GOP Debate

Delusional??? Capitalists don't need no stinkin' oversight to do the right thing. hehe

 

Sure it does. Those two guys are geniuses.

 

Obviously not since no one really understands what you are saying.

And this means that companies wanted to harm individuals purposely. Gotcha.

It was a dumb comparison. All transactions are voluntary. If you by something you know that is bad for you, that is your fault.

Look up the term straw man and post it here.

To show you how stupid your example was. And it was indeed stupid. It's still amazing that you didn't get how stupid it was.

That is the point. I guess you do understand how dumb your comparison was.

Yes we do and there is free trade. We just don't have a totally free market. That would be Lassiez Faire.

And the one example you were able to provide means that this always happens. Gotcha.

I don't think you do. But it's only my opinion and I'm only basing my opinion by what you have posted.

 

I'll get back to whatever you're about to say in the morning.

 

I guess by no one, you are either speaking for every single person in this forum or you have once again mispoken. Again, something my 7 year old would say.

In the example I gave, yes. So I guess you were wrong on that one since you didn't refute.

Ok, that really makes sense. Tell that to the family that bought a Toyota last year.

Why don't you go look it up. Obviously you do no fact checking on what comes out of your mouth.

From what I know, stupid people usually say stupid things. So my example of comparing cigarette companies with drug dealers is a stupid comparison? Are you serious?

So it's dumb to invalidate the comparison you made? Wow.

Ok, then so which is it a free market or not a totally free market. Is totally free market an economic term?

Isn't that what you asked for (see below)? Would you want more examples?

LOL, it is your opinion that a person you know nothing about is lying about being a business owner? LOL. You're funny.

 

Don't bother unless by you getting some sleep you actually make a coherent argument.

 

Then SS is not solvent it is full of IOU's that are worthless unless we are able to borrow?

 

Let me try and give you another example. Most businesses operate using borrowed money. Not that they don't have the cash, but they essentially have a line of credit from a bank to pay for operating expenses. The same is sort of true with SS. Solvency is not necessarily about how you pay the bill, but whether you are good for the money. They have 2.6 trillion dollars in the SS fund. It is solvent until 2035 or something. There are no IOUs. If you are speaking of treasury bonds, then guess what, every 401K and foreign government believes in US treasury bonds.

 

US treasuries aren't exactly "IOUs"

 

That is the way the system works. And I wouldn't say it is full of IOU's no more than our entire stock market and banking system. Let's see what happens if every person went to their bank to withdraw their money and if every 401K, IRA and stock in America was sold on the same day.

 

sol·ven·cy   /ˈsɒlvənsi/ Show Spelled[sol-vuhn-see] solvent condition; ability to pay all just debts.


so during the debt ceiling crisis we were not solvent? or were we ?

 

The country as a whole? Apparently not. But what does that have to do with SS?

 

Perry is silly.. Shifting business from one state to another is a zero sum game.

It solves NOTHING.

The correct effort is to make business start ups FRIENDLY so that NEW business will evolve locally.

 

It accomplishes something for Texas.

 

Newt Gingrich, Please

 

Yeah, so he can teach us the sanctity of marriage.

 

test

 

I am talking about SS

 

I don't think we're going anywhere with this because no matter how much money SS had in it's coffers, the process is what it is. The payments are still made by the US Treasury who rakes in all tax money and doesn't "set aside" money for each purpose at the time of collection. The process doesn't determine solvency, rather the amount of money collected versus what goes out. If I pay my bills through a line of credit and every six months I pay it all off when invoices are paid, then by your definition I am not solvent no matter how much money I have in the bank, but by every business definition I am.

 

The United States is in too deep , if the debt ceiling wasn't raised it could not meet it's bill obligations therefore it was not going to be solvent unless it can borrow more cash.
I do understand what you are saying but Politican's can not continue to say SS is solvent on it's own when it is not

 

Its all paper and imagination.... pretending to owe the Chinese more pieces of paper with dead guys on it is supposedly more stable for a currency than just printing more pieces of paper with dead guys on it.

The fact that so many get so wrapped in this minutia is humorous to me.

 

I was pleased to see that Perry was pursued about his use of the executive order. He is the worst anti-d(small d)emocratic Republican of the buch of them. He actually wants to take away our rights to popularly elect US Senators, and have State Legislatures appoint them, and a bunch more (LGBTs take notice) through changes in the Constitution! Some strict-constructionist!

William P. Homans
Clarksdale, Mississippi

 

Ok, so by your reasoning, this country has never been solvent. Whether under Democratic or Republican rule. BTW, that means GE (one of the worlds richest companies) is not solvent either since they use lines of credits and loans to fund their day to day operations. Hmm, so what does that say about businesses?

 

Your not understanding what he means.

The Nation is broke. We can't pay off our bills, and what the dems and Obama want to do is spend more money.

What we should be looking at and debating is lowering the debt limit instead of raising it.

 

And what you don't understand is that he is trying to get this country back on it's feet. It's hillarious how money spent on rich people is called investment and money spent anywhere else is called waste. Besides, this money has already been spent. Raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with spending more money. And if you actually take a nonpartisan look at what he tried to do with the gang of six and what's he's currently doing with the debt commission, that is exactly what he is doing. My problem with all of the arguments here is that you really act like a Republican would have done anything different than Obama has. Bush sent out stimulus checks and where was the crying then? Bush raised the debt limit. Bush gave us unfunded mandates. Where was the outcry then? I don't care who you vote into office, they will find someone to give taxpayer money to. What we need to do is reform the way money is given to politicians. Reform the way lobbyist participate in our politics. They all talk the game, but I have yet to see any real action.