PDA

View Full Version : Obama .FACT CHECK: Obama and a toothless commission


petegz28
01-28-2010, 09:13 AM
WASHINGTON President Barack Obama told Americans the bipartisan deficit commission he will appoint won't just be "one of those Washington gimmicks." Left unspoken in that assurance was the fact that the commission won't have any teeth.

Obama confronted some tough realities in his State of the Union speech Wednesday night, chief among them that Americans are continuing to lose their health insurance as Congress struggles to pass an overhaul.

Yet some of his ideas for moving ahead skirted the complex political circumstances standing in his way.

A look at some of Obama's claims and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't."

THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along.

Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel," he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year-to-year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain's.

___

OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."

THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.

___

OBAMA: Discussing his health care initiative, he said, "Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan."

THE FACTS: The Democratic legislation now hanging in limbo on Capitol Hill aims to keep people with employer-sponsored coverage the majority of Americans under age 65 in the plans they already have. But Obama can't guarantee people won't see higher rates or fewer benefits in their existing plans. Because of elements such as new taxes on insurance companies, insurers could change what they offer or how much it costs. Moreover, Democrats have proposed a series of changes to the Medicare program for people 65 and older that would certainly pinch benefits enjoyed by some seniors. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted cuts for those enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans.

___

OBAMA: The president issued a populist broadside against lobbyists, saying they have "outsized influence" over the government. He said his administration has "excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs." He also said it's time to "require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress" and "to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office."

THE FACTS: Obama has limited the hiring of lobbyists for administration jobs, but the ban isn't absolute; seven waivers from the ban have been granted to White House officials alone. Getting lobbyists to report every contact they make with the federal government would be difficult at best; Congress would have to change the law, and that's unlikely to happen. And lobbyists already are subject to strict limits on political giving. Just like every other American, they're limited to giving $2,400 per election to federal candidates, with an overall ceiling of $115,500 every two years.

___

OBAMA: "Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. ... And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year."

THE FACTS: The success of the Obama-pushed economic stimulus that Congress approved early last year has been an ongoing point of contention. In December, the administration reported that recipients of direct assistance from the government created or saved about 650,000 jobs. The number was based on self-reporting by recipients and some of the calculations were shown to be in error.

The Congressional Budget Office has been much more guarded than Obama in characterizing the success of the stimulus plan. In November, it reported that the stimulus increased the number of people employed by between 600,000 and 1.6 million "compared with what those values would have been otherwise." It said the ranges "reflect the uncertainty of such estimates." And it added, "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package."

___

OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress "to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve."

THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN "so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it's acted upon.

___

OBAMA: "The United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades."

THE FACTS: Despite insisting early last year that they would complete the negotiations in time to avoid expiration of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in early December, the U.S. and Russia failed to do so. And while officials say they think a deal on a new treaty is within reach, there has been no breakthrough. A new round of talks is set to start Monday. One important sticking point: disagreement over including missile defense issues in a new accord. If completed, the new deal may arguably be the farthest-reaching arms control treaty since the original 1991 agreement. An interim deal reached in 2002 did not include its own rules on verifying nuclear reductions.

___

OBAMA: Drawing on classified information, he claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: "And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed far more than in 2008."

THE FACTS: It is an impossible claim to verify. Neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has published enemy body counts, particularly those targeted by armed drones in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. The pace of drone attacks has increased dramatically in the last 18 months, according to congressional officials briefed on the secret program.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_fact_check

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 09:17 AM
OBAMA: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected.

ROFL

RaiderH8r
01-28-2010, 09:56 AM
That cowardly corksucker. Two things 1) The Senate voted down this measure on Tuesday. 2) Such a bipartisan commission already exists...it's called the BUDGET COMMITTEE!

Kent Conrad (Chairman) does not want to put his neck on the line offering the type of budget required by their commitments so they're looking to spread the blame around. "It wasn't MY idea, it was a collective idea, it was a bipartisan idea" blah blah blah. There's an entire process for this thing that involves the Budget Committee and Reconciliation. Asshats.

Do. Your. F'ing. Jobs.

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 10:02 AM
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/lies.jpg

banyon
01-28-2010, 10:38 AM
ROFL

You think we should make massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare?

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 10:57 AM
You think we should make massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare?

You really have your sites set on me, don't you? ROFL

Hey kid, Medicare is already bankrupt-- benefits exceed income--- and SS will be bankrupt in a few more years.

The point of urgency has passed. What I would do or wouldn't do is of no consequence. Your hero B.O. as a Senator has had three years to address the crisis, and as president, one year.

He's completely ignored it, or worse, exploited it to try and expand government entitlements further.

Where's the money gonna come from, Bunyon Brown?

banyon
01-28-2010, 11:07 AM
You really have your sites set on me, don't you? ROFL

"Sights", moron.

Hey kid, Medicare is already bankrupt-- benefits exceed income--- and SS will be bankrupt in a few more years.

The point of urgency has passed. What I would do or wouldn't do is of no consequence. Your hero B.O. as a Senator has had three years to address the crisis, and as president, one year.

He's completely ignored it, or worse, exploited it to try and expand government entitlements further.

Where's the money gonna come from, Bunyon Brown?

So, you don't know what we should do and are too daft to form an opinion about it, but want to criticize Obama for proposing spending cuts in other areas? Brilliant.

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 11:12 AM
So, you don't know what we should do and are too daft to form an opinion about it, but want to criticize Obama for proposing spending cuts in other areas? Brilliant.

Uh, no Jackass. When B.O. says "spending freeze" he is lying, because there can be no spending freeze as long as spending on Medicare and SS goes on unabated. OK, that is the point. Stop being a dishonest stooge for your hero.

banyon
01-28-2010, 11:14 AM
Uh, no Jackass. When B.O. says "spending freeze" he is lying, because there can be no spending freeze as long as spending on Medicare and SS goes on unabated. OK, that is the point. Stop being a dishonest stooge for your hero.

He described it as a spending freeze on discretionary programs. That's completely accurate whether it meets with your approval or not.

And your not being willing to even discuss alternatives on the entitlements doesn't give much credence to your hollow and partisan juvenile brand of criticism.

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 11:18 AM
He described it as a spending freeze on discretionary programs. That's completely accurate whether it meets with your approval or not.



Jackass, Medicare and SS account for over half of all annual federal spending--- to say "spending freeze" and then say "excluding SS and Medicare" is bald faced lying.

http://www.iaza.com/work/100129C/450px-U_S__Federal_Spending_-_FY_20074624472612-iaza.jpg

This is the exact sentence:

"Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years." It's intentional obfuscation.

banyon
01-28-2010, 11:21 AM
Jackass, Medicare and SS account for over half of all annual federal spending--- to say "spending freeze" and then say "excluding SS and Medicare" is bald faced lying.

http://www.iaza.com/work/100129C/450px-U_S__Federal_Spending_-_FY_20074624472612-iaza.jpg

No, it's not. It's accurate. If he had said "we're freezing spending on all government programs" or "we're freezing spending on entitlements" and he wasn't, then it would be inaccurate.

The fact that he included "not on SS or medicare" in the very next f*cking sentence makes it pretty incredible to try to push off as a "lie" despite your bald-faced partisan hackery.

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will

RaiderH8r
01-28-2010, 11:23 AM
Jackass, Medicare and SS account for over half of all annual federal spending--- to say "spending freeze" and then say "excluding SS and Medicare" is bald faced lying.

http://www.iaza.com/work/100129C/450px-U_S__Federal_Spending_-_FY_20074624472612-iaza.jpg

This is the exact sentence:

"Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years." It's intentional obfuscation.

It's not lying, it's artful bullshit. The rebuttal is, "You're NOT freezing spending on over 60% of federal outlays and that, Mr. President, will not get the job done you artfully bullshitting asshat."

banyon
01-28-2010, 11:24 AM
It's not lying, it's artful bullshit. The rebuttal is, "You're NOT freezing spending on over 60% of federal outlays and that, Mr. President, will not get the job done you artfully bullshitting asshat."

Well, SHTSPRAYER is too cowardly to talk about it, so what's your proposal on entitlement spending?

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 11:27 AM
The fact that he included "not on SS or medicare" in the very next f*cking sentence makes it pretty incredible to try to push off as a "lie" despite your bald-faced partisan hackery.

Stooge boy,

"Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years."

Then there is a period.

The very next sentence:


"Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected."

That's as crazy as saying "Starting in 2011, we will have winter sports." And then following it up with "But there will be no ice, snow, Hockey, skiing or bobsledding".

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 11:29 AM
Well, SHTSPRAYER is too cowardly to talk about it, so what's your proposal on entitlement spending?

Stooge, I'm right here. I'm all out, I made myself very available. You're the big pussy who wants to deflect away from your hero, B.O.

IT'S NOT ABOUT WHAT MY PROPOSALS ARE OR WHAT HIS PROPOSALS ARE. Yore boy is a f'n liar, and you, as his stooge, defacto are a liar as well.

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 11:31 AM
It's not lying, it's artful bullshit. The rebuttal is, "You're NOT freezing spending on over 60% of federal outlays and that, Mr. President, will not get the job done you artfully bullshitting asshat."

Lying is dishonesty, so is artful bullshit. Same f'n thing. And Banyon Brown by default is a dishonest stooge boy.

Fish
01-28-2010, 11:36 AM
LMAO... Good to see that the Union address has refueled some bitterness, hatred, and name calling around here...

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 11:39 AM
LMAO... Good to see that the Union address has refueled some bitterness, hatred, and name calling around here...

Well try and make a point without being a bitter, hateful, namecalling stooge. You love B.O., tell us what he said that was so wonderful?

banyon
01-28-2010, 11:43 AM
Stooge boy,

"Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years."

Then there is a period.

The very next sentence:


"Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected."

That's as crazy as saying "Starting in 2011, we will have winter sports." And then following it up with "But there will be no ice, snow, Hockey, skiing or bobsledding".


You don't understand what a lie is. It involves an intent to deceive. If Obama had intented to decieve anyone, then why would he list the limitation in the next sentence? Your claim is patently ridiculous.

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 11:44 AM
"Sights", moron.

Oh and for the record 'cos I know Banyon is crying (again) to the moderators, he started the name calling.

banyon
01-28-2010, 11:45 AM
Well try and make a point without being a bitter, hateful, namecalling stooge. You love B.O., tell us what he said that was so wonderful?

Who said anything like this? Your need to put words in the mouths of the people you disagree with is juvenile, illogical, and petty.

banyon
01-28-2010, 11:46 AM
Oh and for the record 'cos I know Banyon is crying (again) to the moderators, he started the name calling.

Yes, I have no problem calling you, one of the most petty and vindictive posters in the history of this forum, names. It's not as if you hadn't called me names on hundreds of prior occasions or something. Your crying about it now is ridiculous.

Apparently you're still sensitive about my pointing out your blatantly racist propaganda previously, but I commented about it in the open and never directly to moderators.

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 11:48 AM
You don't understand what a lie is. It involves an intent to deceive. If Obama had intented to decieve anyone, then why would he list the limitation in the next sentence? Your claim is patently ridiculous.

Get out of here with your liar---uh, I mean lawyer--- talk. :rolleyes:

His intent was to deceive. As the article states:

The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit — and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along.

We are talking about less than 1 percent of the deficit, and he introduces this proposal by saying "FEDERAL SPENDING FREEZE". That is dishonesty.

And he knows as well as you that Congress is not going to allow any cuts to discretionary spending. Which means he wasted alot of time talking about an imaginary occurance.

You call it what you want, I call it lying.

Fish
01-28-2010, 11:52 AM
Well try and make a point without being a bitter, hateful, namecalling stooge. You love B.O., tell us what he said that was so wonderful?

If there were any chance at civilized discussion, I would. But it's clear the only result would be excitable yelling, and name calling. You've yet to respond intelligently to anyone else, it would be no different for me.

I just think the depths at which some take this kind of thing is puzzling. You'd swear Obama has personally kicked you in the vagina. And anyone who doesn't pile on with the name calling "Loves Obama" like me. Either outright rage against him or I'm in love. Nothing in between.

When you can't even envision any middle ground regarding Obama at all, I don't expect you to provide any rational discussion.

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 11:53 AM
Yes, I have no problem calling you, one of the most petty and vindictive posters in the history of this forum, names. It's not as if you hadn't called me names on hundreds of prior occasions or something. Your crying about it now is ridiculous.

Apparently you're still sensitive about my pointing out your blatantly racist propaganda previously, but I commented about it in the open and never directly to moderators.

I don't give a shit if you call me names. KC Swish was the one making a comment about it. I'm not crying about anything. You have started entire threads about me trying to get me in trouble. Which indirectly encouraged all the Koz Kids to cry to the mods. So don't act like it's them, not you. I'm a gentleman to everybody who is a gentleman or lady to me.

Show me one person I went off on who didn't deserve it or provoke it.

banyon
01-28-2010, 11:53 AM
Get out of here with your liar---uh, I mean lawyer--- talk. :rolleyes:

His intent was to deceive. As the article states:

The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along.

We are talking about less than 1 percent of the deficit, and he introduces this proposal by saying "FEDERAL SPENDING FREEZE". That is dishonesty.

And he knows as well as you that Congress is not going to allow any cuts to discretionary spending. Which means he wasted alot of time talking about an imaginary occurance.

You call it what you want, I call it lying.

Yes, if you don't have the temerity to repond directly to my argument, it must be "lawyer talk". A dullard and a coward, a rare combination.

The fact remains that he didn't conceal anything about the nature of the freeze, particularly by pointing out the limitation in the plan immediately in the next sentence. And yes it is federal spending, so the term "federal spending freeze" is about the only thing you could call it. What term would you propose?

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 11:55 AM
If there were any chance at civilized discussion, I would. But it's clear the only result would be excitable yelling, and name calling. You've yet to respond intelligently to anyone else, it would be no different for me.

I just think the depths at which some take this kind of thing is puzzling. You'd swear Obama has personally kicked you in the vagina. And anyone who doesn't pile on with the name calling "Loves Obama" like me. Either outright rage against him or I'm in love. Nothing in between.

When you can't even envision any middle ground regarding Obama at all, I don't expect you to provide any rational discussion.

There is no middle ground with B.O. He is the one polarizing everybody, not me. You and Koz kids like you refuse to look at him objectively and attack and character assassinate anybody who criticizes him. And I'm fine with that, by the way. I'll play the game however you want. It don't make any difference to me.

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 11:57 AM
Yes, if you don't have the temerity to repond directly to my argument, it must be "lawyer talk".

Right, because lying and dishonesty are two different things. :rolleyes:

banyon
01-28-2010, 11:57 AM
I don't give a shit if you call me names. KC Swish was the one making a comment about it. I'm not crying about anything. You have started entire threads about me trying to get me in trouble. Which indirectly encouraged all the Koz Kids to cry to the mods. So don't act like it's them, not you. I'm a gentleman to everybody who is a gentleman or lady to me.

Show me one person I went off on who didn't deserve it or provoke it.

Well, this should be easy, but it will take some archiving. I will post several examples of the assumptions you have made about posters who previously hadn't even conversed with. It's happened multiple times. Any time anyone says anything that doesn't comport with your unemployment, meth-addled rendition of conservative dogma, you immediately accuse them of being shills or "Koz Kids" or some crap. It's tiresome. I think I may have visited the Daily Kos site once or twice in my life, probably in connection with your comments, yet here you are wanting to brand me that way too. It's idiotic, but unsurprising.

RaiderH8r
01-28-2010, 11:57 AM
Well, SHTSPRAYER is too cowardly to talk about it, so what's your proposal on entitlement spending?

Reform it, starting with SS. Means testing for all recipients and then commission a study to see how to break out age groups go give diminishing returns on the SS they put in to ensure its viability for those currently over 40 years old. To wit:

58+-100% SS
50-57-75%
45-49-65%
40-44-60%
Under 40-Tough titty.

Conversely apply SS withholdings to privately managed accounts.

58+-0%
50-57-25%
45-49-35%
40-44-40%
Under 40-100% privately managed accounts with full ownership and hereditary priveleges.

The numbers are purely hypothetical, a full accounting analysis would have to be done to ensure it worked out properly but this is a start.

banyon
01-28-2010, 11:58 AM
Right, because lying and dishonesty are two different things. :rolleyes:

No, that was not my point and i didn't say anything like that.

But go ahead and make up something as if I said it if it helps you in your mania to feel as if you've "won the day" for your paranoid rant.

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 12:00 PM
No, that was not my point and i didn't say anything like that.

But go ahead and make up something as if I said it if it helps you in your mania to feel as if you've "won the day" for your paranoid rant.

I'm not trying to "win the day". YOu're the one who entered the thread with your sights set on me, looking to provoke some fight, because you are a big left wing stooge who refuses to look at B.O. objectively.

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 12:03 PM
Yes, if you don't have the temerity to repond directly to my argument, it must be "lawyer talk". A dullard and a coward, a rare combination.

The fact remains that he didn't conceal anything about the nature of the freeze, particularly by pointing out the limitation in the plan immediately in the next sentence. And yes it is federal spending, so the term "federal spending freeze" is about the only thing you could call it. What term would you propose?

When you are talking about less than 1% of spending and thats assuming congress even goes along with it (which they won't), I wouldn't even bother to mention a federal spending freeze.

Unless of course, I was looking to be dishonest.

banyon
01-28-2010, 12:05 PM
Reform it, starting with SS. Means testing for all recipients and then commission a study to see how to break out age groups go give diminishing returns on the SS they put in to ensure its viability for those currently over 40 years old.

Means testing is a necessity. I agree on that.

To wit:

58+-100% SS
50-57-75%
45-49-65%
40-44-60%
Under 40-Tough titty.

So you propose everyone under 40 pays in but gets nothing back? Who will want to support or pay that? I don't think that's politically viable unless we had a dictatorship.

Conversely apply SS withholdings to privately managed accounts.

58+-0%
50-57-25%
45-49-35%
40-44-40%
Under 40-100% privately managed accounts with full ownership and hereditary priveleges.

This is a possibility that I am open to, but Wall St. of course would throw a fit.
[/QUOTE]


For myself, I would like to see the higher retirement age, along with repealing the income ceiling of $90 k on paying in. That would pretty much seal the gap, as far as I undderstand.

banyon
01-28-2010, 12:06 PM
I'm not trying to "win the day". YOu're the one who entered the thread with your sights set on me, looking to provoke some fight, because you are a big left wing stooge who refuses to look at B.O. objectively.

So, you have a quote of me saying something resembling "dishonesty and lying are two different things" or you made that up?

banyon
01-28-2010, 12:06 PM
When you are talking about less than 1% of spending and thats assuming congress even goes along with it (which they won't), I wouldn't even bother to mention a federal spending freeze.

Unless of course, I was looking to be dishonest.

So, you don't know what to call it. Very "honest" characterization there. :rolleyes:

That rascal Obama! can't elieve he deceived us and then told us what he was going to do in the next sentence, by golly, impeach him!

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 12:07 PM
This interesting:

The proposed three-year freeze sham accounts for less than a measly one-sixth of the federal budget, and the deficit panel already has been voted down in the Senate.


http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidHarsanyi/2010/01/28/obamas_rhetorical_retreat

You mean to tell me it was already a foregone conclusion? I guess B.O. didn't know that. Certainly his stooge, Banyon didn't know it.

Ha ha. What a joke you are.

Fish
01-28-2010, 12:09 PM
There is no middle ground with B.O. He is the one polarizing everybody, not me. You and Koz kids like you refuse to look at him objectively and attack and character assassinate anybody who criticizes him. And I'm fine with that, by the way. I'll play the game however you want. It don't make any difference to me.

Yes. This is what I was talking about.

Except, I really don't think you need any "character assassination". It's completely unnecessary.

RaiderH8r
01-28-2010, 12:23 PM
Means testing is a necessity. I agree on that.



So you propose everyone under 40 pays in but gets nothing back? Who will want to support or pay that? I don't think that's politically viable unless we had a dictatorship.



This is a possibility that I am open to, but Wall St. of course would throw a fit.



For myself, I would like to see the higher retirement age, along with repealing the income ceiling of $90 k on paying in. That would pretty much seal the gap, as far as I undderstand.[/QUOTE]

Yep, under 40 is going to have to lean in and take one for the team, paying in but getting little to nothing back. It's our ongoing "gift" to our parents and grandparents (prescription drugs, medicare).

Also, SS needs to be locked down. No more IOUs to use SS $ for general treasury. Lock it up. Fundamentally SS is an outmoded system and needs to be updated and show a return on the money going in.

Fish
01-28-2010, 12:31 PM
Yep, under 40 is going to have to lean in and take one for the team, paying in but getting little to nothing back. It's our ongoing "gift" to our parents and grandparents (prescription drugs, medicare).

Also, SS needs to be locked down. No more IOUs to use SS $ for general treasury. Lock it up. Fundamentally SS is an outmoded system and needs to be updated and show a return on the money going in.

I do agree with this. Problem is, my generation is not used to "taking one for the team." Quite the opposite. But it's what must be done. Dem or Rep, we're not getting out of this without some sacrifice somewhere. Everybody is looking for the quick fix that doesn't hurt them personally.

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 02:35 PM
Yes. This is what I was talking about.

Except, I really don't think you need any "character assassination". It's completely unnecessary.

I agree, but I'm not the one instigating it, I'm just the best at it. If people want to talk to me nice, I respond in kind.

Chief Faithful
01-28-2010, 03:33 PM
You don't understand what a lie is. It involves an intent to deceive. If Obama had intented to decieve anyone, then why would he list the limitation in the next sentence? Your claim is patently ridiculous.

You are right, he is not a lier he is just delusional.

irishjayhawk
01-28-2010, 04:36 PM
Banyon, your sig should be the SWOTI xkcd since that's effectively your syndrome when facing SHTSPRAYER.

banyon
01-28-2010, 05:13 PM
Banyon, your sig should be the SWOTI xkcd since that's effectively your syndrome when facing SHTSPRAYER.

LOL. I didn't know what that was till I looked it up. Pretty accurate. :)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SWOTI%20syndrome

1. SWOTI syndrome 4 thumbs up

S omeone's
W rong
O n
T he
I nternet

First coined by XKCD webcomic. This pertains to when you stumble upon someone on the internet whose beliefs and allegations are so wrong, it creates an unstoppable urge to correct them.

This urge can so strong, your earthly concerns (hygiene,eating,sleeping,etc.) are tossed to the side until either the issue is resolved or you just collapse from exhaustion.
*Monday morning*

Boss: Why are you 2 hours late for work? And what that smell?

Employee: SWOTI syndrome, sir. That holocaust denier kept me on the computer the whole weekend. I'm so hungry...

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 05:20 PM
LOL. I didn't know what that was till I looked it up. Pretty accurate. :)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SWOTI%20syndrome

Drrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

banyon
01-28-2010, 05:22 PM
Drrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Good one! You really got me there. :spock::rolleyes:

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 05:25 PM
Good one! You really got me there. :spock::rolleyes:

Wipe B.O.'s shit off your face, boy.

banyon
01-28-2010, 05:28 PM
Wipe B.O.'s shit off your face, boy.

With all of the time you have on your hands to post so much in the last month, I assume you are still sucking at the government teat with unemployment, correct?

If you are so concerned about entitlement income, perhaps you could cut down on your internet services and meth use and let the taxpayers have back some of their money. What do you say? Isn't it time you pitched in?

Fish
01-28-2010, 09:36 PM
Wipe B.O.'s shit off your face, boy.

:hmmm: Yeah....

Well try and make a point without being a bitter, hateful, namecalling stooge.

headsnap
01-28-2010, 10:00 PM
With all of the time you have on your hands to post so much in the last month, I assume you are still sucking at the government teat with unemployment, correct?

If you are so concerned about entitlement income, perhaps you could cut down on your internet services and meth use and let the taxpayers have back some of their money. What do you say? Isn't it time you pitched in?

ROFL


[/sarcasm]