House in Disarray - Democrats Dazed

Jeez, you guys are dense.

For every person who earns a return, someone loses. Both of you can see nothing but returns in your futures if allowed to manage yer money; statistically speaking this won't be the case.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Okie
Perhaps "stolen" is a bit strong for how the SS "surplus" was used.

I have seen it explained in a number of ways, but the jist of it was that Congress, almost from the inception of the program, used the "surplus" from Social Secruity funds as general funds (as if it were regular taxed income to the Government). I have also seen articles on the system that seem to indicate that this "surplus" borrowing was done with the idea that the SS Fund got an IOU for those "borrowed" funds.

It will be an interesting time when the outgo exceeds the income in the Social Security equasion. (... and that time is coming.) Congress is already trying to state that the system was designed as a "pay as you go". No, Sir, otherwise why is the entire system and the funds generated and dispersed thereof treated outside the General Budget?

What it was right from the beginning (at least from Congress' perspective) was an unending source of funds that could be used elsewhere, particularly in times of deficit budgets (the norm since 1969, with one/two years exception). What Congress didn't see was that the demographics of the nation would change. OOOOOOPS!

I wonder how Congress is going to act when the SS fund starts asking to "cash in" those IOUs. I am willing to bet we are going to see some fancy footwork in the hallowed halls of Congress indeed.

Halfback

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Jeez, you guys are dense.

For every person who earns a return, someone loses. Both of you can see nothing but returns in your futures if allowed to manage yer money; statistically speaking this won't be the case.

Cycloptichorn

Not really. Maybe in the give and take world of the stock market, but not in world financials. Somebody pays, sure, but they don't necessarily lose. It's called risk management. Perhaps you need to go to a real university where they teach sound capitalism instead of Patchoulli U where you go now.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Jeez, you guys are dense.

For every person who earns a return, someone loses. Both of you can see nothing but returns in your futures if allowed to manage yer money; statistically speaking this won't be the case.

Cycloptichorn

No, wrong again. In a free market, both parties profit, but in different ways.

Note to Halfback, "stolen" is a strong word, intentionally used, but does fit because of the following facts. It is the peoples money that is confiscated to form a sort of insurance retirement fund, forced on us. It was not intended, supposedly, as an income tax to support the government, at least not in terms of what the people were led to believe. Now, given the above, the government invests the money to be lent back to itself to help fund the general fund, but the returns or interest earned on this money that is forcefully loaned back to the government is well below the returns that can be obtained in the free market. In essence, it is gross mismanagement and embezzlement of the trust funds. I'm not talking about myself only, but every citizen of the country that has paid into the system. FDR gets much of the credit or blame for starting this entire scheme.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

nimh wrote:
So how do you explain that according to every single poll out there, the Republicans in Congress are even more impopular than the Democrats?

If you wish to dissect the polls, which is not that interesting, but first, I would look at who was polled, how many Democrats vs Republicans. Do you have that information? Unless it is fairly split between the parties, the polls are going to be skewed.

Okie, allow me to be surprised. I mean, in your own post that I was replying to, you were going on the ONE single poll - and a Zogby one at that - right? And you seemed to take it at its word, without hesitation.

Yet now when you're looking at an array of different polls, from five different pollsters, all showing the same thing, you are suddenly dubious about their value and methodologies?

You're not one of those people who eagerly swallow any poll they agree with, but assume every poll they disagree with probably just is flawed, are you? :wink:

Now in answer to your question, no I do not want to dissect the polls here. I just want to hear your answer to my question.

Because yes, professional polling agencies, and Gallup etc certainly are, take into account the balance of party affiliation. They ask respondents whether they consider themselves Republican, Democratic or independent; liberal, conservative or moderate; young or old, male or female, et cetera. They either try to assure a representative sample by making sure there's a good regional, age etc. spread, or they actively apply weighting to the data they gather: if the raw data includes disproportional numbers of Democrats or Republicans, they weigh the data to fit the national numbers on party affiliation etc. instead. Even without weighing, however, it would be unlikely for twelve polls in a row, without exception, done by different polling agencies, to all be overrepresenting Democrats.

So enough with the evasions already. You have 12 consecutive polls by 5 different pollsters all saying the same thing - with no exception: the Republicans in Congress are more impopular than the Democrats. I dont want to "dissect" polls, I just want to hear what your explanation is. Why do the Americans view the Republicans more negatively now than the Democrats?

0 Replies

I merely pointed out how low the Congress is in the polls, which I think is generally accurate as a general cross section of the American people, Democrats, Republicans, and othes combined. Beyond that, to compare the approval ratings of Democrats vs Republicans in Congress, I think my question is valid, what is the cross section of voters polled? I do not think the pollsters are always consistent in this regard, and it depends upon the time of day the people are polled, and other factors, so I would still like to see the numbers behind the numbers for each poll. If you wish to make more specific conclusions from a poll, then you need to look at more specific parameters of the poll.

But beyond the points I make, if you are correct, I stand corrected, you have a point. I don't think Republicans are particularly popular as well as Democrats, and I don't think I have ever said they were. Still, Congress as a whole, the Democrats now need to take primary responsibility for any accomplishments of Congress, and the low approval ratings. Another point, isn't Bush's poll numbers higher than Congress?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I merely pointed out how low the Congress is in the polls, which I think is generally accurate as a general cross section of the American people

okie wrote:

I do not think the pollsters are always consistent in this regard, and it depends upon the time of day the people are polled, and other factors, so I would still like to see the numbers behind the numbers for each poll.

Okay. You believe that all those polls that show how miserably Congress is doing are "generally accurate". But all those polls that show that people are even less content with Congress Republicans than with the Democrats depend "upon the time of day the people are polled, and other factors".

Gotcha.

okie wrote:

I don't think Republicans are particularly popular as well as Democrats, and I don't think I have ever said they were.

Well, that's not exactly what the polls are saying. It's not just that neither Republicans nor Democrats are particularly popular. The polls rather seem to show that Republicans are even less popular than Democrats. By a margin of about 10%.

0 Replies

I think something needs to be clarified. nimh quoted polls with approval ratings of Democrats and Republicans in Congress. That is different than the approval rating of Congress as a body, in terms of its performance, and that has hit historical lows. I believe Pelosi and Reid should bear alot of that responsibility, don't you think? Someone could approve of a Congressmen, but highly disapprove of the job that Congress as a whole is doing, and right now the Democrats are running the agenda.

This quote from the following:

"Congress' performance was approved by just 22 percent, continuing a steady decline since Democrats took over in January."

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/oct/05/ap_poll_approval_ratings_bush_congress_hit_new_low/

And again, to evaluate approval ratings of individual congressmen, I would need to look at who is being polled in each poll. In the overall poll, it doesn't matter as much because it is finding an overall picture from the population, but for evaluating individuals, if more Democrats are asked, then they will naturally approve of Democrats at a higher rate. Figures don't lie, but liars will figure.

0 Replies

okie, I'm thinking that if you had a clue you would realize the world is not as black and white as you see it but then I don't live in oklahoma. Have you ever considered that the universe is bigger than you are?

0 Replies

Is everything one shade of gray then, dys? Try to give an honest answer instead of a snide remark if you can. It would be nice to carry on a civil conversation.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Is everything one shade of gray then, dys? Try to give an honest answer instead of a snide remark if you can. It would be nice to carry on a civil conversation.

really? I've never seen you do that. What I have seen is "democrats (liberals) are evil and republicans (conservatives) are god's blessing. Perhaps you should read your own posts.
Snide? Yes I suppose I do that but then I usually do give honest answers and, frankly okie, I've never, ever, seen you carry on an civil conversation. Have you read your own posts?

0 Replies

Those that refuse obvious solutions force us to muddle around in the grey areas endlessly. Ever notice that a pair of white socks with grey pads on the heel and toe to strengthen the sock will always wear out in the grey areas first?

Same concept.

0 Replies

hey shiksa, you'r momma showed up

http://www.kibblesplace.com/dogs/monkey.jpg

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Those that refuse obvious solutions force us to muddle around in the grey areas endlessly. Ever notice that a pair of white socks with grey pads on the heel and toe to strengthen the sock will always wear out in the grey areas first?

Same concept.

http://wbrower.net/OBB/images/Ann_Coulter.gif

0 Replies

If only we had converted Iraqis to christianity we would be out of there by now.

The world is so black and white. Except of course for the red roses that the Iraqis threw at our feet when we invaded

0 Replies

parados wrote:

he world is so black and white. Except of course for the red roses that the Iraqis threw at our feet when we invaded

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

okie wrote:
Is everything one shade of gray then, dys? Try to give an honest answer instead of a snide remark if you can. It would be nice to carry on a civil conversation.
really? I've never seen you do that. What I have seen is "democrats (liberals) are evil and republicans (conservatives) are god's blessing. Perhaps you should read your own posts.
Snide? Yes I suppose I do that but then I usually do give honest answers and, frankly okie, I've never, ever, seen you carry on an civil conversation. Have you read your own posts?

I don't think I have ever seen you post your reasoned thoughts much dys, unless it is about investments. In regard to your politics and those opinions or posters that you despise, you post one liner insults.

To correct your assessment of conservatives and liberals, I believe liberals may be well intentioned, but are terribly misguided by applying wrong and short sighted solutions to long term problems. Conservatives look at underlying long term principles and try to uphold those.

In regard to black and white, some things are either right or wrong, period. There can be gray areas, but if everything is gray, you end up being in a fog. If that bothers you that some people believe in black and white, right or wrong, I feel sorry for you as much as I disagree with you.

0 Replies

I've been trying to get to the nub of the 'why?' here. Why is the house in disarray and why are the dems dazed.

And I've got it figured now. It's here...
Bush Country: How George W. Bush Became the First Great Leader of the 21st Century
by John Podhoretz amazon books

We liberals are simply no match for GWB and Podhoretz and okie.

0 Replies

History will be a better judge, blatham. History hasn't been very kind to Clinton I don't think, and I think it will get even worse for him. History has been very kind to Reagan, another man the Left hated, and they still do, but even a few of them now admit they at least respected the man. He was truly one of the greats in my opinion, not on everything for sure, but he believed in a few black and white issues, he inspired the best in the citizens of this country, and it worked out well for the most part. He was inspired by simple principles, and most honorable people see the virtue of that.

One of the greatest men of history, Abe Lincoln, was not a popular man at the time, and was considered to be a total idiot by many. The man did believe in black and white principles. Wishy washy people don't accomplish much, blatham.

0 Replies

It's tough to figure how to respond to you okie. My impression is that you are a nice fellow. You've stuck in here, arguing your case, even while many others from the conservative side have fallen away as the pendulum has swung away from this administration and from conservative electoral dominance.

But you clearly restrict your input to rightwing media sources and they are not serving you well.

0 Replies

House in Disarray - Democrats Dazed

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know