Obama and Romney hit the final stretch

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tampa_Dave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stinkcat_14 said:
But of course, current recipients are not being paid with their own money, they are being paid with my money and others like me who actually work for a living. There is no contribution to social security, it is a tax pure and simple and the people who receive it have no right to expect that I should sacrifice for them, especially when so many of them are able bodied and can work. Also, Medicare parts B and D are paid out of general tax revenues, so once again we have a pure redistribution program that goes to the undeserving.
Click to expand...
Overall, what happened was that the SS money that was supposed to be in a “lockbox” was “borrowed” by the government, then repaid as the “debts” fell due.

So it would be like my putting my money in a bank CD, and the bank lending it out at interest and sharing the interest with me. Except that we were forced by the government to agree to this contract. However, it is a contract, and it is *not *like welfare.
 
estesbob said:
Romeny is going to win and win big. you can bet the house on it.
Click to expand...
I wish I had your confidence. The arguments you guys are presenting are good, but I just don’t know…

Well, this Ohioan is voting for Romney, anyway.
 
St_Francis said:
Overall, what happened was that the SS money that was supposed to be in a “lockbox” was “borrowed” by the government, then repaid as the “debts” fell due.

So it would be like my putting my money in a bank CD, and the bank lending it out at interest and sharing the interest with me. Except that we were forced by the government to agree to this contract. However, it is a contract, and it is *not *like welfare.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid you’re mistaken.

If you put money in a bank CD, that money is yours. You are realistically and accurately able to say, “I have $10,000 in a CD” – and you may withdraw that amount at maturity.

Money that is in the “trust fund” is not yours. It belongs to the Social Security Administration. It is not segregated.

Further, the FICA tax is just that, a tax. It is authorized by 26 USC 3101:
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))— …
And the trust fund considers the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund to be just one account. Per 42 USC 401:
(a)** Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund **There is hereby created on the books of the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the “Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund”. The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund shall consist of the securities held by the Secretary of the Treasury for the Old-Age Reserve Account **(**NB: Account not Accounts) and the amount standing to the credit of the Old-Age Reserve Account **(**NB: Account not Accounts) on the books of the Treasury on January 1, 1940, which securities and amount the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to transfer to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, and, in addition, such gifts and bequests as may be made as provided in subsection (i)(1) of this section, and such amounts as may be appropriated to, or deposited in, the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund as hereinafter provided. There is hereby appropriated to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1941, and for each fiscal year thereafter, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, amounts equivalent to 100 per centum of—
(1)the taxes (including interest, penalties, and additions to the taxes) received under subchapter A of chapter 9 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 (and covered into the Treasury) which are deposited into the Treasury by collectors of internal revenue before January 1, 1951; and…
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
When you base your entire campaign on your history as a businessman; it is subject to scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Scrutinize away! Romney has been successful in everything he has ever done. Only in the bizarro world of the modern left would that disqualify someone from being president.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Post-ABC tracking poll: Romney 50 percent, Obama 47
Click to expand...
Interesting numbers from your article on the Washington Post/ABC tracking poll:

***Romney’s improvements on the economy — and on empathizing with the plight of those struggling financially — has been fueled by gains among political independents. Independents now side with Romney by campaign highs on both the economy (61 to 34 percent) and on understanding people’s problems (52 to 42 percent).

These advantages with independents undergird a sizable, 19 percentage-point Romney lead over Obama on the horse race. Should that advantage stick, it would be the sharpest tilt among independents in a presidential election since Ronald Reagan’s 1984 landslide win. (Reagan won independent and other unaffiliated voters 63 to 36 percent, according to the exit poll). Obama won them by eight in 2008.***
 
TTins said:
I’ve lurked here for ages but finally had to register to fight some misconceptions about how much of a lock Romney has on this election.

A nationwide poll may predict who will win the popular vote, but state by state polls to predict who will win the most electoral votes (and the presidency) has been historically accurate for the last 2 elections from the following site:

electoral-vote.com/ -
That site predicts Obama winning 294 electoral votes to Romney’s 244. They update states that have new polls daily and adjust the numbers to reflect that.

Another site: fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ predicts 290 (D) to 247 (R)

And still a third electionprojection.com/2012elections/president12.php shows a more reasonable 277 (D) to 261(D)

I’m not saying Romney can’t win, but going in with unmitigated self assurance that he already has it carries the risk of making one’s head explode.
Click to expand...
Point well taken, TTins.
 
markomalley said:
I’m afraid you’re mistaken.

If you put money in a bank CD, that money is yours. You are realistically and accurately able to say, “I have $10,000 in a CD” – and you may withdraw that amount at maturity.

Money that is in the “trust fund” is not yours. It belongs to the Social Security Administration. It is not segregated.

Further, the FICA tax is just that, a tax. It is authorized by 26 USC 3101:
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))— …
Click to expand...
Thank you for the correction! Learn something new every day 🙂

What about the rest, that since the tax was collected in order to provide for the worker in his or her old age or need, that it is like a contract rather than like welfare?
 
St_Francis said:
Thank you for the correction! Learn something new every day 🙂

What about the rest, that since the tax was collected in order to provide for the worker in his or her old age or need, that it is like a contract rather than like welfare?
Click to expand...
Since you take from people who work and give to people who don’t work it is like welfare. Just because you gave someone else welfare doesn’t mean that you yourself are owed anything, because the people paying have zero moral obligation to you. Think about it, what right do you have to demand that your grandchildren have their incomes confiscated to give you money? None.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Obama worried about black and Hispanic vote
Click to expand...
Obama Worried about Black and Hispanic Vote

*Barack Obama is worried about two of the constituencies that widely supported him in 2008, the Latino community and the black community, and he is desperately trying to ratchet up their support as the November election draws close. In an interview with the huge Latino radio network Univision yesterday, Obama stressed his support for immigration reform while declaring that the repeal of ObamCare by Romney would mean … “you would have millions of people, including millions of Latinos all across the country, who now have the possibility of getting accessible healthcare suddenly on their own.”

Obama has not tackled immigration reform in the nearly four years he has been in office, but he told the Des Moines Register In a clear attempt of pandering with platitudes, Obama bleated: “I will just be very blunt: Should I win a second term, a big reason I will win a second term is because the Republican nominee and the Republican Party have so alienated the fastest-growing demographic group in the country, the Latino community.”

Obama also tried to appeal to the black community yesterday, when he held a conference call with about 50 radio DJs, most of whom are black. He urged the DJs to exhort their listeners to go out and vote and vote early. Two other approaches Obama has utilized are his recent interview with Ebony magazine and an email sent out by poet Maya Angelou.

In 2008, exit polls showed Obama won 95 percent of the black vote and 67 percent of Latino votes, but his failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform could hurt him with Latinos and the poor economic recovery may hurt him with both groups.*

I re-printed the article. Read it, think about it. Draw your own conclusions.
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
Not how that works. You have to prove your assertion, as you are the one who opened the discussion.😃
Click to expand...
Actually the assertion that he created more jobs than were lost was yours. It was also given 3 Pinocchios by the Washington Post. BTW did you know that at least 22% of the known companies taken over by Bain while Romney was CEO went belly-up and another 8% flopped? I’m also curious as to how he went from claiming 10,000 jobs created by him to 100,000 between the time was running for Senate and President.
 
St_Francis said:
Thank you for the correction! Learn something new every day 🙂

What about the rest, that since the tax was collected in order to provide for the worker in his or her old age or need, that it is like a contract rather than like welfare?
Click to expand...
FIrst, a disclaimer: I think it is a classic Ponzi scheme.

People at the top of the pyramid get their earnings, not from their investments, but from the payments from the people at the bottom of the pyramid, while the promoter siphons off any excess and keeps it for himself.

It inevitably fails when there are not enough new investors are found to sustain the payments due to those who expect earnings.

With that in mind, I think that the design of the old age fund is supposed to resemble an insurance plan. If you pay enough premiums (40 quarters), you are supposed to collect a payment throughout your old age.

The problem, like with the pyramid scheme, is that there aren’t enough people paying premiums to satisfy the demands of those who are promised payments. And, well, there isn’t much way that they will be able to sell their “securities” back (and receive the cash back from the Treasury) – that source is flat broke.
 
mary_bobo said:
And since the inception of the War on Poverty, billions have been spend and the rolls of the poor have only increased. The only thing that system accomplishes is more voters for the Dems. When something has not worked to this extent, it is time to try something different.
Click to expand...
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” - Alexis de Toqueville
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Since you take from people who work and give to people who don’t work it is like welfare. Just because you gave someone else welfare doesn’t mean that you yourself are owed anything, because the people paying have zero moral obligation to you. Think about it, what right do you have to demand that your grandchildren have their incomes confiscated to give you money? None.
Click to expand...
The government is not some entity “out there,” the government is *us. *

*We *are telling people that if they pay in, they will be able to receive the benefit down the road. *We *are forcing them to take money they could save and use for themselves, either to save for their own retirement, or to start a business, or buy a Ferrari, *with the notion that they will be paid back. *

It is *not *like welfare.

Now, personally, I wasn’t around when they made this rule, and I will probably be of the age which first feels the effect of any changes they make. i also have 4 children, who will be paying in at the rate of 2 people to 1 retiree. Believe me, I do wish I could remove this burden from their shoulders. I also wish that the generation before me and my generation and the current generation and those in between had not all contracepted half or two-thirds of our population away so that we are in this mess.

And I wish that FDR had not brought this into existence!

But it is still not welfare.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top