Barack Obama for President 2008

[Dave R.]

Originally Posted by Normie1

Lee, I will agree with hat for sure, I kinda like Fred Thompson I think he is coming on strong. The last actor we had did a great job I think, but who knows about Fred

I'll assume the comment about the last actor doing a great job was Ronny boy. If so, you apparently think home interest rates in the low 20% range, and your Social Security account being dipped into for the first time by federal government agencies is acceptable. I respect your right to think as you will, but I have a different opinion when it comes to Ronny.

[FocusingOnFlorida]

Well said.

Originally Posted by zero rc

"Look forward, not backwards. I realize that's a big change for liberals but you gotta start sometime. " too true brian. to me the dems seem to be building their platform on the notion of failure and backstabbing ( ever hear the hillary/ edwards sound bite re: obama). its like walking into a job interview and saying your last worker must have been an idiot, im only half the fool he was. barak is a good man, talk to me in another 8 yrs and we will see. like the other poster said, half his votes are actually votes for oprah anyway. now wiht marth stewart stumping for hillary we can really turn this election into a three ring circus.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Dave R.

I'll assume the comment about the last actor doing a great job was Ronny boy. If so, you apparently think home interest rates in the low 20% range, and your Social Security account being dipped into for the first time by federal government agencies is acceptable. I respect your right to think as you will, but I have a different opinion when it comes to Ronny.

I love it when people can't figure out how economics works. Sigh...

Presidents do not control the economy. Period. The press likes to pin economic issues ON the President but, reality check: it's controlled by the market, with a little help from the Federal Reserve...who specifically DOESN'T answer to the President for that whole separation of powers thing. They answer to Congress...and even then it's more of a reporting relationship than a "take direction" thing.

The interest rates were runaway when Reagan got into office. In fact, check out the dates here: Mortgage (ARM) Indexes: Prime Rate: Historical Data Interesting...the first big jumps occured in the late '70's and, in 1980, we started seeing 20% rates...before the 1980 election that put Reagan in office.

A few tax cuts later and...wow...look at that in the late 80's!! Single digit interest rates. But no Presidential edicts...just tax cuts, increased government spending, and the market took over.

As far as "your" Social Security account...you might want to check how it works. The money you put in NOW isn't yours...it's the current recipients of SS. It was never designed to be yours. It's your "lock" into getting your "share" later from some other involuntary schmuck in what has to be the grandest pyramid scheme of them all.

Also, you might want to check into who actually SPENDS the money in the US federal system. The President doesn't control the budget, despite what the media likes to tell you; Congress does. The President SUBMITS a budget "recommendation" which is then negotiated with Congress after it's accepted. This was started in 1922. The actual appropriations, though, are handled by Congress, not the President.

So when you're SS "account" is raided, go talk to your Congressman or Senator. They have more to do with it than the President.

[Goofup]

Another "Well Said".

[Dave R.]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

I love it when people can't figure out how economics works. Sigh...

Presidents do not control the economy. Period. The press likes to pin economic issues ON the President but, reality check: it's controlled by the market, with a little help from the Federal Reserve...who specifically DOESN'T answer to the President for that whole separation of powers thing. They answer to Congress...and even then it's more of a reporting relationship than a "take direction" thing.

The interest rates were runaway when Reagan got into office. In fact, check out the dates here: Mortgage (ARM) Indexes: Prime Rate: Historical Data Interesting...the first big jumps occured in the late '70's and, in 1980, we started seeing 20% rates...before the 1980 election that put Reagan in office.

A few tax cuts later and...wow...look at that in the late 80's!! Single digit interest rates. But no Presidential edicts...just tax cuts, increased government spending, and the market took over.

As far as "your" Social Security account...you might want to check how it works. The money you put in NOW isn't yours...it's the current recipients of SS. It was never designed to be yours. It's your "lock" into getting your "share" later from some other involuntary schmuck in what has to be the grandest pyramid scheme of them all.

Also, you might want to check into who actually SPENDS the money in the US federal system. The President doesn't control the budget, despite what the media likes to tell you; Congress does. The President SUBMITS a budget "recommendation" which is then negotiated with Congress after it's accepted. This was started in 1922. The actual appropriations, though, are handled by Congress, not the President.

So when you're SS "account" is raided, go talk to your Congressman or Senator. They have more to do with it than the President.

The interest rates were climbing as Ronny was elected, but he did absolutely nothing to promote this to change. I agree the president is not in control, but the president does have a strong voice in those kind of economical issues and very well could have worked with Greenbspan to seek change. As far as the SS thing goes, you are as usual having trouble with a corn cob up the wrong orifice with your caustic remarks. Reagan was primarily responsible for government dipping into SS. and it hasn't stopped yet, under any administration, congress or not. If you don't believe it is true that your and my SS is threatened, then have your day dream.

[Lee4145]

The economy is also largely self-fulfilling. If the general public believes that it's good, or has confidence in it, they buy things which creates demand which creates employment which means more people with money who are spending it and more tax revenue, etc. Snowball. In both directions. But in general, Brian's explanation matched what I know to be the case damn close.

[Uncle Frank]

I'm getting a kick out of "Change" becoming the universal candidates' chant. It's become an overused term, with the democrats citing it few hundred times during this week's debate.

Being pro-change isn't good enough. I've seen a lot of changes in my life, and not all of them were for the better. Imho the candidates must identify the specific things that they feel need changing, and present plans to get us something better than what we already have.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Dave R.

The interest rates were climbing as Ronny was elected, but he did absolutely nothing to promote this to change. I agree the president is not in control, but the president does have a strong voice in those kind of economical issues and very well could have worked with Greenbspan to seek change.

Dave, check your history before making these types of remarks. Greenspan took over as Chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1987....nominated by Reagan and after things were calming down. And interest rates are adjusted in response to money supply and inflation, NOT economic conditions as a whole.

As far as the SS thing goes, you are as usual having trouble with a corn cob up the wrong orifice with your caustic remarks. Reagan was primarily responsible for government dipping into SS. and it hasn't stopped yet, under any administration, congress or not. If you don't believe it is true that your and my SS is threatened, then have your day dream.

No, Reagan tossed the idea into Congress. Your elected representatives (I was too young to vote at the time) made the decision. Study up on your civics.

Personally, I've gone through life with the reality check that SS will be gone by the time I hit retirement. Entitlement programs like that just don't work in the long run.

And thanks for the bad karma, Dave. A true sign of someone who can't leave personal feelings out of a debate.

[Uncle Frank]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

Personally, I've gone through life with the reality check that SS will be gone by the time I hit retirement. Entitlement programs like that just don't work in the long run.

If 72 years isn't enough, I'd be interested in your definition of long run, Brian.

August 14, 1935 The Social Security Act (H.R. 7260, Public Law No. 271, 74th Congress) became law with Franklin Delano Roosevelt's signature at approximately 3:30 p.m. on a Wednesday

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Uncle Frank

If 72 years isn't enough, I'd be interested in your definition of long run, Brian.

August 14, 1935 The Social Security Act (H.R. 7260, Public Law No. 271, 74th Congress) became law with Franklin Delano Roosevelt's signature at approximately 3:30 p.m. on a Wednesday

It's a pyramid scheme, Frank. As long as the population either stays at zero net growth or increases, it works fine. But that's not happening. We're seeing the biggest population boom in history (in pure numbers, not percentages) beginning to hit retirement age. The official "first" Baby Boomer just applied to SS last year. So what happens when MORE people draw from SS than are currently putting INTO SS? Remember: the first people drawing SS didn't actually put money INTO it...so it started with a negative amount, built up with the BB population and has been tapped by the government.

EDIT: I forgot to mention the second point of my population statement: the number of people putting money into SS will be LESS than the number of people taking out $$ in the next 10-15 years. That's where it starts failing. A pyramid scheme must never go upside down or it no longer works.

Originally it was designed as a "first in, first out" set up, with everything people paid INTO the system being immediately paid out. It balanced and, for the most part, worked okay. There was no trust fund set up. Then some accountants did a little forecasting and saw what we're seeing today: baby boomers were going to set this thing upside down, requiring the government to come out of pocket OR reduce benefits to levels that would cause voters to rebel against who's in charge (the real "grease" in Washington, btw).

So the Trust Fund was set up, SS taxes raised and the coffers were filling...until the government started "borrowing" the money for other things, forgetting (as usual) to pay it back. Technically, the money taken from the Trust Fund is actually part of the federal debt. Doesn't matter since we, as the taxpayers, are still responsible for it.

I find it rather ironic that it sounds a lot like Enron's accounting schemes, eh?

As soon as the Trust Fund was set up, it was an acknowledgement that it was failing. The "long run" ended there. FDR's original idea died at that point. Now it turned into an entitlement comparable to socialist programs in Europe. When I read some of FDR's biographies, I got the impression that SS (called economic security at the time) was designed to be temporary. I don't have any references for it, though, so I'll tag it as just my opinion.

[Normie1]

One thing about the interest rate, no one twisted there arm to sign the darn thing. And like what is explained in a later reply, Ronny, as you call him had very little to do with that. Hell when you come down to it Clinton did some good things. His whole tender was not bad, what do you think??

[heartseye]

LOL....ok you guys.....I think out of this lot I shall vote for Brian Austin!!

In the real event.....sheesh, who knows....I find Huckabee interesting though.......cheers to all...Bob

[Uncle Frank]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

I find it rather ironic that it sounds a lot like Enron's accounting schemes, eh?

Don't get carried away, Brian. Even if the politicians have mismanaged the SS system, there's a huge difference between misfeasance and malfeasance.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Uncle Frank

Don't get carried away, Brian. Even if the politicians have mismanaged the SS system, there's a huge difference between misfeasance and malfeasance.

I WILL get carried away. Why? It's my right, guaranteed under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I'm ALLOWED to question my leaders. Some, including Jefferson, even encouraged it. One (though I forget who) felt open rebellion every once in a while wasn't necessarily a bad thing.

The government holds THEMSELVES to different standards, Frank. It always has. All of those housing codes that make our homes safe and comfortable? Military housing was exempt for decades, even though the families in them were no different than the middle class families in nearby suburbs. Asbestos legislation...remember that? Guess where one of the WORST asbestos contamination sites is in the country right now? Under the US Capitol. Federal workers are EXCLUDED from help there. OSHA doesn't apply to federal facilities.

The ONLY difference between Enron's accounting practices and our government's is one simple thing: the government is in charge and makes it own rules...and changes them to suit itself. Again, check your history. They've been doing it for decades.

[AlbertP]

Republicans should be happy Canadians can't vote


Canadian Press
January 7, 2008 at 6:24 PM EST

OTTAWA — If you're asking Canadians, it doesn't seem to matter much who wins Tuesday's New Hampshire primaries.
A new poll suggests Canadians so massively favour the U.S. Democratic party that they'd back any of its leading candidates in a presidential race against a Republican.
The Harris-Decima survey suggests the Democrats would trounce the Republicans by a four-to-one margin if the voters were Canadian.
U.S. President George W. Bush's Republican party would get creamed even in a hypothetical election in which only Canadian Conservatives voted.
The survey, provided exclusively to The Canadian Press, says 49 per cent of Canadians expressed a preference for Democrats while only 12 per cent did the same for Republicans.
Even self-described Conservatives — who are supposedly more ideologically in tune with the right-leaning Republicans — favoured the Democrats by a 47-23 margin.
Voters in New Hampshire will pick their preferred Democratic and Republican candidates in Tuesday's primary.
Although Democrat Barack Obama appears to have all the momentum entering the vote, Canadian respondents favoured Hillary Clinton by 34-23 margin over Mr. Obama's upstart candidacy.
Among Republican candidates, Canadian respondents favoured the most socially liberal one.
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani had the support of 6 per cent of respondents, followed by John McCain at 3 per cent, Mike Huckabee at 2 per cent and Mitt Romney at 1 per cent.
In a hypothetical presidential election between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney, respondents favoured Mr. Obama 49 per cent to 11. And if only Conservatives voted, Mr. Obama would still have won by a 50-17 margin.
The poll of 1,000 respondents was conducted Jan. 3-6, and has a plus or minus 3.1-percentage-point margin of error, 19 times out of 20.


globeandmail.com: Republicans should be happy Canadians can't vote

[rlcphotos39]

one thing has always stuck in my mind, be careful what you ask for.



you better read VERY carefully between the lines when it comes to obama.......

[AlbertP]

I actually heard some Republicans say they would vote for Obama. Damn, pass the doobie, bro!

Video Player

[AlbertP]

Originally Posted by rlcphotos39

you better read VERY carefully between the lines when it comes to obama.......

Oh, yeah? Hey, how carefully did you have to read to end up with a guy like George Bush? Was that something like dyslexia or illiteracy?

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by AlbertP

Republicans should be happy Canadians can't vote
...

Uh...they can vote. Just not in the US.

And Canada is and has been left leaning since I remember. Voting Democrat is hardly a surprise there.

But...they can't and it has no relevance on the election outcome. So why even bother bringing it up? Ah...forgot. This is a common moveon.org wannabee tactic:

Dazzle them with irrelevant data.

Nice job, AP.

[heartseye]

As I live in Canada, I am deeply affected by the US situation at any given time. Not all of us would vote Democrat, believe me. Cheers, Bob