invasion of Iraq. Some of it was quite old dating back to the Iraq/Iran war but some of it had been made much more recently.

I'm not sure what people expect a President to do when he is being told that a murderous, imperialistic, terror supporting dictator who has made and used wmd still has such weapons in violation of the Gulf War ceasefire especially in light of 9/11. Bush has been soundly damned by his critics for doing, it is easy to imagine what would have happened if Bush dismissed the intelligence reports he was receiving and Saddam Hussein did attack us or our key allies with wmd.

Click to expand...

So...you feel President Bush should be given the benefit of the doubt? But President Obama shouldn't?
tulc(is trying to see if that's your point)

lordbt said:

Correct me if I am wrong, EW, but wasnt there a thread just recently where leftists were arguing that the SS trust fund was solvent for another 30 years and that the IOU's in the 'lock box' D) were sound and backed by the full faith and credit of the US? If that is the case, then why should SS recipients not get checks in the event a budget deal is not reached. Those IOU's could just be redeemed and paid to SS recipients. Unless, of course, there is nothing in that 'lock box' but worthless paper.

As far as the negotiations themselves, the republicans should just walk away, pass a $1 trillion raise in the debt ceiling in the House that is tied to $1 trillion in cuts and sent it to the Senate. That puts the ball in the democrats and Obamas court to either pass or veto the thing. Negotiations are a waste of time. Pass a take it or leave it bill and get it over with.

Click to expand...

Nope, nothing to talk over, Obama has no plan or details of a plan.

I agree with that plan-so far. $ for $

EdwinWillers said:

Actually, it is true. The left just refuses to acknowledge it - because to acknowledge it would mean acknowledging the need to cut spending. Simple. The rest is just

Click to expand...

You do realize the deal is 83% cuts and 17% revenue increases, right? That sounds like cutting spending to me.

EdwinWillers said:

Indeed.

That we have to BORROW more money to pay Social Security recipients (something Barack Obama admitted in the interview we're discussing) should put to rest once and for all the lie that there is, or ever was, a "social security lock box" or "trust fund" - the latter an oxymoron if ever there was one when it comes to congressional spending.

Click to expand...

So would you support cutting it off entirely right now? Make it part of the budget deal even. Just end SS for everybody right now. Can't afford it. I'm sure the elderly will support themselves by getting jobs. Their resumes must be great at this point in their lives, plenty of time to build it. Can't keep up the nanny state forever.

You do realize the deal is 83% cuts and 17% revenue increases, right? That sounds like cutting spending to me.

Click to expand...

Which is almost identical to what Republicans wanted: 85% cuts and 15% revenue. They won't even take yes for an answer.

Why? Because Republicans have a vested interest in tearing apart the economy - it benefits their political aspirations.
Ringo

Ringo84 said:

Which is almost identical to what Republicans wanted: 85% cuts and 15% revenue. They won't even take yes for an answer.

Why? Because Republicans have a vested interest in tearing apart the economy - it benefits their political aspirations.
Ringo

Click to expand...

Who accually is tearing apart the economy? Um, those in power.

Umaro said:

So would you support cutting it off entirely right now? Make it part of the budget deal even. Just end SS for everybody right now. Can't afford it. I'm sure the elderly will support themselves by getting jobs. Their resumes must be great at this point in their lives, plenty of time to build it. Can't keep up the nanny state forever.

Click to expand...

If unemployment so high than the elderly and the young will get screwed. And no it won't be great because there won't be enough jobs.

And we can't afford more people needing jobs either.

Notamonkey said:

Who accually is tearing apart the economy? Um, those in power.

Click to expand...

You forgot wallstreet.

Who accually is tearing apart the economy? Um, those in power.

Click to expand...

Correction: those Republicans in power.
Ringo

Ringo84 said:

Correction: those Republicans in power.
Ringo

Click to expand...

Hahaha, yeah it's always them big ole bad republicans!

Only a hack doesn't see that it's both parties doing this.

The democrats have had as much hand in the desctruction of the economy as the republicans have.

The Democrats aren't the ones playing games with our economy here.
Ringo

Ringo84 said:

The Democrats aren't the ones playing games with our economy here.
Ringo

Click to expand...

No, they were just busy giving welfare to billionaires, coming up with a healthcare law that stifles small business and getting us into yet another war that we can't afford. I mean who do you think told us he was going to cut the deficit in half then turned around and quadrupled it? Who wasted almost a trillion dollars throwing money at the problem and ended up a month or so ago admitting the "Shovel ready" jobs were nowhere to be found?

It wasn't a republican.

But don't worry, they have their part in this too.

No, they were just busy giving welfare to billionaires

Click to expand...

You must be mistaking the Dems with the Republicans.

coming up with a healthcare law that stifles small business

Click to expand...

A health care law that loosens the stranglehold that corporate health care has on our system here in the US.

Who wasted almost a trillion dollars throwing money at the problem and ended up a month or so ago admitting the "Shovel ready" jobs were nowhere to be found?

Click to expand...

Republicans love to criticize the stimulus, but it was that stimulus that saved our economy from a worse recession.
Ringo

Ringo84 said:

Republicans love to criticize the stimulus, but it was that stimulus that saved our economy from a worse recession.
Ringo

Click to expand...

When exactly is that scheduled to happen?

szechuan said:

If unemployment so high than the elderly and the young will get screwed. And no it won't be great because there won't be enough jobs.

And we can't afford more people needing jobs either.

Click to expand...

I see you're knew here. After you get to no me a bit you'll see that was rather tongue in cheek. I support SS.