Obama '08?

@okie,

Actually, requiring all government employees participate in Social Security is a brilliant idea. According to the following graph, there are apparently about 20 million Federal, State, and Local government employees. A beautiful aspect of making them pay into the system is that they would not draw anything out for a considerable length of time, they would only pay into it to support the current batch of retirees and keep the system from going belly up for another 10 to 20 years, which fits beautifully the Ponzi scheme approach that the Social Security system has always used. Obama could also use any extra funds available by borrowing it into the general fund for his wild spending sprees, perhaps even start a few more useless bureaucracies along the way.

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=228

http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg228_500_350.jpg

3 Replies

@okie,

I also think there should be no need for other retirement programs for government employees, so the cost of funding those could be eventually totally eliminated. If the employees want sources of retirement income, they can fund their own, as everyone else does if they want anything. After all, why should we coddle and treat these people in special ways as if they are special and belong to some higher class. They are not higher class, and they should have to live like everyone else and participate in their own crap that they have invented for us.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Well, Social Security is going to become a huge disaster as time goes by, unless something is done to reform the way it works, to fix it. At least Bush proposed and idea to fix it, but the Democratic Party of No nixed it.

haha, The Republicans controlled both houses when the SS fix was proposed by Bush. Nothing the Dems could have done would have stopped it. And the Republicans never even brought it forward for a vote; likely because their scheme was massively unpopular with the country.

You fix SS by raising the retirement age over time and taking off the cap on SS funds garnered - not by transferring increasingly large amounts out of it into risky investment accounts.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Mostly poll data that suggests the public sees the growing deficit as a greater concern than health care, and other data that suggests lower levels of support for the health care legislation now than when it was enacted.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100617/ap_on_bi_ge/us_ap_poll_health_overhaul

AP-GfK poll shows gains for health care overhaul

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_W84FyssLdwI/SxlS0KjiyMI/AAAAAAAAAUw/RfQ7vxVPXXY/s320/still+blamen.jpg

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

"SILL BLAME'N"

Hay! That's what Odem do. They don't know how to really correct real government and economic problems.

LEFTISM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.[/white]RIGHTISM
communism nazism fascism socialism statism democratism conservatism libertarianism anarchism

1 Reply

The Odem in government must be impeached. The Odem (i.e., Obama democrats) are lying thieving gangsters working to reduce our Liberty under the rule of law, reduce our Constitutional Government, and reduce our Capitalist Economy.

A majority of the House of Representatives is required to impeach anyone. When the voters in November 2010 elect a Republican House majority, that Republican majority will possess the power to impeach President Barach Obama for his unlawful conduct.

When Obama has been impeached, Obama will be put on trial in the Senate with Chief Justice, John Roberts, presiding. See Article I, last two paragraphs of section 3: "No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present."

Even if "two thirds of the members present" in the Senate do not concur, Obama's specific unlawful conduct will be made known to the voting public. The voting public can then in November 2012 defeat Obama's re-election attempt plus defeat the re-election attempts by many of those non-concurring Senators.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

A majority of the House of Representatives is required to impeach anyone. When the voters in November 2010 elect a Republican House majority, that Republican majority will possess the power to impeach President Barach Obama for his unlawful conduct.

They will never do so, in no small part because they will in all likelihood not capture the house this Fall.

And then what will you do?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I agree recent forecasts suggest the Democrats will hold on to the House by a slim margin. However, recent trends have been generally against Democrats, and I suspect the President's credibility is fading fast among all but his zealous committed supporters. A lot can change between now and November (just four months to go) and recent trends are unfavorable for the current Congress and the Administration.

I don't favor impeachment. However the President has demonstrated a potentially dangerous authoritarian streak - unilaterally deciding which laws to enforce and which to ignore; demonizing businesses and calling for ever more government control of economic activity (even as the government continues to demonstrate its ineptitude); and lecturing the people on how we should live.

All of this is further jeapordized by the repeatedly demonstrated combination of incompetence, authoritarianism and evasions of responsibility or blame by the President and his appointees. From the chaos surrounding scheduled terrorist trials; to Congressionsl dealmaking to pass legislation; blatant payoffs to unions that defy the public interest; and the current sorry spectacle of the response to the Gulf Oil catastrophe they have presented us with a very sorry spectacle of hypocrisy and amateurism, all made worse by their penchant for authoritarianism and excuse-making.

All things considered, I suspect the Obama presidency will be ranked somewhere below that of Jimmy Carter.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

demonizing businesses

He hasn't demonized anyone. He has described exactly what they do, quite accurately, and you read this as 'demonization.' But I wonder if you could point to any statement he's made about business in America which is factually untrue; I doubt it.

Quote:

All things considered, I suspect the Obama presidency will be ranked somewhere below that of Jimmy Carter.

Oh, come now, George. You're getting a little ahead of yourself on that prediction, especially because he's quite likely to be re-elected in 3 years.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Actually is's less than two & a half years, and I believe he will be defeated.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

All of this is further jeapordized by the repeatedly demonstrated combination of incompetence, authoritarianism and evasions of responsibility or blame by the President and his appointees. From the chaos surrounding scheduled terrorist trials; to Congressionsl dealmaking to pass legislation; blatant payoffs to unions that defy the public interest; and the current sorry spectacle of the response to the Gulf Oil catastrophe they have presented us with a very sorry spectacle of hypocrisy and amateurism, all made worse by their penchant for authoritarianism and excuse-making.

Since you've brought it up twice in this paragraph: what do you see as examples of authoritarianism by this President?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Actually is's less than two & a half years, and I believe he will be defeated.

You're as wrong about that as you were about the HC bill. The Republicans have nobody at all who can even touch the guy. Nobody who can defeat him in a debate or in campaigning.

You do realize that having leadership is key to winning the presidency, right? The current top three Republicans who are in contention are Sarah Palin, Newt Ginrich, and Mitt Romney. And you'd be a fool to believe any of them could beat Obama.

I also repeat my challenge, for you to point to any statement that Obama has made re: Big Business in America, which is factually untrue. You dropped that point.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

They will never do so, in no small part because they will in all likelihood not capture the house this Fall.

And then what will you do?

I shall save this Thursday, June 17, 2010.prediction of yours. I'll repost it in November.

And then what will you do?

1 Reply

@okie,

Federal civilian employees have been under social security since 1983. They also contribute to what is essentially a 401k, which contributions get limited matching by the government. There would remain a tiny defined benefit plan.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't favor impeachment. However the President has demonstrated a potentially dangerous authoritarian streak - unilaterally deciding which laws to enforce and which to ignore; demonizing businesses and calling for ever more government control of economic activity (even as the government continues to demonstrate its ineptitude); and lecturing the people on how we should live.

All of this is further jeapordized by the repeatedly demonstrated combination of incompetence, authoritarianism and evasions of responsibility or blame by the President and his appointees. From the chaos surrounding scheduled terrorist trials; to Congressionsl dealmaking to pass legislation; blatant payoffs to unions that defy the public interest; and the current sorry spectacle of the response to the Gulf Oil catastrophe they have presented us with a very sorry spectacle of hypocrisy and amateurism, all made worse by their penchant for authoritarianism and excuse-making.

George, why do you not favor impeachment of Obama?

I think you posted an excellent argument for impeaching Obama.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
They will never do so, in no small part because they will in all likelihood not capture the house this Fall.

And then what will you do?

I shall save this Thursday, June 17, 2010.prediction of yours. I'll repost it in November.

And then what will you do?

Laugh about being right again Laughing

You are over-confident, Ican. I don't think you've actually done the math for the election in question.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

It seems to me that those in the House or running for seats in the House who favor impeachment should get moving. The Democrats could very well lose their majority in the mid-terms just 4+ months ahead. Impeachment in the House (by a simple majority) plus conviction in the Senate (2/3rd majority) could take months.
Those House members favoring it should start now. They can, perhaps, start holding some preliminary hearings.
There is a sleepy thread on A2K where we (but mostly me) have been talking about the election. We have been focusing on the key Senate races rather than the House.
I would appreciate finding out the names/states of House or Senate candidates who are making impeachment a part of their campaigning. Thanks.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Federal civilian employees have been under social security since 1983. They also contribute to what is essentially a 401k, which contributions get limited matching by the government. There would remain a tiny defined benefit plan.

I am not sure about that. Sure they pay income tax, but totally different than paying into social security. I personally knew state employees that did not pay into social security or receive the benefit. I don't know any federal employees, but I thought they had their own pension plan, whereby they opt out of social security. Perhaps someone can clarify this better? Doing an internet search did not come up with anything very authoritative as far as I could determine.

1 Reply

@okie,

Taking a stab at this, Okie. Federal employees hired after 1983 were brought into the SSAE system.
edit: oops. That has already been reported. Sorry.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know