those on social security

This is the place for ON or Off topic conversations. Almost anything goes - but be kind, and no trolling.
Forum rules
While the rules in this forum are more relaxed than in other parts of the Expat site, there are still a few things we’d like you to remember: No name calling, no insults – be civil to each other!
User avatar
bmike1
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:28 pm
Location: as of 4/4/11 LaMolina

those on social security

Postby bmike1 » Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:32 pm

pray tell, what will we do if they don´t raise the debt ceiling¿


:-)~mike~(-:
Soltero de Repente
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:01 pm

Re: those on social security

Postby Soltero de Repente » Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:05 pm

bmike1 wrote:pray tell, what will we do if they don´t raise the debt ceiling¿


God knows what will happen. But you can be sure that it won't be positive. Technically speaking Obama can pick and choose which programs he will cover and which he will let tank. Unlikely that Social Security would be allocated all the pain, given its popularity among voters. But it's gonna suck in a huge way no matter how you slice it.

I would personally like to thank the American right-wing for single-handedly trying to destroy our economy.* It's often said that patriotism nothing more than wanting your country to succeed. And I think we all can get behind the idea of wanting our country to succeed. But it's now clear that the festering Republican hatred of the national government has become so extreme the party can no longer be counted as patriotic. They don't want America to succeed; they now actively want America to fail. They are trying to destroy the American economy so that they can keep marginal tax rates on high-income earners at preposterously low rates. Destroying the American economy is tantamount to destroying the livelihoods and lives of millions of American citizens - just so the already-rich can avoid paying a few more dollars in taxes.

Or so they say...

I see a more sinister motivation at work. What the Republican party is doing is nothing short of treason through economic terrorism. Yes, I said it: the Republicans are practicing terrorism with the explicit aim of destroying America as it is. And what they are doing is indeed treasonous: they are willfully subverting American interests to advance another agenda. Or maybe the agenda of China, Brazil, India, Russia and the EU? The right wing is certainly acting as if they're playing for another team. It's almost as if our economic competitors around the world have seduced the Tea Party into serving as double-agents to bring us down. And damn, are they ever gonna do it. The amateurism of Tea Party/Republican economic policy is just a disguise. They're actually highly sophisticated America-hating subversionaries.


PS - Alan, I know that you only want threads on "News and Views (and the occasional eruption of Conspiracy Theory)" in Peru. But rest assured that a US default will affect Peru, and of course the rest of the world.

Notes:
*Yes, this is sarcasm. Sarcasm about the thanking part. The rest is 100% sincere.
User avatar
Polaron
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Lima
Contact:

Re: those on social security

Postby Polaron » Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:14 am

Soltero de Repente wrote:
bmike1 wrote:pray tell, what will we do if they don´t raise the debt ceiling¿


God knows what will happen. But you can be sure that it won't be positive. Technically speaking Obama can pick and choose which programs he will cover and which he will let tank. Unlikely that Social Security would be allocated all the pain, given its popularity among voters. But it's gonna suck in a huge way no matter how you slice it.

I would personally like to thank the American right-wing for single-handedly trying to destroy our economy.* It's often said that patriotism nothing more than wanting your country to succeed. And I think we all can get behind the idea of wanting our country to succeed. But it's now clear that the festering Republican hatred of the national government has become so extreme the party can no longer be counted as patriotic. They don't want America to succeed; they now actively want America to fail. They are trying to destroy the American economy so that they can keep marginal tax rates on high-income earners at preposterously low rates. Destroying the American economy is tantamount to destroying the livelihoods and lives of millions of American citizens - just so the already-rich can avoid paying a few more dollars in taxes.

Or so they say...

I see a more sinister motivation at work. What the Republican party is doing is nothing short of treason through economic terrorism. Yes, I said it: the Republicans are practicing terrorism with the explicit aim of destroying America as it is. And what they are doing is indeed treasonous: they are willfully subverting American interests to advance another agenda. Or maybe the agenda of China, Brazil, India, Russia and the EU? The right wing is certainly acting as if they're playing for another team. It's almost as if our economic competitors around the world have seduced the Tea Party into serving as double-agents to bring us down. And damn, are they ever gonna do it. The amateurism of Tea Party/Republican economic policy is just a disguise. They're actually highly sophisticated America-hating subversionaries.


PS - Alan, I know that you only want threads on "News and Views (and the occasional eruption of Conspiracy Theory)" in Peru. But rest assured that a US default will affect Peru, and of course the rest of the world.

Notes:
*Yes, this is sarcasm. Sarcasm about the thanking part. The rest is 100% sincere.


You are so right, soltero de repente. I only hope people in the U.S. start to wake up and see the right-wing for what it truly is: disingenuous, corrupt, amoral and malignant. And those are their good points! They will tell any lie, step on any family to advance their goals, and yet people still keep voting for them! What really surprises me is the support they get from the poor; man, people in the U.S. are so easily taken in by what they see on the Boob Tube.

I am personally hoping Obama uses the "nuke" option of interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling, even though most constitutional scholars believe that would be legally questionable at best. Like Bill Clinton recently said, "I'd raise (the debt ceiling) myself and let 'em take me to court over it."

If the U.S. does not raise its debt ceiling - even if all its debts are paid on time - the nation's creditworthiness and the dollar will tumble. If the dollar takes a big fall, you can bet it will send waves, not ripples, through the Peruvian economy. The Nuevo Sol is a bit overvalued as it is; if it surges against the dollar (as most every other currency would do), exporters are going to lose their shirts.
Professional, bilingual writer at your service.
Alpineprince
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1499
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: "Miraflores State of Mind"

Re: those on social security

Postby Alpineprince » Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:23 am

Not to worry. Just need to ask Al Gore where he buried the "LOCKBOX" he put all our SSI in! :roll:
User avatar
Kelly
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3871
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:28 pm
Location: Lima, Peru
Contact:

Re: those on social security

Postby Kelly » Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:42 pm

SdR - I only have one disagreement with what you said. Every time you've written that the Republican Party wants "America to fail", that they're "destroying America" and so on... replace "America" with "Obama". I don't believe that they really want America to fall, but they are willing to risk it in order to destroy Obama. Their single goal is to make sure that he's a one-term president, no matter what the cost.

John Boehner - offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”

Mitch McConnell - “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
User avatar
sbaustin
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:46 pm
Location: Peru
Contact:

Re: those on social security

Postby sbaustin » Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:24 pm

You all write as if the more liberal of the two major parties was any different under Bush. Politics is politics and both major parties are guilty of this.
User avatar
Polaron
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Lima
Contact:

Re: those on social security

Postby Polaron » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:17 pm

sbaustin wrote:You all write as if the more liberal of the two major parties was any different under Bush. Politics is politics and both major parties are guilty of this.


Man, you've got the wrong occupation. You would make a great front man for the Republicans! Kelly is right; the Republicans will tell any lie, crush any family to further their agenda. When the Democrats were in the minority, they usually fought Bush's more egregious attempts, though they foolishly supported the phony Iraq war.
Professional, bilingual writer at your service.
User avatar
sbaustin
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:46 pm
Location: Peru
Contact:

Re: those on social security

Postby sbaustin » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Polaron wrote:
Man, you've got the wrong occupation. You would make a great front man for the Republicans! Kelly is right; the Republicans will tell any lie, crush any family to further their agenda. When the Democrats were in the minority, they usually fought Bush's more egregious attempts, though they foolishly supported the phony Iraq war.


I'm not a republican but thanks though.
User avatar
Polaron
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Lima
Contact:

Re: those on social security

Postby Polaron » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:40 pm

sbaustin wrote:
Polaron wrote:
Man, you've got the wrong occupation. You would make a great front man for the Republicans! Kelly is right; the Republicans will tell any lie, crush any family to further their agenda. When the Democrats were in the minority, they usually fought Bush's more egregious attempts, though they foolishly supported the phony Iraq war.


I'm not a republican but thanks though.


Are you able to stay on-topic though?
Professional, bilingual writer at your service.
Soltero de Repente
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:01 pm

Re: those on social security

Postby Soltero de Repente » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:41 pm

sbaustin wrote:You all write as if the more liberal of the two major parties was any different under Bush. Politics is politics and both major parties are guilty of this.


Only the guilty run around saying the entire world is guilty. It's one of the right-wing's diversionary tactics. It's pretty much any criminal's diversionary tactic. By the time you finally get everyone to realize that they've been making up nonsense to distract the country it's usually too late to stop them from their plot to destroy America. That is a big part of their political strategy.

Don't be fooled: the debt ceiling has never been politicized until right now, when America's right-wing extremist terrorists in Congress decided to hijack the legislative process and fly the entire country on a suicide mission straight into hell. The Democrats NEVER did that under Bush. And of course, neither did the Republicans. We are witnessing the first time a party has played politics with our credit rating. I dare anyone who disagrees to give us just one example that shows the Democrats willfully trying to destroy America in the way the Republicans are destroying America right now. You can't do it because there isn't one.

The only thing the Democrats have ever done to abet the sabotage of our economy was to support the destructive Bush tax cuts in the summer of 2001. As you can see from the first graph, the Bush tax cuts got us into this dirty hole in the first place. By launching an unnecessary and distractionary war in Iraq, Bush dug the country in even deeper, miring the rest of us in his ruinous filth. Basically Obama's new spending is responsible for less than a third of the growth of debt in America. It is absolutely dishonest to suggest that there is equal blame for this problem. Only someone with something to hide would argue that there is equal blame.


24editorial_graph2-popup.jpg
New York Times, July 23, 2011
24editorial_graph2-popup.jpg (34.5 KiB) Viewed 5190 times



And if you are wondering whether this deficit is indeed "Obama's debt," as lying right-wingers often profess, look no further than the second graph below. Note that Obama increased the projected fiscal hangover from the Bush administration by about 15% in FY2009 (which began in Oct 2008). Obama then reeled that growth back in by about 50% in FY2010. This means that 85% of the deficit was created by the Republicans under Bush. Yes, the Republicans own this debt for their wars and their tax cuts. And that's what they don't want you to know.


24editorial_graph1-popup.jpg
New York Times, July 23, 2011
24editorial_graph1-popup.jpg (30.76 KiB) Viewed 5190 times



So ask yourself: Why would right-wingers willfully mislead everyone by saying both parties are responsible for playing dangerous games, and at the same time insist that only "tax and spend" Democrats drive up the national debt? Because they are horrified that once the American electorate sobers up to the reality of the unpatriotic, America-hating right wing Republican party, the extremists will never hold power again. And that fear is driving them to burn the whole house down before we can throw them out.
Soltero de Repente
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:01 pm

Re: those on social security

Postby Soltero de Repente » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:43 pm

sbaustin wrote:I'm not a republican but thanks though.


I love how ever since Bush right-wingers are embarrassed by the Republican brand. They'll call themselves anything but a card-carrying member of the GOP. But when they get in the ballot box... well, we all know what happens.
User avatar
sbaustin
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:46 pm
Location: Peru
Contact:

Re: those on social security

Postby sbaustin » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:48 pm

Soltero de Repente wrote:
sbaustin wrote:I'm not a republican but thanks though.


I love how ever since Bush right-wingers are embarrassed by the Republican brand. They'll call themselves anything but a card-carrying member of the GOP. But when they get in the ballot box... well, we all know what happens.


I'm not a Bush right-winger but thanks though. Assuming just makes you look, well ridiculous.

Polaron, And thanks for telling me I'm off topic when you tell me in your thread I'm a republican. I was just correcting your assumption of which I believe I have every right to do.

As for on topic, both parties politicize just about everything. I find it amazing you are trying to refute that.
User avatar
rgamarra
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 2392
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:24 am

Re: those on social security

Postby rgamarra » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:50 pm

Isn't the original intent of the post to solicit what U.S. Citizens living in Peru will do if their social security benefits do not come through?
Last edited by rgamarra on Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Soltero de Repente
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:01 pm

Re: those on social security

Postby Soltero de Repente » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:51 pm

Kelly wrote:SdR - I only have one disagreement with what you said. Every time you've written that the Republican Party wants "America to fail", that they're "destroying America" and so on... replace "America" with "Obama". I don't believe that they really want America to fall, but they are willing to risk it in order to destroy Obama. Their single goal is to make sure that he's a one-term president, no matter what the cost.

John Boehner - offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”

Mitch McConnell - “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”


Totally agreed about Obama. But I do think they want to destroy America *as it is* in order to replace it with their undemocratic vision of what it should be - inegalitarian, fanatically judeo-christian, authoritarian. When they say they want to "starve the beast," that's exactly what they mean. Starvation always results in death. They're not saying they want to put the federal government on a diet; they want to *starve* it *to death*. Whatever comes out of America after the Republicans have completed their treasonous little plot to murder the federal government may have Red White and Blue flying overhead and Uncle Sam pointing his finger at you for marketing purposes, but it will not be governed by the spirit of freedom and equality embodied in the 1st and 14th amendments.
Soltero de Repente
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:01 pm

Re: those on social security

Postby Soltero de Repente » Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:11 pm

rgamarra wrote:I have yet to see what is the relevance in labeling one party or the other the bad guy.

Here we go again. Let me guess: you vote Republican?

rgamarra wrote:Guess the the old divisive politics are working abroad. If those of you complaining are so concerned, why don't you send an email to your politicians or buy an international calling card and call their offices? Otherwise, you can take the finger of blame and point it at yourself for choosing not to participate in an issue that you feel so fervently about.


You think others and I have not done this already? Are you new to the concept of Democratic participation?

rgamarra wrote:I don't care if my Senator or Representative is Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or whatever.


After ripping us for apathy you go on to boast of your own apathy? If people like you cared more about the obvious policy differences between the various political parties and ideologies we would not be where we are today. See my earlier post with the graphs if you don't believe me. There IS a difference. One that matters.

rgamarra wrote:I don't see everyday Peruvians fighting with each other over party affiliations or political ideals. Peruvians could teach us a lesson or two on nationalism.


Are you joking? Have you ever set foot in Peru? Did you even read the papers or talk to a Peruvian during the last election cycle? Try this: take a taxi someplace, anyplace - it doesn't matter where - and ask the driver about Humala and Fujimori and the elections. Let me know afterwards if you still believe Peruvians are not interested in parties and ideologies. Peruvians care deeply about their country and fear mismanagement of public affairs, mostly because of abuses in the past. You're right that we could learn a few things from Peruvians, but shallow nationalism is not one of them. (The recipe for Tacu Tacu on the other hand is.)

rgamarra wrote:And as a final thought, SS benefits are a privilege, not a Constitutional entitlement.


And your point is what exactly?

Remarkable that after a sizable missive setting yourself up as some kind of non-partisan nationalist lecturing the rest of us on our overly-strong opinions you give your entire ideological hand away in a single sentence.

No, you are right, Social Security benefits are not a right, but they are definitely a very good thing that helps millions of aging Americans maintain a reasonably decent quality of life after they are no longer able to work for their food. Only a right-winger with little concern for persons less fortunate than him/herself would claim otherwise. Perhaps you think we should let BMike1 and others eat cake?

Oh, and by the way, Social Security is *completely* solvent as a federal program. It's only because the Social Security reservoir has been raided to pay for Bush's wars and tax cuts that the program is in any jeopardy whatsoever. The enactment of Gore's "lock box" as federal law - a policy that was mocked by an earlier poster - would have prevented the current situation. Social Security would have been paid out of its independent account. So while Social Security is not a constitutional right, paying beneficiaries what they are owed by law is. And that's why (among other things) we must raise the debt ceiling.

But of course, for you, elected officials are all the same and nothing matters so who cares and la la la la...
Last edited by Soltero de Repente on Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Soltero de Repente
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:01 pm

Re: those on social security

Postby Soltero de Repente » Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:15 pm

sbaustin wrote:As for on topic, both parties politicize just about everything. I find it amazing you are trying to refute that.


Another unsubstantiated claim that both parties bear equal blame. You can see the graphs. Do you think they are lies? Why not respond to them directly rather than continue the distraction campaign? And you wonder why you are suspected of leaning right but are too embarrassed to admit it?

Though I have to say that I appreciate the bravado of your style of argument. One side presents data and some reasons, and you say "Nah-ah!" and then profess amazement that we would even try to refute that powerful logic.
User avatar
sbaustin
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:46 pm
Location: Peru
Contact:

Re: those on social security

Postby sbaustin » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:48 pm

There seems to be several members of the forum that lack basic reading skills.

The government will probably have to look at cutting many programs including ss however since the older generation is such a large voting block it will get cut last. As far as ss it is the younger generations under 50 that will probably get the shaft having paid in a lot with little or no payout.
User avatar
Polaron
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Lima
Contact:

Re: those on social security

Postby Polaron » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:55 pm

Soltero de Repente wrote:
sbaustin wrote:As for on topic, both parties politicize just about everything. I find it amazing you are trying to refute that.


Another unsubstantiated claim that both parties bear equal blame. You can see the graphs. Do you think they are lies? Why not respond to them directly rather than continue the distraction campaign? And you wonder why you are suspected of leaning right but are too embarrassed to admit it?

Though I have to say that I appreciate the bravado of your style of argument. One side presents data and some reasons, and you say "Nah-ah!" and then profess amazement that we would even try to refute that powerful logic.


ROFL. Soltero de Repente, what a beautiful series of posts and impressive collection of facts. You truly understand how indoctrinated the U.S. public is. Too many of our countrymen have been taken in by slick corporate legerdemain (Enron, Halliburton, et al, ad nauseam, that back republicans). It's time we took our country back.
Professional, bilingual writer at your service.
Soltero de Repente
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:01 pm

Re: those on social security

Postby Soltero de Repente » Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:06 am

sbaustin wrote:There seems to be several members of the forum that lack basic reading skills.

The government will probably have to look at cutting many programs including ss however since the older generation is such a large voting block it will get cut last. As far as ss it is the younger generations under 50 that will probably get the shaft having paid in a lot with little or no payout.


Hey, Thanks for ratcheting down your normally intense level of analysis to help those of us who lack basic reading skills. I appreciate the fact that you boiled your, um, argument? down to a simple sentence stating that generations under 50 will probably get the shaft having paid a lot with little or no payout. I'm not a great reader - and an even worster speller - so I studied real hard last night and was finally able to get my microcephalic head around what you were saying, so thanks for making it eezie. That word "shaft" was hard to understand at first. Is that, like, a tekniko werd fo trustin the wrong peepols in the actuarial sciences?

Anyways, after my big suckcess interperlating the suddltees of your post, I got to tinkin that I need more tinkin in my unduh-50 life. I says to myselfs, "*****, you're Lady Gaga, you get up and walk the walk today!" So I push my basic reading skills even furtha, and lookie what me findie! On the intanet - da damn intanet! - there's a fact sheet about the relationship between the Social Security program to the national debt. Wow, the intanet is amayzin. Makes reeding soo much ezer - no headaches, no paypa cuts, no way overdo book fines at the friggin liberry. Well, them fool book wermz at my ol joonyah high ain't neva gonna catch me down hear in Payroo anyways.

From what I gather, the Social Security program is totally solvent. Dey gots plenty o cash, baby! Only problem is those lion jokahs in Washington keep raiding the po ting to pay for warz and tacks cuz four them damn rich mofos who tryin to shut down the very gov right now! And dey tryin to killz Sosho Security at the the same time! And dey always saying how much dey all bout security, damn! Fact is a turd of our nashun debt is owed to people like those generations under 50 use tahking about in that powerful rebuttal up there, you know, the ones who gonna get hoozed before they ever see dime uh what dey pudding. Thatz one outta three dollahs the Social Security ain't seein cuz the rich don't believe theyz rich nuff. I'm tinkin maybe they don't beleive there's no such ting as rich nuff t'all.

So, to answer BMike1's orig interrogashunism: there's onle one thing you can do now, and it ain't praying either show or tell for you social security check to arrive on time. It's bustin ass to make sure the fools in the house of representatives don't destroy our country in order to make poor dumb people like me even dumber and poorer by killing the federal government. We got plenty of money. We just spendin it in the wrong places. Don't let them do this to you.
renodante
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: miraflores

Re: those on social security

Postby renodante » Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:51 am

"*****, you're Lady Gaga, you get up and walk the walk today!"


LOL
User avatar
sbaustin
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:46 pm
Location: Peru
Contact:

Re: those on social security

Postby sbaustin » Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:45 am

Soltero, you're welcome. I'm happy that you reread my simple posts to understand them.
User avatar
Polaron
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Lima
Contact:

Re: those on social security

Postby Polaron » Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:50 am

sbaustin wrote:Soltero, you're welcome. I'm happy that you reread my simple posts to understand them.


Soltero 1, sbaustin 0
Professional, bilingual writer at your service.
User avatar
sbaustin
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:46 pm
Location: Peru
Contact:

Re: those on social security

Postby sbaustin » Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:59 am

Polaron wrote:
sbaustin wrote:Soltero, you're welcome. I'm happy that you reread my simple posts to understand them.


Soltero 1, sbaustin 0


Polaron -20 but who's counting. I'm not trying to win anything nor does it matter if you write your manifestos trying to convince me about how great the democratic party is and how evil the republicans are. I'm not here trying to convince you. I believe both parties suck and are to blame for the situation. Nobody here has the answer so good luck with it all.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: those on social security

Postby asgoodasitgets » Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:13 pm

bmike1 wrote:pray tell, what will we do if they don´t raise the debt ceiling¿


Easy - cancel the wars! There's your money right there. Oh but Mr. Peace Prize 'War is Peace" "More wars than a burning Bush" can't do that masters say war comes first citizens last...

Did you know that O'bomber has continued a signing order that Bush put in that lets him suspend congress for 6 months in the event of any crisis including specifically, an economic one?

Where are the anti-war crowd now eh?

This is what I hate about left right... it's such a scam. The 'leaders' are laughing.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: those on social security

Postby asgoodasitgets » Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:18 pm

Polaron wrote:
Soltero de Repente wrote:
bmike1 wrote:pray tell, what will we do if they don´t raise the debt ceiling¿


God knows what will happen. But you can be sure that it won't be positive. Technically speaking Obama can pick and choose which programs he will cover and which he will let tank. Unlikely that Social Security would be allocated all the pain, given its popularity among voters. But it's gonna suck in a huge way no matter how you slice it.

I would personally like to thank the American right-wing for single-handedly trying to destroy our economy.* It's often said that patriotism nothing more than wanting your country to succeed. And I think we all can get behind the idea of wanting our country to succeed. But it's now clear that the festering Republican hatred of the national government has become so extreme the party can no longer be counted as patriotic. They don't want America to succeed; they now actively want America to fail. They are trying to destroy the American economy so that they can keep marginal tax rates on high-income earners at preposterously low rates. Destroying the American economy is tantamount to destroying the livelihoods and lives of millions of American citizens - just so the already-rich can avoid paying a few more dollars in taxes.

Or so they say...

I see a more sinister motivation at work. What the Republican party is doing is nothing short of treason through economic terrorism. Yes, I said it: the Republicans are practicing terrorism with the explicit aim of destroying America as it is. And what they are doing is indeed treasonous: they are willfully subverting American interests to advance another agenda. Or maybe the agenda of China, Brazil, India, Russia and the EU? The right wing is certainly acting as if they're playing for another team. It's almost as if our economic competitors around the world have seduced the Tea Party into serving as double-agents to bring us down. And damn, are they ever gonna do it. The amateurism of Tea Party/Republican economic policy is just a disguise. They're actually highly sophisticated America-hating subversionaries.


PS - Alan, I know that you only want threads on "News and Views (and the occasional eruption of Conspiracy Theory)" in Peru. But rest assured that a US default will affect Peru, and of course the rest of the world.

Notes:
*Yes, this is sarcasm. Sarcasm about the thanking part. The rest is 100% sincere.


You are so right, soltero de repente. I only hope people in the U.S. start to wake up and see the right-wing for what it truly is: disingenuous, corrupt, amoral and malignant. And those are their good points! They will tell any lie, step on any family to advance their goals, and yet people still keep voting for them! What really surprises me is the support they get from the poor; man, people in the U.S. are so easily taken in by what they see on the Boob Tube.

I am personally hoping Obama uses the "nuke" option of interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling, even though most constitutional scholars believe that would be legally questionable at best. Like Bill Clinton recently said, "I'd raise (the debt ceiling) myself and let 'em take me to court over it."

If the U.S. does not raise its debt ceiling - even if all its debts are paid on time - the nation's creditworthiness and the dollar will tumble. If the dollar takes a big fall, you can bet it will send waves, not ripples, through the Peruvian economy. The Nuevo Sol is a bit overvalued as it is; if it surges against the dollar (as most every other currency would do), exporters are going to lose their shirts.



Yet Obama has continued nay *expanded* all the wars and the democrats are silent on that? Mr. I'll end Bushes illegal wars...

HYPOCRISY.

Both sides are controlled at the top. The agenda is war and hegemony, and world government.

Left-Right is a puppet show distraction.

The Fed is the vulture puppet master of death at the top.

Divide & Conquer. Old as history. Old as politics.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: those on social security

Postby asgoodasitgets » Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:21 pm

Polaron wrote:
sbaustin wrote:You all write as if the more liberal of the two major parties was any different under Bush. Politics is politics and both major parties are guilty of this.


Man, you've got the wrong occupation. You would make a great front man for the Republicans! Kelly is right; the Republicans will tell any lie, crush any family to further their agenda. When the Democrats were in the minority, they usually fought Bush's more egregious attempts, though they foolishly supported the phony Iraq war.


Every deriding comment that has been said about the republicans here, I agree with wholeheartedly... And I also think every word applied to the democrats. Both are fear and death mongers. The American people are not represented imo.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: those on social security

Postby asgoodasitgets » Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:23 pm

Don't be fooled: the debt ceiling has never been politicized until right now,


You SURE about that?
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: those on social security

Postby asgoodasitgets » Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:26 pm

sbaustin wrote:
Polaron wrote:
sbaustin wrote:Soltero, you're welcome. I'm happy that you reread my simple posts to understand them.


Soltero 1, sbaustin 0


Polaron -20 but who's counting. I'm not trying to win anything nor does it matter if you write your manifestos trying to convince me about how great the democratic party is and how evil the republicans are. I'm not here trying to convince you. I believe both parties suck and are to blame for the situation. Nobody here has the answer so good luck with it all.


+1 to that.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: those on social security

Postby asgoodasitgets » Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:41 pm

Some of the biggest bailouts were done under the hand of Mr. Conservative Reagan. It's the classic watch the right hand while the left hand does the magic trick. Enormous bailouts of their time. He started the real trend that has simply continued under both "parties" since then. It's a joke to say that, at the top, they are different. They keep an appearance of differences at the lower levels to keep the duped voter distracted, meanwhile, the UN is taking over parks and wildlife preserves world wide, GMO is proliferating, Socialism is growing, dependency is growing, financial terrorism is taking place under both parties: Bush, Clinton, Obama, you name it. I mean Bush senior gave unlimited loans to corporations in Russia - loans that were never paid back for the most part. They bailed out Mexico, Panama, and are bailing out every country in the world.

I'd quote sources, but like sbaustin said, some seem to have a reading difficulty on this site... and as I have experienced simply seem to scroll past articles, studies, references, and anything else you put up... and go for the straw-man take down, while not addressing the core issues on the facts. And I think that kind of thing really does speak to a deep rooted apathy, apathy being defeat / surrender.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
Soltero de Repente
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:01 pm

Re: those on social security

Postby Soltero de Repente » Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:44 pm

asgoodasitgets wrote:Did you know that O'bomber has continued a signing order that Bush put in that lets him suspend congress for 6 months in the event of any crisis including specifically, an economic one?


That's the most ridiculous falsehood I have ever seen in my life. Seriously. It's just plain embarrassing. Clearly you know next to nothing about how the United States government is constructed or operates. So I will give you a brief primer on our constitutional democracy.

In the United States, there are three branches of the federal government: the presidency, the judiciary, and the congress. These three powers are 100% coequal. None is superior to the others, and the relationships between them are precisely spelled-out by the Constitution. There are certain partisans who may believe in the ascendancy of one branch over the others - for example, Republicans tend to be "presidentialists" and Democrats tend to be "congressionalists" in how they prefer power to be exercised - but the fact is there is only so much any one power can do to affect its relationships with the other branches. Because those relationships are defined by the Constitution and can only be changed through the constitutional amendment process. If any one of the branches tries to increase its power at the expense of the others, the others will cry foul and force a retreat. This is why our government is called a "balance of power" or "pluralist" democracy. Give-and-take between the three powers if fairly common in routine politics, but only in a small-scale way (like claiming executive privilege when called to testify before Congress about the non-existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as a justification for war).

What this means is that no President in his role as President can ever suspend Congress for any reason. Big moves like that are not possible. Not Bush, not Obama. Not even during our Civil War. Likewise Congress also cannot suspend the President, though they can try to impeach him through a process prescribed by the Constitution. And the Supreme Court can't monkey with either of them, but only the laws and executive orders they promulgate.

In truth the system is designed to prevent exactly what you claim "O'bomber" is scheming. If you unilaterally change the balance of power that defines your office, they you literally occupy a new transformed office in a different kind of government. By definition. Why? Because the office is defined by its powers in relation to the other branches. So if one branch of government ever tries to rise above or abolish the other two, it would by definition mean the end of the United States as we know it. It could happen if various social powers aligned in a certain way, but it would be tantamount to civil war. Blood would be shed, heads would roll, and a new constitutional convention would be called once the mayhem has passed. But even before all that, the very fact that the President tried to abolish the Congress would lead to immediate charges under articles of impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, in this case treason (as opposed to what they got Clinton for - cheating on his wife). Congress isn't just going to roll over and go home. They will fight back using the weapons the Constitution gives them. And I think everyone would agree that the counter-attack would be justified.
Last edited by Soltero de Repente on Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Soltero de Repente
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:01 pm

Re: those on social security

Postby Soltero de Repente » Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:46 pm

sbaustin wrote:Polaron -20 but who's counting.

asgoodasitgets wrote:+1 to that.


Um, it's pretty clear that both of you are counting.
User avatar
sbaustin
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:46 pm
Location: Peru
Contact:

Re: those on social security

Postby sbaustin » Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:59 pm

Soltero de Repente wrote:
sbaustin wrote:Polaron -20 but who's counting.

asgoodasitgets wrote:+1 to that.


Um, it's pretty clear that both of you are counting.


Regardless of the score, I win. It was sarcasm. Give me a break. Do you have more charts for us to read?
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: those on social security

Postby asgoodasitgets » Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:42 pm

Soltero de Repente wrote:
sbaustin wrote:Polaron -20 but who's counting.

asgoodasitgets wrote:+1 to that.


Um, it's pretty clear that both of you are counting.


Thats actually a real conspiracy theory ;-) and one without any evidence - I acted alone!

+1
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: those on social security

Postby asgoodasitgets » Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:54 pm

[Ron] Paul dismissed the debt ceiling crisis embroiling Washington as a nonissue. The government is already bankrupt, in his view, and disguises it by printing money. “There’s no way the checks aren’t going out to Social Security,” he told the crowd. “The real question is what is the money going to buy when you get it.”

From NYT today. My emphasis.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
Polaron
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Lima
Contact:

Re: those on social security

Postby Polaron » Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:30 am

asgoodasitgets wrote:
bmike1 wrote:pray tell, what will we do if they don´t raise the debt ceiling¿


Easy - cancel the wars! There's your money right there. Oh but Mr. Peace Prize 'War is Peace" "More wars than a burning Bush" can't do that masters say war comes first citizens last...

Did you know that O'bomber has continued a signing order that Bush put in that lets him suspend congress for 6 months in the event of any crisis including specifically, an economic one?

Where are the anti-war crowd now eh?

This is what I hate about left right... it's such a scam. The 'leaders' are laughing.


Let's have a valid source or a retraction please.

Oh, and everyone knows what Republican Congressman Ron Paul says and which side he supports: the Right. You might want to adjust that tin-foil hat. . . .
Professional, bilingual writer at your service.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: those on social security

Postby asgoodasitgets » Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:21 pm

Polaron - name calling once again...

Nevertheless.. You obviously haven't studied Dr. Pauls positions at all... I'll leave that to you. To say they are "of the right" is untrue and entirely uninformed.

Cost of War. http://costofwar.com/en/

There's your social security money right there. Although I think that counter is very, very conservative. I think the real cost is far higher from other sources I've seen.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul369.html

Roughly 700 bases in 130 countries around the world:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm

End empire building, end nation building. There's your social security money. Do you really need me to spell it out before you'll consider it a valid notion economically?

My point is, the establishment, whether it's Bush, Clinton, or O'bomber, don't WANT to do that, because they're just puppets and the real establishment is the foreign off shore bankers that have seized control of the US and the money supply for the last 100 years and are now directing everything into a controlled financial implosion on top of the ashes of which they will build their new SDR based global currency which every nation will be beholden to if they want to trade and not get invaded as "rogue states" (sort of like when Darth Vader calls the Rebels "rogues"). The point is when it comes to a choice between their war and feeding the poor you know what comes first - they didn't get up on the world stage and say "Oh my God, if you don't raise that debt ceiling ALL THE WARS WILL HAVE TO STOP!" You know why! Because the people would have said - by and large - "Well heck, don't raise it then!!". Instead they say "The old and poor won't get any money". And the point of that is to say that the holding up of the poor is nothing but a pantomime. They don't mean it, they don't care. It's just a distraction. They have the money, they can make cuts in other areas. But the whole thing betrays their allegiance. The US is run for war profit and the American people have utterly lost control of their government. It is not a democracy it is an oligarchy. Anyway, if the debt ceiling isn't raised, Obama and Bush have already turned the presidential office into a legal dictatorship - so he'll just sign that debt ceiling into effect.

Obama reissued an order Bush signed that allows him to suspend congress and take control of the purse strings in the event of any crisis, for six months including specifically an economic one.

Here are some really good ones:

http://dmc.members.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html

This stupid article actually thinks that dictatorship can be a good thing but it supports my point albeit with it's idiotic slant on the issue:

http://www.kentucky.com/2011/07/10/1806 ... -debt.html

So you see, if he has openly said he can murder any US citizen purely on his say so, let alone anyone else in the world what stops him from also raising the debt ceiling, especially since he works for Wall street as did his predecessor?
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: those on social security

Postby asgoodasitgets » Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:21 pm

The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
rama0929
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:43 am
Contact:

Re: those on social security

Postby rama0929 » Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:23 pm

I get paid in Ameros 8)
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: those on social security

Postby asgoodasitgets » Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:27 pm

Vincente Fox admitted to the North American Union. That one is another conspiracy fact, not theory... like the Reichstag fire.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=44047
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
Polaron
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Lima
Contact:

Re: those on social security

Postby Polaron » Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:48 pm

Facts from verifiable, academic sources, not op-ed pieces goodie. Please.
Professional, bilingual writer at your service.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: those on social security

Postby asgoodasitgets » Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:32 am

Soltero de Repente wrote:
asgoodasitgets wrote:Did you know that O'bomber has continued a signing order that Bush put in that lets him suspend congress for 6 months in the event of any crisis including specifically, an economic one?


That's the most ridiculous falsehood I have ever seen in my life. Seriously. It's just plain embarrassing. Clearly you know next to nothing about how the United States government is constructed or operates. So I will give you a brief primer on our constitutional democracy.

In the United States, there are three branches of the federal government: the presidency, the judiciary, and the congress. These three powers are 100% coequal. None is superior to the others, and the relationships between them are precisely spelled-out by the Constitution. There are certain partisans who may believe in the ascendancy of one branch over the others - for example, Republicans tend to be "presidentialists" and Democrats tend to be "congressionalists" in how they prefer power to be exercised - but the fact is there is only so much any one power can do to affect its relationships with the other branches. Because those relationships are defined by the Constitution and can only be changed through the constitutional amendment process. If any one of the branches tries to increase its power at the expense of the others, the others will cry foul and force a retreat. This is why our government is called a "balance of power" or "pluralist" democracy. Give-and-take between the three powers if fairly common in routine politics, but only in a small-scale way (like claiming executive privilege when called to testify before Congress about the non-existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as a justification for war).

What this means is that no President in his role as President can ever suspend Congress for any reason. Big moves like that are not possible. Not Bush, not Obama. Not even during our Civil War. Likewise Congress also cannot suspend the President, though they can try to impeach him through a process prescribed by the Constitution. And the Supreme Court can't monkey with either of them, but only the laws and executive orders they promulgate.

In truth the system is designed to prevent exactly what you claim "O'bomber" is scheming. If you unilaterally change the balance of power that defines your office, they you literally occupy a new transformed office in a different kind of government. By definition. Why? Because the office is defined by its powers in relation to the other branches. So if one branch of government ever tries to rise above or abolish the other two, it would by definition mean the end of the United States as we know it. It could happen if various social powers aligned in a certain way, but it would be tantamount to civil war. Blood would be shed, heads would roll, and a new constitutional convention would be called once the mayhem has passed. But even before all that, the very fact that the President tried to abolish the Congress would lead to immediate charges under articles of impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, in this case treason (as opposed to what they got Clinton for - cheating on his wife). Congress isn't just going to roll over and go home. They will fight back using the weapons the Constitution gives them. And I think everyone would agree that the counter-attack would be justified.


Soltero, you must have just time travelled from 1852... let me get you up to speed on what's actually going on today, July, 2011...

Well, where to start.

"When the President orders American citizens killed without trial, Obama's attorneys bluntly argued in a September 25 brief before the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, these are not crimes but “non-justiciable political questions.” In other words, the courts can't prevent or judge the right or wrong of Presidential assassination lists because these are questions under the political judgment of the President."

Yes the president has assassination lists and they can include US citizens or anyone else for that matter. Guess that concerns Peruvians too... if the leader of the worlds most powerful military has openly claimed in effect that he has the "right" to kill anyone anywhere that he deems is a threat based purely on his say so, no trial, no evidence, no jury, no judge, no accountability, no disclosure, absolute secrecy. It's absolutely disgusting. Bush started it, Obama grabbed the baton. The Left-Right paradigm is a scam. They all work for the private central bankers. The National Security act alone flushes most of your notions of checks and balances as they were originally intended down the toilet - I'm very sad to say.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... y-american

Kind of like calling the libya invasion "Kinetic Peace Action", it's just blithering double-speak which doesn't require war declaration from the congress, according to the masters, who are in effect lawless.

"Lawless detention is the least of it. State secrets and warrantless spying scrape the surface. Drone attacks and ongoing torture begin to touch it. But central to the power of an emperor, and the catastrophes that come from the existence of an emperor, is the elimination of any other force within the government. Signing statements eliminate congress. Not that congress objects. Asking congress to reclaim its power produces nervous giggles."

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/107892

I realise this is getting off topic - I apologise I'm only trying to respond and get it hopefully back ON topic...

The idea of checks and balances is a great one, but it requires those in power to actually adhere to it and enforce it. All that is required for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.

I've got about 10 more documents I will post, but that's for another day.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: those on social security

Postby asgoodasitgets » Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:43 am

You think there was authorisation for congress for this type of stuff:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010 ... hwoods.pdf

And that's OLD. 1962!

A brief highlight: (remember this was signed off on by the joint chiefs of staff and classified national security - so no congress or public saw it until about a decade ago. Only Kennedy refused to sign and thus it did not proceed.)

- using remote controlled duplicate passenger craft to be blown up over Cuban waters and blamed on Cuba to start war - including false ID's and false passenger lists, and an elaborate plan to get the fake flight onto flight plans so it would appear legit - even down to the level of having a fake may day broadcast out so that civilian radio would break the story instead of the military, to give it legitimacy - to trick the public into believing it was real.

- painting soviet style planes in cuban colours and having them trail passenger jets aggressively to make Cuba appear hostile.

- bombing US bases with US troops dressed up as cuban soldiers

- sinking a US ship - recreating "the maine" type incident in order to get public support.

All to justify WAR.

Seriously, you have to read it though. Read it, get inside the mind of the writer. Get angry. 1962.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
Alpineprince
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1499
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: "Miraflores State of Mind"

Re: those on social security

Postby Alpineprince » Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:40 am

Don't worry O'bama say's our check is "in the mail"!
User avatar
Polaron
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 833
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Lima
Contact:

Re: those on social security

Postby Polaron » Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:07 am

Alpineprince wrote:Don't worry O'bama say's our check is "in the mail"!


Really? Could you show us when he has said that?
Professional, bilingual writer at your service.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: those on social security

Postby asgoodasitgets » Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:48 pm

..."However, there is a risk in the Republican’s intransigency, and that risk is that, thanks to presidential directives put on the books by President Bush, President Obama has the authority to declare the prospect of default a national emergency. Obama can simply set aside the debt ceiling limit and seize the power of the purse from Congress. The transformation of the president into Caesar would take another large step forward."

http://www.infowars.com/is-america-caug ... mind-trap/

..."A reader responded to my recent column about how the US president was becoming a Caesar with a question: “Wouldn’t a Caesar be preferable to a democracy in which the people are too ignorant, disinterested, and stupid to engage in self-government?”

Before I became a widely read columnist with many reader responses, I would have disagreed with the reader’s characterization of the American people. Today, I cannot answer the reader’s question with a “no” as confidently as I would like.

I receive appreciative words from many readers who are well aware of what is going on.

I also hear from many who are so partisan and have such strong emotional responses that they are unable to follow an argument. I don’t know what percentage these groups comprise in the population, but there seem to be a number of Americans, both on the left and the right, who are prepared to censor and even to kill in order to defend their illusions and delusions."
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.

Return to “Expat Conversations”

Login  •  Register