# Eight False Things the Public 'Knows' Prior to Election Day



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

'( All articles and other text content have a âbylineâ indicating the author of that article or other content element. Any such text content authored by CAF, IAF or any staff member of either organization, may be freely reproduced, copied, and distributed solely for non-commercial purposes, provided that appropriate credit is given and, if the use is online, a link back to OurFuture.org is provided)'

..........................



Eight False Things The Public âKnowsâ Prior To Election Day

By Dave Johnson




There are a number things the public "knows" as we head into the election that are just false. If people elect leaders based on false information, the things those leaders do in office will not be what the public expects or needs.

Here are eight of the biggest myths that are out there:

1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first reduced that to $1.29 trillion.

2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been.

3) President Obama bailed out the banks.
Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.

4) The stimulus didn't work.
Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.

5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts.
Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.

6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion.
Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.

7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc.
Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to.

8) Government spending takes money out of the economy.
Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on "welfare" and "foreign aid" when that is only a small part of the government's budget.

This stuff really matters.

If the public votes in a new Congress because a majority of voters think this one tripled the deficit, and as a result the new people follow the policies that actually tripled the deficit, the country could go broke.

If the public votes in a new Congress that rejects the idea of helping to create demand in the economy because they think it didn't work, then the new Congress could do things that cause a depression.

If the public votes in a new Congress because they think the health care reform will increase the deficit when it is actually projected to reduce the deficit, then the new Congress could repeal health care reform and thereby make the deficit worse. And on it goes.
Help us spread the word about these important stories..

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on OurFuture.org.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010104222/false-things-public-knows-they-go-vote?key=418284

There are live links to documentation when you go to the original post on 
OurFuture.org


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

And you believe this? 

One thing I do know before the election, there will be a large number of moving vans going in and out of D.C. in the near future.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Looked at the site. Obviously doing all it can to be anti-Republican.
Surprisingly this is not in the politics forum.


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

Angie....

I did not post this in the politics thread because it contains info that is important to everyone, despite political affiliation.

Also, this is not a biased piece, but actual data, which is beyond politics, or should be.

If everyone would look at this piece with some semblance of an open mind, we might end up with some newly elected officials that might actually be healthy for the country at large.

There is a ridiculous degree of distorted 'information' out there -
this does not serve anyone's interests.


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

Ha Ha Ha, I needed a good laugh.


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

chickenslayer said:


> Ha Ha Ha, I needed a good laugh.


Expand on that...
What point(s) do you take issue with and why?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

dahliaqueen said:


> Angie....
> 
> I did not post this in the politics thread because it contains info that is important to everyone, despite political affiliation.
> 
> ...



Have you personally checked each point's validity? or are you just taking their word?
{and seeing that site, I still say it's totally a political sell of point of view}


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I take issue with #6. Health care "reform" has already cost way more than the $$$ amount alloted for administration. They haven't yet counted the true cost to the insured which are already paying higher premiums and have higher out of pocket expenses.

While I don't believe Obama tripled the national debt, a Democratic congress did vote this year to raise the debt ceiling:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35125607/ns/politics-capitol_hill/


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

Not sure what alternate reality this came from, but it's not the truth where I live.

A careful read of the above will make it clear that these "facts" are actually self-contradictory. Notice "Obama cut taxes" (what?) just above "Businesses do not want tax cuts." (huh?)

Also, "Obama reduced the deficit" (in Haiti, perhaps?) above "Obama cut taxes...which created debt." 

Patently ridiculous, all of it. 

When reality doesn't suit your agenda, just lie. It's situational ethics applied to reality.


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

AngieM2 said:


> Have you personally checked each point's validity? or are you just taking their word?
> {and seeing that site, I still say it's totally a political sell of point of view}


There are hundreds of threads, in general chat and in the politics thread, that claim all types of wildly incorrect information- those slide right by.
Because this article is even- handed and not some screed against the so called LIBS, it is considered invalid?


Yes, i do my own research, i read all sides of the issues that interest and affect me - because i do wish to have as close to the truth of the matter as one can have, given the limitations and polarization in this country, and the points of this article seem fairly represented.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

*More undeniable Facts:*
Even though 13 of the last 17 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents: Roe v Wade has never been overturned, and burning the Flag has never been declared a crime even though Republicans campaign on these very premise's/promise's.

Even though Republicans controlled Both houses of Congress 10 of the last 15 years (and had a republican President also for 4 of those years), they've never passed a permanant tax cut nor have they managed to make the government smaller, even though they campaign on both of these promises.

On the Contract with America that brought the Republicans to power, here is what they promised (straight from the contract)



> On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:
> 
> &#8226;FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
> &#8226;SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
> ...


How did that all work out for you?


*Look, I am not saying the Democrats are any better, but how many times are you die-hard conservatives going to fall for what the republicans are promising you?* The only way this country is going to start working is to vote all the incumbants out of office and keep doing it until the people we elect understand we don't want business as usual.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Chuck said:


> Not sure what alternate reality this came from, but it's not the truth where I live.
> 
> A careful read of the above will make it clear that these "facts" are actually self-contradictory. Notice "Obama cut taxes" (what?) just above "Businesses do not want tax cuts." (huh?)
> 
> ...


There is so much wrong with this I didn't bother to even start, and the notion that this is a non-biased, non-political presentation of undisputed fact is silly.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> *More Facts:*
> Even though 13 of the last 17 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents: Roe v Wade has never been overturned, and burning the Flag has never been declared a crime even though Republicans campaign on these very premise's/promise's.
> 
> Even though Republicans controlled Both houses of Congress 10 of the last 15 years (and had a republican President also for 4 of those years), they've never passed a permanant tax cut nor have they managed to make the government smaller, even though they campaign on both of these promises.
> ...


So what it boils down to is that we can vote for Republicans and hope the do keep their promises, or we can vote for Democrats and hope they don't. I guess I'll remain an optimist.


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> I take issue with #6. Health care "reform" has already cost way more than the $$$ amount alloted for administration. They haven't yet counted the true cost to the insured which are already paying higher premiums and have higher out of pocket expenses.
> 
> While I don't believe Obama tripled the national debt, a Democratic congress did vote this year to raise the debt ceiling:
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35125607/ns/politics-capitol_hill/


Thank you for actually addressing a point you take issue with.

I was horribly disappointed with the so-called Health Care Reform bill -a big fat giveaway to the insurance companies, at the very least.
Premiums have risen for many families and the data on this point is still to be determined. We do not know how this will eventually pan out.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> So what it boils down to is that we can vote for Republicans and hope the do keep their promises, or we can vote for Democrats and hope they don't. I guess I'll remain an optimist.


No, what it boils down to is this: The only way this country is going to start working is to vote *all* the incumbants out of office and keep doing it until the people we elect understand we don't want business as usual.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

dahliaqueen said:


> Thank you for actually addressing a point you take issue with.
> 
> I was horribly disappointed with the so-called Health Care Reform bill -a big fat giveaway to the insurance companies, at the very least.
> Premiums have risen for many families and the data on this point is still to be determined. We do not know how this will eventually pan out.


Does it bother you at all that the healthcare bill is unconstitutional?


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

Chuck said:


> When reality doesn't suit your agenda, just lie. It's situational ethics applied to reality.


My agenda is to actually know what is going on in this country.
Period.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Now it's been proven to be a Dem. pushed of Point of View thread.

Figured as much. And not even in the Political forum. Nice try to make it seem to be general.

No thanks, if it cannot be presented for what it truely is, why should I believe ANY of it.


PS: If this was about truth, links to both versions of this "Truth" would be listed in addition to this very biased linked site's information.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> Does it bother you at all that the healthcare bill is unconstitutional?


Does it bother you that the interstate highway bill that created the interstate highway system was unconstitutional? and about 90% of other federal laws are also?
The Constitution does not allow the Feds to do too much, which hasn't stopped them yet.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

AngieM2 said:


> Now it's been proven to be a Dem. pushed of Point of View thread.


No, its a F-A-C-T Driven thread. the *facts* are indisputable.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

dahliaqueen said:


> '
> 7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc.
> Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to.


I decided to research this one. It is a ponzi scheme and here is how it works. Any excess funds (those not payed to people currently receiving benefits) are invested in Government bonds. The government sells these bonds to the "trust fund", and then puts the money into the general fund (and of course spends it). At some time in the future money coming in to SS will be less than money going out to recipients. When this happens, the money will have to be repaid to the "trust fund" and this money will have to come from general revenues. 

This is just a giant accounting trick. There is no money, it has already been spent.


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

deaconjim said:


> Does it bother you at all that the healthcare bill is unconstitutional?


The constitutionality was tested in a court case( do not have the link right now) a couple of weeks ago and it was determined to be constitutional.

I am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, so forgive me if i cannot expound on this point further.

Am i happy that everyone will be forced to buy insurance?
Not in the slightest.

I am unhappy that insurance companies are in the health care equation at all.
They should not be but this is the corporate model that privatization brings to all of us.

Not in our best interest.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> Does it bother you that the interstate highway bill that created the interstate highway system was unconstitutional? and about 90% of other federal laws are also?
> The Constitution does not allow the Feds to do too much, which hasn't stopped them yet.


You might be interested in reading about Eisenhower and how the Interstate system came to be. 

In the 1930s he was a Staff Officer in the US Army. He was involved in a large scale maneuver that involved moving a large military force across the country. It was quite a fiasco. Without good roads it was a monumental task to move men, equipment, and supplies across the country. Eisenhower realized that in any national emergency (such as a foreign attack) that the country was woefully unprepared. Fast forward to WWII. When Allied forces reached the German border Eisenhower was amazed at the German Autobahn system. He realized what an advantage that Germany had in moving military forces under their own power. 

This was the impetus for the Interstate Highway system. National security. National Security is a legitimate Federal concern.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

This makes me wonder, is Dave Johnson a Democrat? Might be.:bored:


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin (Dec 3, 2002)

These are "facts"? Give me a break.


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

tinknal said:


> I decided to research this one. It is a ponzi scheme and here is how it works. Any excess funds (those not payed to people currently receiving benefits) are invested in Government bonds. The government sells these bonds to the "trust fund", and then puts the money into the general fund (and of course spends it). At some time in the future money coming in to SS will be less than money going out to recipients. When this happens, the money will have to be repaid to the "trust fund" and this money will have to come from general revenues.
> 
> This is just a giant accounting trick. There is no money, it has already been spent.


From Bernie Sanders...
The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund has run surpluses for the last quarter-century. Today's $2.5 trillion cushion is projected to grow to $4 trillion in 2023. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, experts in this area, say Social Security will be able to pay every nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary until 2039. Got that? In case you don't, let me repeat it. The people who have studied this issue most thoroughly and have no political bias report that Social Security will be able to pay out all benefits to every eligible beneficiary for the next twenty-nine years. It is true that by 2039, if nothing is changed, Social Security will be able to pay out only about 80 percent of benefits. That is why it is important that Congress act soon to make sure Social Security is as strong in the future as it is today.
.............
The government has borrowed from the fund and issued bonds, as IOU,s, as a promise to return the money.
The only way the fund will not get the money owed is if the federal government goes bankrupt.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

DAVID In Wisconsin said:


> These are "facts"? Give me a break.


Then offer some *proof* that they are not.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

dahliaqueen said:


> '
> 1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
> Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first reduced that to $1.29 trillion.
> 
> 2)


Here is another one. Debt increased just over 2 1/2 trillion under Bush (8 years). In just under 2 years under Obama debt increased by 3 1/2 trillion. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Year Gross Debt in Billions undeflated[10] as % of GDP Debt Held By Public ($Billions) as % of GDP
1910 2.6 unk. 2.6 unk.
1920 25.9 unk. 25.9 unk.
1928 18.5[11] unk. 18.5 unk.
1930 16.2 unk. 16.2 unk.
1940 50.6 52.4 42.8 44.2
1950 256.8 94.0 219.0 80.2
1960 290.5 56.0 236.8 45.6
1970 380.9 37.6 283.2 28.0
1980 909.0 33.4 711.9 26.1
1990 3,206.3 55.9 2,411.6 42.0
2000 5,628.7 58.0 3,409.8 35.1
2001 5,769.9 57.4 3,319.6 33.0
2002 6,198.4 59.7 3,540.4 34.1
2003 6,760.0 62.6 3,913.4 35.1
2004 7,354.7 63.9 4,295.5 37.3
2005 7,905.3 64.6 4,592.2 37.5
2006 8,451.4 65.0 4,829.0 37.1
2007 8,950.7 65.6 5,035.1 36.9
2008 9,985.8 70.2 5,802.7 40.8
2009 12,311.4 86.1 7,811.1 54.6
2010 (2 Sept) 13,442.1 92.1 (2nd Q) 8,933.2 61.2 (2nd Q)
2010 (est.) 14,456.3 98.1 9,881.9 67.1
2011 (est.) 15,673.9 101.0 10,873.1 70.1
2012 (est.) 16,565.7 100.6 11,468.4 69.6
2013 (est.) 17,440.2 99.7 12,027.1 68.7
2014 (est.) 18,350.0 99.8 12,594.8 68.5


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

I am going to address the first two, someone else can point out the obvious agenda and bias in the others 



dahliaqueen said:


> ...
> Eight False Things The Public &#8220;Knows&#8221; Prior To Election Day
> By Dave Johnson
> There are a number things the public "knows" as we head into the election that are just false. If people elect leaders based on false information, the things those leaders do in office will not be what the public expects or needs.


1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first reduced that to $1.29 trillion.
from the CBO website:http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11263/FebruaryMBR.pdf
*CBO estimates that the federal government incurred a budget deficit of $655 billion in the first five months of fiscal
year 2010, about $65 billion greater than the shortfall recorded in the same period last year. Outlays remained
essentially unchanged from the previous year, but revenues were 7 percent lower.* This is real time deficit spending that has the public up in arms. No one really cares about what Bush did compared to Obama the bottom line is the government is not receiving money thru income tax to fund its agenda because of the high unemployment but yet they are spending as if they won the lottery. The statement "tripled the deficit" is misleading but so are most things said in a election year. Analysize this chart with your own opinions and you will see things triple and the deficit does indeed increase under Obama.










2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been.
point one: http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm_ As of early 2009, the plan for the future was to leave the lower tax brackets alone, and raise the top two brackets to where they were during the 1990s. The cutoffs for the top brackets were to be raised, so that singles making above $200,000 annually, or families making above $250,000, would be the ones affected by the higher rates. _
_ As of August 2010, Congress still hasn't made those changes legal. If Congress doesn't act before New Year's, all brackets will automatically revert to where they were in 2000, meaning *a big tax increase for everybody*._ -- This is causing concern amongst voters not what has happened previously in this administration
point two: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...wart-claims-stimulus-bill-one-third-tax-cuts/_ Simple __math shows that Stewart is in the ballpark with his claim: $288 billion is a little more than 36 percent of the bill's overall cost. So, tax cuts -- at least the way they've been defined by the Obama administration -- make up for slightly more than one-third of the bill._ How are tax cuts wasteful, only when viewed by a numbers game, but in truth when people have more of their own money - they spend it. Thus taxing the rich who save is a better numbers game than taxing the middle to lower class who spend and the tax cuts in the stimulus went to the spenders not the savers.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

dahliaqueen said:


> From Bernie Sanders...
> The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund has run surpluses for the last quarter-century. Today's $2.5 trillion cushion is projected to grow to $4 trillion in 2023. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, experts in this area, say Social Security will be able to pay every nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary until 2039. Got that? In case you don't, let me repeat it. The people who have studied this issue most thoroughly and have no political bias report that Social Security will be able to pay out all benefits to every eligible beneficiary for the next twenty-nine years. It is true that by 2039, if nothing is changed, Social Security will be able to pay out only about 80 percent of benefits. That is why it is important that Congress act soon to make sure Social Security is as strong in the future as it is today.
> .............
> The government has borrowed from the fund and issued bonds, as IOU,s, as a promise to return the money.
> The only way the fund will not get the money owed is if the federal government goes bankrupt.


You are not getting it. yes, SS has the money. *It is in the form of debts owed to it by THE US GOVERNMENT!* The Government ( you and me), will have to repay all those loans that SS made to the public for all those years.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

dahliaqueen said:


> The constitutionality was tested in a court case( do not have the link right now) a couple of weeks ago and it was determined to be constitutional.
> 
> I am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, so forgive me if i cannot expound on this point further.
> 
> ...


Part of the suit was thrown out. Part of it was allowed to go forward. I'll check on what exactly is in and out.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> 8) Government spending takes money out of the economy.
> Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives.* Many people think that all government spending is on "welfare" and "foreign aid" when that is only a small part of the government's budget*.


"Social" spending alone is over HALF the Federal budget, so that "fact" is a blatent lie


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/health-bill-lawsuit-stand-inspite-dismissals/

"Though a Thursday decision by a federal judge in Pensacola, Florida throws out portions of a lawsuit brought by Indiana and 19 other states against the federal health care reform bill, state officials say the most important provisions of their case remain.

First is a challenge to the mandate that every person in America is required to buy health insurance. Second is that Congress exceeded their authority by imposing burdens on the state in terms of the Medicaid program. The 20 states wish to have the new federal health care law struck down as unconstitutional."


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

SS never lent that money, it was misappropriated or shall we say _stolen_ from future SS recipients.


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin (Dec 3, 2002)

Danaus29, I believe that the word stolen is appropriate here.


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

tinknal said:


> You are not getting it. yes, SS has the money. *It is in the form of debts owed to it by THE US GOVERNMENT!* The Government ( you and me), will have to repay all those loans that SS made to the public for all those years.


I understand that- the feds 'borrowed' funds meant to be dedicated to S.S- this does not make S.S a ponzi scheme, as claimed by many. It means the feds act with ruthless abandon when it can get away with it. 

WE, the people, are ultimately responsible for all loans taken out by the feds.
If the feds were required to run a balanced budget, instead of taking out loans from anywhere,including foreign entities, we would have a more healthy financial situation.


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

More from Tinknal's link...
...'&#8220;This will be appealed up to the federal circuit court of appeals and then from there we&#8217;re certain it will be appealed, regardless of how that turns out, it will be appealed up to the United States Supreme Court.&#8221; said Corbin. &#8220;And that was kind of the goal all along is to bring this question before the United States Supreme Court to have this question asked and answered.&#8221;

Should be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

dahliaqueen said:


> I understand that- the feds borrowed funds meant as dedicated to S.S- this does not make S.S a ponzi scheme, as claimed by many.
> 
> WE, the people, are ultimately responsible for all loans taken out by the feds.
> If the feds were required to run a balanced budget, instead of taking out loans from anywhere,including foreign entities, we would a more healthy financial situation.


Maybe "check kiting" would be a better term.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Social" spending alone is over HALF the Federal budget, so that "fact" is a blatent lie


Yes, if you include Social Security & Medicare, but that's not welfare. Since it's paid for with FICA premiums you really can't count it in social spending, or even in "spending" at all. Those are benefits bought & paid for by the recipients.


----------



## Kshobbit (May 14, 2002)

I feel sorry for everybody. We are fed lies, half truths, inuendos and propaganda. We are entering a state of something that I am glad I will be dead (hopefully) before it is completed. We are all SHEEPLE and our beliefs are fed on all of the above mentioned words.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

dahliaqueen said:


> I understand that- the feds 'borrowed' funds meant to be dedicated to S.S- this does not make S.S a ponzi scheme, as claimed by many. It means the feds act with ruthless abandon when it can get away with it.
> 
> WE, the people, are ultimately responsible for all loans taken out by the feds.
> If the feds were required to run a balanced budget, instead of taking out loans from anywhere,including foreign entities, we would have a more healthy financial situation.


So WE, the people placed the contributions into the Social Security trust fund. Which was then borrowed and spent by our government, to be repaid by We, the people when the loans come due.

Lemme think here...I put money into a savings account. The money is squandered by the bank on bad loans, etc. Then I am expected to repay those loans...to myself.

Sure. that makes total sense.


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

Kshobbit said:


> I feel sorry for everybody. We are fed lies, half truths, inuendos and propaganda.
> We are all SHEEPLE and our beliefs are fed on all of the above mentioned words.


I am sad to be able to agree with you.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Chuck said:


> So WE, the people placed the contributions into the Social Security trust fund. Which was then borrowed and spent by our government, to be repaid by We, the people when the loans come due.
> 
> Lemme think here...I put money into a savings account. The money is squandered by the bank on bad loans, etc. Then I am expected to repay those loans...to myself.
> 
> Sure. that makes total sense.


Chuck, you know better than that.

Money was borrowed from Social Security to fund higher priority items, like war and tax cuts. That was money "WE" were on the hook for in the first place. The idea was that they could borrow the money during wartime and then pay it off during peacetime (which of course never came). In any case, since the money was borrowed by the American people to fund things that taxes should have been paying for, it's right and fitting that the American people pay it back.

But this is typical right-wing logic. It's not right to confuse people in that manner. I understand that when someone listens to FoxNews long enough that convoluted logic like that begins to seem okay, but it's not. We should be more honest in our political arguments.


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

Chuck said:


> Lemme think here...I put money into a savings account. The money is squandered by the bank on bad loans, etc. Then I am expected to repay those loans...to myself.


This has nothing to do with the integrity of the S.S system itself, but with the ruthlessness of our government.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> No, what it boils down to is this: The only way this country is going to start working is to vote *all* the incumbants out of office and keep doing it until the people we elect understand we don't want business as usual.


That is a good emotional response, but logic says we need to keep those who will do the right thing and get rid of the rest. Logic also tells us that even if voting out all incumbents was a good idea, you'll never be able to do it. Rather than setting unattainable goals and grouching because no one will go along with you, it would be better to stick with reality.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> Does it bother you that the interstate highway bill that created the interstate highway system was unconstitutional? and about 90% of other federal laws are also?
> The Constitution does not allow the Feds to do too much, which hasn't stopped them yet.


Are you then advocating the total abandonment of the Constitution?


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

deaconjim said:


> That is a good emotional response, but logic says we need to keep those who will do the right thing and get rid of the rest. Logic also tells us that even if voting out all incumbents was a good idea, you'll never be able to do it. Rather than setting unattainable goals and grouching because no one will go along with you, it would be better to stick with reality.


This may be a first, , but i agree wholeheartedly with you on this point, even tho we disagree about what 'doing the right thing' is.

It is a dangerous act to unseat 'the devil you know' for an unknown entity.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> That is a good emotional response, but logic says we need to keep those who will do the right thing and get rid of the rest.


Hmmm. That wouldn't look anything like getting rid of all the democrats while keeping republicans, would it? I'm guessing that's what you've got in mind.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

dahliaqueen said:


> Thank you for actually addressing a point you take issue with.
> 
> I was horribly disappointed with the so-called Health Care Reform bill -a big fat giveaway to the insurance companies, at the very least.
> Premiums have risen for many families and the data on this point is still to be determined. We do not know how this will eventually pan out.


I believe we DO know how it will pan out. With the banckrupcy of our country, if the next set of congresscritters doesn't work to repeal or to de-fund.
More importantly, even if any of this was true, there's too many voters who've seen the socialist writing on the wall & want it outta here.

If you think this is NOT politics, it certainly explains why you posted here instead of "Politics" as well as why you believe these things.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Hmmm. That wouldn't look anything like getting rid of all the democrats while keeping republicans, would it? I'm guessing that's what you've got in mind.


And you the opposite. No surprises here, although I bet that Jim could name a number of Republicans that he wants out too.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> Lemme think here...I put money into a savings account. The money is squandered by the bank on bad loans, etc. Then I am expected to repay those loans...to myself.


that's how it works.....
anybody who saves at a bank and has a mortgage at the same bank is essentially doing this.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Hmmm. That wouldn't look anything like getting rid of all the democrats while keeping republicans, would it? I'm guessing that's what you've got in mind.


Not at all. If there was a Democrat in Congress that was doing the right thing, I would ask him why he made the choice of aligning himself with a party of left-wing radical socialists that hate everything America stands for, and if he could give me a satisfactory answer I would be wiling to let him stay as long as he didn't have an opponent that would be a better choice. Of course, I'm not aware of any Democrats in Congress who fit that description.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

dahliaqueen said:


> The constitutionality was tested in a court case( do not have the link right now) a couple of weeks ago and it was determined to be constitutional.
> 
> I am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, so forgive me if i cannot expound on this point further.
> 
> ...


See, you're proving that you aren't getting credible news. A court in MI thru out the case on HC constitutionality, or a part of it. A FL judge just ruled not long ago that the case HAS MERIT and can proceed.
20 or so states are sueing over it.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

dahliaqueen said:


> The constitutionality was tested in a court case( do not have the link right now) a couple of weeks ago and it was determined to be constitutional.
> 
> I am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, so forgive me if i cannot expound on this point further.
> 
> ...


The Constitution is a pretty straightforward document. Perhaps you could take the time to find the section that grants Congress the authority to control the healthcare system?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes, if you include Social Security & Medicare, but that's not welfare. Since it's paid for with FICA premiums you really can't count it in social spending, or even in "spending" at all. Those are benefits bought & paid for by the recipients.


Tnx, NV, for pointing that out.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

tinknal said:


> And you the opposite. No surprises here, although I bet that Jim could name a number of Republicans that he wants out too.


We all can name some and the TP HAS gotten rid of a lot. Sorry, not able to say that about Ds. They're truly the ones who NEVER ok an "R".


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

tinknal said:


> And you the opposite. No surprises here, although I bet that Jim could name a number of Republicans that he wants out too.





Tricky Grama said:


> We all can name some and the TP HAS gotten rid of a lot. Sorry, not able to say that about Ds. They're truly the ones who NEVER ok an "R".


It hasn't been that long ago that, while serving as a GOP County Chairman and District Vice-Chairman, I publicly endorsed and voted for a Democrat because he was a better choice than the Republican in the race.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> The Constitution is a pretty straightforward document. Perhaps you could take the time to find the section that grants Congress the authority to control the healthcare system?


By "control of the health care system", I take it that you mean "regulate health care insurance". I believe that the constitution provides adequately for the regulation of all interstate commerce.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> Not at all. If there was a Democrat in Congress that was doing the right thing, I would ask him why he made the choice of aligning himself with a party of left-wing radical socialists that hate everything America stands for, and if he could give me a satisfactory answer I would be wiling to let him stay as long as he didn't have an opponent that would be a better choice. Of course, I'm not aware of any Democrats in Congress who fit that description.


Well Jim, there is a spectrum involved. Running from left to right we are going to have Communists on the left end and Fascists on the right. Everyone else falls somewhere along the line and rarely do 2 individuals fall on the exact same spot. Even though you might not support them I'm sure that you could find certain Democrats (think Blue Dogs) that fall closer to your position than others. Some folks are stuck in districts that just will not elect someone from the "wrong" party. We should encourage moderates in those districts because frankly, that is the best we can hope for. I think a good example would be Collin Peterson in Minnesota's Seventh District. I know those folks, they will not elect a Republican, but they will elect a socially conservative Democrat.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> By "control of the health care system", I take it that you mean "regulate health care insurance". I believe that the constitution provides adequately for the regulation of all interstate commerce.


We've already started down this road Nevada, and you bailed when the questions got too tough. Shall we pick up where we left off?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

tinknal said:


> Well Jim, there is a spectrum involved. Running from left to right we are going to have Communists on the left end and Fascists on the right. Everyone else falls somewhere along the line and rarely do 2 individuals fall on the exact same spot. Even though you might not support them I'm sure that you could find certain Democrats (think Blue Dogs) that fall closer to your position than others. Some folks are stuck in districts that just will not elect someone from the "wrong" party. We should encourage moderates in those districts because frankly, that is the best we can hope for. I think a good example would be Collin Peterson in Minnesota's Seventh District. I know those folks, they will not elect a Republican, but they will elect a socially conservative Democrat.


I'm originally from Georgia, a state where until recently you had to be a Democrat to get elected to any office. Over the years, we have changed that situation, and Georgia's first Republican Governor since Reconstruction is now finishing his second term, and they have Republican majorities in both houses of the General Assembly. Don't give up hope, hard work and persistence pay off.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> We've already started down this road Nevada, and you bailed when the questions got too tough. Shall we pick up where we left off?


Your argument against mandatory insurance is much stronger. But I don't think you're going to get far arguing that the government doesn't have the authority to regulate insurance.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

The biggest lie hasn't even been mentioned, and that lie is that there is any difference, under all the shiny veneer, between a "democrat" and a "republican".
They have both been working, as a unified team (unlike easily duped American voters who allow themselves to be divided and conquered as a matter of daily course) to one end, and that end is to sell YOU and your families out to the highest bidder.

Being played like a completely predictable and well used musical instrument for the six months up to, and including each "election day" sure seems like a horrible waste of man's preciously short sojourn on this rock.

Oh for the wisdom and pulpit with which to completely break the stranglehold.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Your argument against mandatory insurance is much stronger. But I don't think you're going to get far arguing that the government doesn't have the authority to regulate insurance.


If I'm buying my insurance from a company right here in Virginia that cannot by law sell insurance in another state, what gives the federal government jurisdiction?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> If I'm buying my insurance from a company right here in Virginia that cannot by law sell insurance in another state, what gives the federal government jurisdiction?


Because your Virginia insurance is good all across the country. If you break a leg skiing in Vermont your insurance pays Vermont health care providers, which is interstate commerce.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Because your Virginia insurance is good all across the country. If you break a leg skiing in Vermont your insurance pays Vermont health care providers, which is interstate commerce.


I'll give you that point, the federal government does have the authority to regulate the transactions between the insurance company and the provider. They still do not have the authority to control the entire industry to the point that they are dictating everything to everyone involved. There are limits to what is considered "regulation". At some point, it becomes government control, and Obamacare has gone well past that point.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> I'll give you that point, the federal government does have the authority to regulate the transactions between the insurance company and the provider. They still do not have the authority to control the entire industry to the point that they are dictating everything to everyone involved. There are limits to what is considered "regulation". At some point, it becomes government control, and Obamacare has gone well past that point.


I don't believe that the health care bill "dictates everything to everyone involved." This is stronger regulation than we've seen before for health care, but not controlling. A lot of people will benefit from that regulation, particularly those with pre-existing conditions and children.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I don't believe that the health care bill "dictates everything to everyone involved." This is stronger regulation than we've seen before for health care, but not controlling. A lot of people will benefit from that regulation, particularly those with pre-existing conditions and children.


I know you don't believe it, but you're wrong.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> I'm originally from Georgia, a state where until recently you had to be a Democrat to get elected to any office. Over the years, we have changed that situation, and Georgia's first Republican Governor since Reconstruction is now finishing his second term, and they have Republican majorities in both houses of the General Assembly. Don't give up hope, hard work and persistence pay off.


Well, I am in favor of a strong loyal opposition no matter what party is in power. Having either party gain permanent power would scare the pants off of me and would be a disaster for everyone.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

tinknal said:


> Well, I am in favor of a strong loyal opposition no matter what party is in power. Having either party gain permanent power would scare the pants off of me and would be a disaster for everyone.


I agree. We definitely need Democrats, I just can't think of any of the current crop that I would keep.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Forerunner said:


> The biggest lie hasn't even been mentioned, and that lie is that there is any difference, under all the shiny veneer, between a "democrat" and a "republican".
> They have both been working, as a unified team (unlike easily duped American voters who allow themselves to be divided and conquered as a matter of daily course) to one end, and that end is to sell YOU and your families out to the highest bidder.
> 
> Being played like a completely predictable and well used musical instrument for the six months up to, and including each "election day" sure seems like a horrible waste of man's preciously short sojourn on this rock.
> ...


Some people are waking up and realizing the truth but it might be too late. We have only had one of the two choices for so long that people just naturally think they have to choose one of them.

Others haven't really looked at both sides. They just pick a side and defend all of the crooks and mistakes while complaining when the other side does the same thing.

There is nothing the democrats have done that the republicans haven't done.
Not a bit of differences in them but as long as they can fool people into thinking there is a difference we will be stuck with what we have.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

pancho said:


> Some people are waking up and realizing the truth but it might be too late. We have only had one of the two choices for so long that people just naturally think they have to choose one of them.
> 
> Others haven't really looked at both sides. They just pick a side and defend all of the crooks and mistakes while complaining when the other side does the same thing.
> 
> ...


So your answer is to..... what? Not vote? :shrug:


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

deaconjim said:


> So your answer is to..... what? Not vote? :shrug:


That is what I have been doing. When a person runs that I think might be honest I will vote again.
I don't believe in voting for a person when the only reason is I am voting against the other. It might be a good idea if many people didn't vote. Some don't even know who is running.


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

http://www.elyrics.net/read/r/rush-lyrics/freewill-lyrics.html


> We dance on the strings of powers we cannot perceive
> The stars aren't aligned or the gods are malign
> Blame is better to give than receive
> 
> ...


sometimes the answers are simply on the radio...

by not voting you are giving your voice over to someone less educated than you with an agenda that isn't aligned with your beliefs and there is not a thing you can do, you have no right to complain, you had no skin in the fight...


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

pancho said:


> That is what I have been doing. When a person runs that I think might be honest I will vote again.
> I don't believe in voting for a person when the only reason is I am voting against the other. It might be a good idea if many people didn't vote. Some don't even know who is running.


That is entirely up to you. Personally, I don't like your answer, so I'll stick with mine.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

So far voting has gotten us in one big mess. Maybe it is time for people to choose not to vote for either crook.
How many years have we been trading democrats in for republicans then a few years later trading the republicans for democrats. We are getting in worse shape every time. There is no difference in either of them.
If you know the person you are voting in is a crook and still vote for him you deserve what you get.


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

pancho said:


> So far voting has gotten us in one big mess. Maybe it is time for people to choose not to vote for either crook.
> How many years have we been trading democrats in for republicans then a few years later trading the republicans for democrats. We are getting in worse shape every time. There is no difference in either of them.
> If you know the person you are voting in is a crook and still vote for him you deserve what you get.


And if you don't vote at all, you still deserve what you get... with no say in how you get it.

BOHICA!


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

EasyDay said:


> And if you don't vote at all, you still deserve what you get... with no say in how you get it.
> 
> BOHICA!


But I don't get blamed for voting in a crook.

Many people I see going to vote do not know who they are voting for. I just can't see where their vote matters so much when they don't know who is running for office.
I see others that votes a straight party vote. Again I don't see how all of the people from one party can be all bad and all of the people in another party all good.


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

pancho said:


> But I don't get blamed for voting in a crook.
> 
> Many people I see going to vote do not know who they are voting for. I just can't see where their vote matters so much when they don't know who is running for office.
> I see others that votes a straight party vote. Again I don't see how all of the people from one party can be all bad and all of the people in another party all good.



Listen, someone WILL be voted in... with you or without you.
Knowing that, wouldn't you rather have a say?
The difference between you and the people you describe above is: they VOTE.... good, bad, or indifferent... they don't put their responsibility of voting into someone else's hands.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

dahliaqueen said:


> The constitutionality was tested in a court case( do not have the link right now) a couple of weeks ago and it was determined to be constitutional.
> 
> I am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, so forgive me if I cannot expound on this point further.


Actually the only court case on the HBC I have read about was when a federal judge said the case of the states against the fed could go forward and had merit. 
I am neither a lawyer nor scholar, but I can read and google. 

NPR (lib site)

HuffPo  (lib site)

Politico (Not sure if lib or conservative, or in between)

The story on all 3 sites reads pretty much the same.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Why choose to participate, live under the arbitrary rule of and _vote_ in a privileged-status (read _compromised_) democracy, the so-called security of which is blown about by the will of the mob when there is a near empty republic still standing where man can dictate his own future by right ?
Yes, the democracy has been fed by the unwitting until it is fat enough to overshadow the entire geographical land mass, but..... might does not make right.
It is a cold and lonely road, at times, but I will live or die by natural rights, and those are checked at the door in any democracy.


----------



## Kazahleenah (Nov 3, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> The only way this country is going to start working is to vote all the incumbents out of office and keep doing it until the people we elect understand we don't want business as usual.



Tou`che!!! :thumb:


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

pancho said:


> So far voting has gotten us in one big mess. Maybe it is time for people to choose not to vote for either crook.
> How many years have we been trading democrats in for republicans then a few years later trading the republicans for democrats. We are getting in worse shape every time. There is no difference in either of them.
> If you know the person you are voting in is a crook and still vote for him you deserve what you get.


How much of a difference has your not voting made? I have cast votes in almost every election since I turned 18 (I missed one because I was deployed on a submarine), and I know that some of the people I helped elect have made a positive difference.

People have died to make sure I have the right to vote, so I figure it's the least I can do to exercise that right.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Forerunner said:


> Why choose to participate, live under the arbitrary rule of and _vote_ in a privileged-status (read _compromised_) democracy, the so-called security of which is blown about by the will of the mob when there is a near empty republic still standing where man can dictate his own future by right ?
> Yes, the democracy has been fed by the unwitting until it is fat enough to overshadow the entire geographical land mass, but..... might does not make right.
> It is a cold and lonely road, at times, but I will live or die by natural rights, and those are checked at the door in any democracy.


What gave you the notion that we live in a democracy?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> That is a good emotional response, but logic says we need to keep those who will do the right thing and get rid of the rest. Logic also tells us that even if voting out all incumbents was a good idea, you'll never be able to do it. Rather than setting unattainable goals and grouching because no one will go along with you, it would be better to stick with reality.


Reality is that if we don't vote them all out we're going to get more of the same. You've had republican congresses you've had democratic congresses. both have created this mess.

The defination of insanity is to continue doing the same thing and expect a differEnt outcome.

Thanks to people who think like you - we'll never get out of this mess.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

dahliaqueen said:


> Angie....
> 
> I did not post this in the politics thread because it contains info that is important to everyone, despite political affiliation.
> 
> ...


This part is blatantly slanted:


> 6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion.
> Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.


The _only_ way this would work is if the gov't actually chose not to spend as much money on health care in the future as they did in the past. Given that the population is increasing, and that a large segment of the population -- the Baby Boomers -- is aging, I cannot see how this would work, unless the gov't did all the nasty things that the opposition warned it would do, like not paying for quality-of-life surgeries, choosing who get care and who doesn't, rationing, and other things that we've been told by the gov't will not happen.



dahliaqueen said:


> Thank you for actually addressing a point you take issue with.
> 
> I was horribly disappointed with the so-called Health Care Reform bill -a big fat giveaway to the insurance companies, at the very least.
> Premiums have risen for many families and the data on this point is still to be determined. We do not know how this will eventually pan out.


The question I have, would the premiums have risen if Obamacare had _not_ been passed?

Maybe, but probably not.



> 5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts.
> Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.


Business may or may not hire if they get tax cuts, but they _will_ lay off employees if the costs associated with hiring and employing are too high, and the Medical Insurance Industry (otherwise known as the "Health Care Industry") is a perfect example of this.

Obamacare has already added to the cost of doing business in the Medical Insurance Industry, and will continue to do so in the future. One of the hallmarks of a good business is the ability to predict future expenses and adjust current prices to account for that. Sometimes (usually) that means raising prices. Sometimes that means lowering prices, though this is more likely to happen if there are a large number of suppliers for a product/service as well as a large number of customers.

Plasma and LCD televisions are a good example of this. Ten years ago, the price of a large screen (48") was easily ten times what it is today, and the price for smaller screens (24") is even lower than ten years ago -- a twentieth of what it was. You can now go just about anywhere to buy one (they used to be hard to find, especially away from large cities), and numerous manufactures are making them (when the market was new, there were very few). Larger supply = lower prices.

Medical Insurance, OTOH, is heading in the opposite direction. The insurance companies are being told what they _have to_ sell, who they _have to_ cover, how much they can charge (which hasn't taken effect yet, hence the prices being raised _now,_ while they still can.)

Also, there are new regulations that the companies need to follow, new standards that they need to use, and new practices they need to train for and start using -- and all of it written in 2,000+ pages by people whose experience, for the most part, consists of suing doctors/hospitals/Medical Insurance companies, or receiving care, but have no real knowledge of how the system really works, (and as near as I can tell, they don't care, either.) Think this is a bit of hyperbole? How many members of Congress (both Houses) are lawyers, and how many are doctors?



Nevada said:


> By "control of the health care system", I take it that you mean "regulate health care insurance". I believe that the constitution provides adequately for the regulation of all interstate commerce.


If this is interstate commerce, why are there federal regulations that prevent health insurance from being sold across state lines? If a company wants to sell insurance in more than one state, they _must_ have a separate business entity in each state. Kaiser Permanente is a good example of this -- _every_ state they are in is a separate corporate entity, even if they mostly have the same name.



Nevada said:


> Because your Virginia insurance is good all across the country. If you break a leg skiing in Vermont your insurance pays Vermont health care providers, which is interstate commerce.


Then why is the Virginia company not allowed to issue policies to residents of Vermont?



> 4) The stimulus didn't work.
> Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.


How, exactly? With "shovel-ready" jobs? In reality, there is no such thing as a "shovel-ready" job. The planning, approval, bidding, and awarding process for a works project usually takes _years_ -- two at the very least, often four or more. During that time, the funding is put in place, even if it requires borrowing money to fund. _Overspending_ on a project might have been funded by the bail-outs, but the original projects were not. If you see a project that is in progress or was started within 24 months of TARP being passed, it was not paid for with TARP funds.



> 2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
> Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been.


Which tax cuts were those, please? And if you can find that information (I haven't been able to,) could you also please tell me how those TARP funds have been spent, and how the stimulus funds Obama signed have been spent?

Oh, wait, was that TARP that was spent on the tax cuts I can't find, or the "Porkulus" stimulus funds?



> 1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
> Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first reduced that to $1.29 trillion.


Wait, Obama paid for tax cuts, which created more debt, but Obama reduced the deficit? How does that work, please?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> Are you then advocating the total abandonment of the Constitution?


 Where in the world do you get that from what I've said? :bash:


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

pancho said:


> That is what I have been doing. When a person runs that I think might be honest I will vote again.
> I don't believe in voting for a person when the only reason is I am voting against the other. It might be a good idea if many people didn't vote. Some don't even know who is running.


Thats NOT the answer -- vote all (or even most) of the incumbants out and we'll see change


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> and I know that some of the people I helped elect have made a positive difference.


Yeah, the country is in such great shape -- thanks for your vote for those candidates.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

My understanding is that Alexander Hamilton took the finished draft of the constitution to king George and the English banking cartel for their opportunity to tweak it according to the whims of those "who make merchandise of the souls of men".
They did tweak it, and the deception has held, gained momentum, and is actively destroying the last bastion of freedom on the face of the earth, as intended.

As if that weren't enough, the Articles of the Confederation made clear that any change in that structure was to be ratified unanimously by the several states.
"Your" constitution was voted in, 9 out of 13. So much for playing by the rules.
Now we have an illegal document, tweaked by the merchants of the earth, for our idol, in what we laughably refer to as a "christian nation", and ----ation to any who oppose it. 
Next, they'll have the lot of you behind them when they begin to round up "dissenters".

Happy lynching.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

deaconjim said:


> How much of a difference has your not voting made? I have cast votes in almost every election since I turned 18 (I missed one because I was deployed on a submarine), and I know that some of the people I helped elect have made a positive difference.
> 
> People have died to make sure I have the right to vote, so I figure it's the least I can do to exercise that right.


The same people who died to make sure you have the right to vote also died to make sure I had the choice of not voting for a crook. You may choose to vote for a crook or the one who you think is the least crooked but I choose not to vote for a crook. If an honest person ever decides to run for office I will be there voting for him. Until that time I choose not to vote if all the choice I have is between two crooks. 
Everyone has to make a choice, they can continue to vote for crooks or they can wait until an honest person runs. I will wait for the honest man.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Narshalla said:


> This part is blatantly slanted:
> 
> 
> The _only_ way this would work is if the gov't actually chose not to spend as much money on health care in the future as they did in the past. Given that the population is increasing, and that a large segment of the population -- the Baby Boomers -- is aging, I cannot see how this would work, unless the gov't did all the nasty things that the opposition warned it would do, like not paying for quality-of-life surgeries, choosing who get care and who doesn't, rationing, and other things that we've been told by the gov't will not happen.
> ...


Post of the month award!

Or at least the next 9 days.


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

Forerunner said:


> My understanding is that Alexander Hamilton took the finished draft of the constitution to king George and the English banking cartel for their opportunity to tweak it according to the whims of those "who make merchandise of the souls of men".
> They did tweak it, and the deception has held, gained momentum, and is actively destroying the last bastion of freedom on the face of the earth, as intended.
> 
> As if that weren't enough, the Articles of the Confederation made clear that any change in that structure was to be ratified unanimously by the several states.
> ...


If our country and constitution is such an ill fit for you, why do you live here?


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

It has to be said. Most of those who theoretically died to give us anything really died at the whim of the financial powers of the earth. There has been painfully little life given truly defending any semblance of freedom for the masses. Standing armies are a power tool, and greedy, powerful men know how to use them..... as well as how to drum up blind patriotism in their support.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

EasyDay said:


> If our country and constitution is such an ill fit for you, why do you live here?


The country is not an ill fit. 
But the residents in the biggest house on the block sure like to throw their weight around. For my part, I have learned to get along with their father, but it pains me, those who claim one religion and cater to another.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

pancho said:


> The same people who died to make sure you have the right to vote also died to make sure I had the choice of not voting for a crook. You may choose to vote for a crook or the one who you think is the least crooked but I choose not to vote for a crook. If an honest person ever decides to run for office I will be there voting for him. Until that time I choose not to vote if all the choice I have is between two crooks.
> Everyone has to make a choice, they can continue to vote for crooks or they can wait until an honest person runs. I will wait for the honest man.


Well then, why don't you become that man. Maybe another will stand beside you or follow in your footsteps.

I for one know, and don't believe everyone is crooked. Doing nothing is letting any crook do it for you.

I am also glad that this has become a civilized discussion, this is what this country must have to remain a democracy, participation. Good for each of you, a fine example of moving foreward, discussion and civility. What a great nation....James


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Narshalla said:


> Then why is the Virginia company not allowed to issue policies to residents of Vermont?


Because that company may not be a licensed insurance carrier in Vermont.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Because that company may not be a licensed insurance carrier in Vermont.


That company _can't be_ a licensed insurance carrier in Vermont without forming an entirely new corporation with separate assets and paperwork and people and the whole nine yards. Federal law says so, thus removing a great deal of competition from the market.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> Reality is that if we don't vote them all out we're going to get more of the same. You've had republican congresses you've had democratic congresses. both have created this mess.
> 
> *The defination of insanity is to continue doing the same thing and expect a differEnt outcome.*
> Thanks to people who think like you - we'll never get out of this mess.


That would be an accurate statement if you're working on the assumption that I've never been satisfied with the outcome, which is not the case.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Narshalla said:


> That company _can't be_ a licensed insurance carrier in Vermont without forming an entirely new corporation with separate assets and paperwork and people and the whole nine yards.


So? It's the cost of doing business. Talk to Vermont about it.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> Yeah, the country is in such great shape -- thanks for your vote for those candidates.


So all of this is my fault now?  

Unfortunately, I don't get to choose all the candidates, or the world would be a much better place.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

pancho said:


> The same people who died to make sure you have the right to vote also died to make sure I had the choice of not voting for a crook. You may choose to vote for a crook or the one who you think is the least crooked but I choose not to vote for a crook. If an honest person ever decides to run for office I will be there voting for him. Until that time I choose not to vote if all the choice I have is between two crooks.
> Everyone has to make a choice, they can continue to vote for crooks or they can wait until an honest person runs. I will wait for the honest man.


You're absolutely right, they did die so you could choose to not vote. I have never questioned your right to make that decision, I've only questioned the wisdom of that decision.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

AngieM2 said:


> Now it's been proven to be a Dem. pushed of Point of View thread.
> 
> Figured as much. And not even in the Political forum. Nice try to make it seem to be general.
> 
> ...


Oh for goodness sake. How many Republican pushed point of view threads are there here  It doesnt HAVE to be in the political forum just because you think so.

How about the threads like Obama giving cufflinks to the Dalai Lama, or Obama not being a citizen, or Obama being a mobster, etc, I dont see you saying a WORD about any of those kinds of threads as being a Republican point of view, or any links to both versions of the "truth", etc.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Shygal said:


> Oh for goodness sake. How many Republican pushed point of view threads are there here  It doesnt HAVE to be in the political forum just because you think so.
> 
> How about the threads like Obama giving cufflinks to the Dalai Lama, or Obama not being a citizen, or Obama being a mobster, etc, I dont see you saying a WORD about any of those kinds of threads as being a Republican point of view, or any links to both versions of the "truth", etc.


If you say so....


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Shygal said:


> Oh for goodness sake. How many Republican pushed point of view threads are there here  It doesnt HAVE to be in the political forum just because you think so.
> 
> How about the threads like Obama giving cufflinks to the Dalai Lama, or Obama not being a citizen, or Obama being a mobster, etc, I dont see you saying a WORD about any of those kinds of threads as being a Republican point of view, or any links to both versions of the "truth", etc.


Last time I checked, she was allowed to express her opinion on the subject.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Social security is completely sound for at least another 25 years??? 

That's supposed to be a positive thing??? That's supposed to put me at ease enough to vote Democrat???? All I can say is, I'm glad I'm not 40 years old.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Nevada said:


> So? It's the cost of doing business. Talk to Vermont about it.


No, talk to the _federal government_ about it, because they are the ones who regulate interstate commerce, and are saying that this commerce isn't going to be interstate.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Narshalla said:


> No, talk to the _federal government_ about it, because they are the ones who regulate interstate commerce, and are saying that this commerce isn't going to be interstate.


Are you talking about the proposal that would have allowed insurance carriers to offer services across state lines?


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Are you talking about the proposal that would have allowed insurance carriers to offer services across state lines?


There's been one of those in Congress for years, and it's never gone anywhere.

There is no provision in Obamacare that would allow companies to offer policies across state lines.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

AngieM2 said:


> Have you personally checked each point's validity? or are you just taking their word?
> {and seeing that site, I still say it's totally a political sell of point of view}


And where do the opposing opinions come from? I am going to go out on a limb here and say from sites that totally oppose Democrats?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

dahliaqueen said:


> Angie....
> 
> I did not post this in the politics thread because it contains info that is important to everyone, despite political affiliation.
> 
> ...


This IS politics and supporting the left wing Dems.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

AngieM2 said:


> If you say so....


Seriously I am totally befuddled here. 90% of the threads here in GC whether in the politics section or not come from Conservatives, they mainly bash Obama or his wife (really sad low blows) and they make not the slightest effort to check their facts. They pull them verbatim from places like FOX or Breitbart or WND. If it isn't Obama it is Muslims, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. Just do a quick skim of the titles.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

dahliaqueen said:


> The constitutionality was tested in a court case( do not have the link right now) a couple of weeks ago and it was determined to be constitutional.
> 
> I am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, so forgive me if i cannot expound on this point further.
> 
> ...


Actually, it was determined that the case had enough merit to go forward, the case is still undecided, since it hasn't been heard yet. They only went before the judge to determine if there was enough evidence to proceed, and there was.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> I'm originally from Georgia, a state where until recently you had to be a Democrat to get elected to any office. Over the years, we have changed that situation, and Georgia's first Republican Governor since Reconstruction is now finishing his second term, and they have Republican majorities in both houses of the General Assembly. Don't give up hope, hard work and persistence pay off.


And Jim Marshall is a Dem that is running ads saying he will NOT support Pelosi. He voted with Reps 65% of the time.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

EasyDay said:


> And if you don't vote at all, you still deserve what you get... with no say in how you get it.
> 
> BOHICA!


There are more and more third party politicians running. Maybe it's time to open the system up to more parties. For instance the Libertarians and Constitutionalist. Who knows, maybe one day there will even be a Tea Party candidate.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

jwal10 said:


> Well then, why don't you become that man. Maybe another will stand beside you or follow in your footsteps.
> 
> I for one know, and don't believe everyone is crooked. Doing nothing is letting any crook do it for you.
> 
> I am also glad that this has become a civilized discussion, this is what this country must have to remain a democracy, participation. Good for each of you, a fine example of moving foreward, discussion and civility. What a great nation....James


I am not qualified for any office that I know of. If doing nothing is letting any crook do it for me then I would only have a crook to choose from.
I see so many people who choose to vote that do not even know who is running, what office, or what they believe in. The last election should be a very good example of that.

Years ago an old man told me something about elections. At that time I didn't believe him but in my later years I found out he did know what he was talking about. According to him, "Fools are always in the majority."
Each election that has proven to be true, more so in the last few years.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patt said:


> Seriously I am totally befuddled here. 90% of the threads here in GC whether in the politics section or not come from Conservatives, they mainly bash Obama or his wife (really sad low blows) and they make not the slightest effort to check their facts. They pull them verbatim from places like FOX or Breitbart or WND. If it isn't Obama it is Muslims, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. Just do a quick skim of the titles.


We can argue about the validity of this thread being here or in Politics-since we seem to be able to argue anything. Seems we need a 'definition' of politics? Would 'voting' or political 'VIEWS' come under that heading?
I really don't care but if some are going to state its NOT a political thread, I'd like to know what then.

As far as "R" threads, I've sure participated & started some & am NOT an "R". Registered Indie. And I might add that just bashing is not so good but this admin makes it soooo easy! 
I participated it making fun of Bush too, just like he did himself.
But you are really kidding yourself if you think 99% of the BO threads are not true.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Sonshine said:


> And Jim Marshall is a Dem that is running ads saying he will NOT support Pelosi. He voted with Reps 65% of the time.


Yes, and I have some good friends who are working hard to defeat Jim Marshall, who voted with the Democrat majority 88.5% of the time, and voted for Nancy Pelosi as speaker 4 times. Jim Marshall was my Representative when I was in Ga., and I'm quite familiar with his record. He tries so hard to look like a conservative which then raises the question, if the voters want a conservative, why not elect the real thing?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Patt said:


> Seriously I am totally befuddled here. 90% of the threads here in GC whether in the politics section or not come from Conservatives, they mainly bash Obama or his wife (really sad low blows) and they make not the slightest effort to check their facts. They pull them verbatim from places like FOX or Breitbart or WND. If it isn't Obama it is Muslims, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. Just do a quick skim of the titles.


Since you insinuate that FOX and Breitbart are biased, where, exactly, do you think conservatives should get their news from? Can you name a source that's _not_ biased one way or the other, even just a little bit? 

Or do you just have a problem with sites that publish/air stories that you deem as not relevant?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

dahliaqueen said:


> '( All articles and other text content have a âbylineâ indicating the author of that article or other content element. Any such text content authored by CAF, IAF or any staff member of either organization, may be freely reproduced, copied, and distributed solely for non-commercial purposes, provided that appropriate credit is given and, if the use is online, a link back to OurFuture.org is provided)'
> 
> Eight False Things The Public âKnowsâ Prior To Election Day
> 
> ...



A few "refutes" to the no new taxes thingy.

http://www.redstate.com/renny/2010/...ew-definition-of-your-income-under-obamacare/

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter...ily-making-less-250000-will-see-any-form-tax/

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63313

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=102677

http://www.openmarket.org/2010/03/1...obamacare-and-massive-marriage-penalties-too/

http://conservativeviewsforthegrassroots.blogspot.com/2010/09/22-new-taxes-under-obamacare.html


----------



## Lilandra (Oct 21, 2004)

Patt said:


> Seriously I am totally befuddled here. 90% of the threads here in GC whether in the politics section or not come from Conservatives, they mainly bash Obama or his wife (really sad low blows) and they make not the slightest effort to check their facts. They pull them verbatim from places like FOX or Breitbart or WND. If it isn't Obama it is Muslims, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. Just do a quick skim of the titles.


if you get the chance, google george w bush and clinton, and look thru the archives here and you will see the real trend is to talk about whoever holds the office of president and other policy makers... its nothing personal, its politics... we don't agree with a lot that Washington does and express our opinions with others who like to talk politics. If its a problem for you, well - you aren't not forced to read these posts, live and let live.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Patt said:


> And where do the opposing opinions come from? I am going to go out on a limb here and say from sites that totally oppose Democrats?


Patt - I'll answer you - 
the opposing information or the confirming information comes from the site of the politician, his recorded voting record and the direct site and not a news source.

I don't go to either of those types of site, and putting a completely Dem. list of heavily spinned views in the GC rather than Politics represents an attempt at falsely trying to hide the political nature of the thread. That is the reason I pointed it out twice.

And thank you for not trying to tell me what I can do and where I can post as some others that have not commented on the substance of this thread have popped in and tried to do.

I don't believe any of the links completely and I research what is being presented in a few different manners and I watch Fox, CNN, ABC and NBC and read the internet. I don't just swallow anyone's hog wash.

I hope I've answered you completely.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Narshalla said:


> There's been one of those in Congress for years, and it's never gone anywhere.
> 
> There is no provision in Obamacare that would allow companies to offer policies across state lines.


The reason for that is that states want to regulate insurance themselves. Passing such a law allows health insurance companies to operate regardless of what the states want. Many in congress believe that passing a law limiting the states' right to regulate insurance in their own states infringes on states' rights, and may be unconstitutional.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The reason for that is that states want to regulate insurance themselves. Passing such a law allows health insurance companies to operate regardless of what the states want. Many in congress believe that passing a law limiting the states' right to regulate insurance in their own states infringes on states' rights, and may be unconstitutional.


And I would agree with them.


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

AngieM2 said:


> I don't believe any of the links completely and I research what is being presented in a few different manners and I watch Fox, CNN, ABC and NBC and read the internet. I don't just swallow anyone's hog wash.


If you do not have confidence that the information from the GAO or from any government source is true and real, how do you propose we gather the information necessary to make an informed choice?

All of the network news corps have an agenda, very political and not useful to discovery of useful info.

There are a couple of foreign news sources that do a somewhat better job of dissecting the mess we are in- 
Asia Times 
The Guardian
Not perfect but better than Fox, CNN, etc.

There is alot of insider info coming from the financial sector- you must hunt for this and balance sometimes wildy divergent points of view, but it can be done.
I never take any one source's spin on any important issue- it takes alot of work to achieve any sort of balanced view of any issue.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

> I never take any one source's spin on any important issue- it takes alot of work to achieve any sort of balanced view of any issue.


This I can agree with you.


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

AngieM2 said:


> Patt - I'll answer you -
> the opposing information or the confirming information comes from the site of the politician, his recorded voting record and the direct site and not a news source.
> 
> I don't go to either of those types of site, and putting a completely Dem. list of heavily spinned views in the GC rather than Politics represents an attempt at falsely trying to hide the political nature of the thread. That is the reason I pointed it out twice.
> ...


Thanks, yes you did.  My point was aimed more at most of the threads started here though rather than you personally, should have made that clearer. Most of the ones started by the Obama bashers come straight from right wing sites. And the vast majority of the threads on this site, whether in GC or politics are Left bashing not right. So I can sympathise with the OP trying to throw something out for the other side.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

dahliaqueen said:


> Angie....
> 
> I did not post this in the politics thread because it contains info that is important to everyone, despite political affiliation.
> 
> ...


does not matter now with all the lies the left has told and obama...it will be a purge...out you go dems....I personally dont care if they are trur or not as long as it oust the leftist progressives scum in power now i am good with that....


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

pancho said:


> But I don't get blamed for voting in a crook.
> 
> Many people I see going to vote do not know who they are voting for. I just can't see where their vote matters so much when they don't know who is running for office.
> I see others that votes a straight party vote. Again I don't see how all of the people from one party can be all bad and all of the people in another party all good.


I suggest that all the dems stay home and dont vote we will get this thing turned around in short order if they would Shut Down the destroy america leftist agenda for awhile....


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

dahliaqueen said:


> If you do not have confidence that the information from the GAO or from any government source is true and real, how do you propose we gather the information necessary to make an informed choice?
> 
> All of the network news corps have an agenda, very political and not useful to discovery of useful info.
> 
> ...


I think if you'd google the budget office whatever they're called, they came out w/'whoopsi' not long ago saying guess what the HC fiasco IS gonna cost a pile. 
Then there' s all the other whoopsis like "DUH, no shovel ready jobs after all"??? Duh, the gov't website has lies all over it re: job creation? DUH. Who ya gonna vote for? Duh.
Like I said b/4, if for NO OTHER reason, BO's goal is cap & trade. You want that?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Sonshine said:


> And Jim Marshall is a Dem that is running ads saying he will NOT support Pelosi. He voted with Reps 65% of the time.


My good friend Ken Carroll wrote this about Jim Marshall:



> 1 â In eight wasted years, Jim Marshall has sponsored ONE piece of legislation that was passed. He changed the name of The Ocmulgee National Monument to The Ocmulgee Mounds National Monument.
> 
> 2 â Jim Marshall holds ZERO leadership positions â not in his party caucus and not on either of the two committees he serves on.
> 
> ...


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I didn't know political topics were better than humor sites.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> Yes, and I have some good friends who are working hard to defeat Jim Marshall, who voted with the Democrat majority 88.5% of the time, and voted for Nancy Pelosi as speaker 4 times. Jim Marshall was my Representative when I was in Ga., and I'm quite familiar with his record. He tries so hard to look like a conservative which then raises the question, if the voters want a conservative, why not elect the real thing?


He's in my district, but right now we're still registered to vote in Florida.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patt said:


> Thanks, yes you did.  My point was aimed more at most of the threads started here though rather than you personally, should have made that clearer. Most of the ones started by the Obama bashers come straight from right wing sites. And the vast majority of the threads on this site, whether in GC or politics are Left bashing not right. So I can sympathise with the OP trying to throw something out for the other side.


Straight from "right wing sites"? So...anything but a Soros funded site is "right wing"?
Seems the real difference is that we have discredited or proven FALSE nearly everything in the OP. No one seems to be able to discredit what you're calling 'right wing site' links to back up our facts. 
But, carry on.


----------

