Obama and communist party in US

[BobF]

What you just said is exactly what I said. Communism is government in complete control where socialism is the same without the complete control. So we are not all equal in a socialist country but that would be the goal. The two are the same in goals but not in the government level.

Forutunately the communist governments have mostly failed or converted to less demanding ways. China being the largest and in the process of loosening up from its hard days a few year back.

 

[BobF]

Now why was the CPUSA so happy with Obama's work?

 

[QuickSilver]

Communism does not work... BUT neither does pure unfettered capitalism.. eventually, all the money moves up to the top and there become only two classes... the VERY rich.. and the VERY poor. The middle class disappears..

 

[AZ Jim]

There is a small island. 12 of us are stranded there. One has a fishing outfit, one has a rifle, another brought seeds and has grown some veggies. They meet and talk the guy who hunts admits he has too much meat, the guy who fishes is tired of fish, the gardener has and idea. Why don't we put all our food together and all could enjoy a meal including those who had no contribution and the one who is disabled? They vote and guess what? SOCIALISM is born.

 

[QuickSilver]

Our system of government and economics is Democratic socialism...or better defined as Capitalistic socialism.. which I believe is the best system in that it allows for personal gain, while caring for the less fortunate..

Medicare is socialism... Social Security is socialism.

 

[BobF]

Why do you call Social Security as socialism. It is but a savings forced on the workers for their eventual retirement uses, if they live that long. It is a tax on the employee and his employer for his personal use, nothing more. When he retires the pay off will be determined on his 10 best years and expected remaining lifetime. It is money taken and money returned, hardly socialism by design. Non workers have no real way to gather this money for any reason I know of. Any left over after the workers death is then set aside and allocated as reserves for future workers paybacks if they over live their lifetime allotment.

Socialism would need to divide all that money equally with ALL residents who are retired and not working. Social Security does not meet that requirement at all.

 

[QuickSilver]

Why do you call Social Security as socialism. It is but a savings forced on the workers for their eventual retirement uses, if they live that long. It is a tax on the employee and his employer for his personal use, nothing more. When he retires the pay off will be determined on his 10 best years and expected remaining lifetime. It is money taken and money returned, hardly socialism by design. Non workers have no real way to gather this money for any reason I know of. Any left over after the workers death is then set aside and allocated as reserves for future workers paybacks if they over live their lifetime allotment.



Socialism would need to divide all that money equally with ALL residents who are retired and not working. Social Security does not meet that requirement at all.

There is a huge misconception that when we contribute to SS that there is a neat little account somewhere with our names on it..and that is our money that we will get back.. That is simply not true.. FICA payments pay the SS checks of those currently retired.. OUR SS is paid by those working. So since I am still working, my FICA contributions are paying for your SS.. When I retire..my working sons will be contributing to MY ss and that of every other retiree. The amount of the payment you get is based on a formula taking into consideration your best years of working. that is true.. My mother never worked a day in her adult life.. yet still collected SS, because even with my father alive, she collected based on HIS contribution.. Yes.. SS is definitely socialism.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/financi...s-you-probably-believe-about-social-security/

Myth #1) Your contributions are going into an account with your name on it.

Unfortunately, that’s just not the case. Social Security isn’t like a 401(k) or even a traditional funded pension plan. Your contributions are immediately paid out to current beneficiaries.
So where will the money come from to pay your benefits when you retire? Future taxpayers

Your last statement defines Communism.. Not socialism..

 

[BobF]

Contrary to your beliefs, there definitely is a trust fund created just for the SS services and no one else. And now it appears it also works for the medical insurance folks too.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1860D-16.htm

 

[AZ Jim]

Contrary to your beliefs, there definitely is a trust fund created just for the SS services and no one else. And now it appears it also works for the medical insurance folks too.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1860D-16.htm

Absolutely untrue. At one point it was but then changes made it possible that the receipts were put into the general fund. What did you think Gore was talking about with his "lockbox" speech?

 

[QuickSilver]

Bob.. there is NO special account anywhere with your paid in FICA tax in it..


http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-2015/myths-of-social-security.html

Myth 1: When you work and pay Social Security taxes, Uncle Sam puts your tax money in an account under your name. When you retire you get your money back with interest.
Fact: The fact is that Social Security is based on a "pay-as-you-go" system. The taxes that are paid by people who are working today provide the benefits that go to people who are retired. The Social Security taxes I paid during my career helped pay for the benefits received by my retired mother and father. And today, the Social Security taxes paid by my children are helping to pay for the Social Security benefits I receive each month.

 

[mitchezz]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this...........with Communism there is only one political party.....no matter who you vote for you get the same government.

 

[BobF]

I don't know why you folks do not believe the SS system comments that I posted. And where are you finding these ideas that the money is saved under names. Never said to be that way in the commissions papers so just more of the twisted comments used too often.

Now for a rather long and to me, confusing article about SS funds and where they are counted you need to read this link. It tells all about SS funds and how and who counts them and it mentions the years that something change. They even include the changes made during Reagon's years. But no where do they say the funds are just mixed in with the general funds and they do speak of measures to always keep SS funds isolated and accounted.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

[h=3]Research Notes & Special Studies by the Historian's Office[/h] Research Note #20:
The Social Security Trust Funds and the Federal Budget



THE FINANCING PROCEDURES
In the Social Security Act of 1935 the income from the payroll tax was to be credited to a Social Security "account." Benefits were to be paid against this account, but there was no formal trust fund as such. Taxes began to be collected in January 1937, and monthly benefits were to be paid starting in January 1942 (later pushed forward to January 1940). So the payroll taxes were just credits in the Social Security account on the Treasury's ledger under the initial law.
...........................

Skip to 1983 changes and Reagan at about three quarters done. It states that changes made by Reagen were to be taken off budget in 1993. It then goes on to explain the changes. So after reading this material, I don't see SS still as part of the general fund anymore.

 

[QuickSilver]

I don't know why you folks do not believe the SS system comments that I posted. And where are you finding these ideas that the money is saved under names. Never said to be that way in the commissions papers so just more of the twisted comments used too often.

My apology. I thought that was what you were saying..

 

[BobF]

SS funds are kept just like in a bank. Some accountant keeps records of your deposits and when you claim, they reach into their record and verify. Then they allow you to have your due.

For the story about children paying for retirees, not exactly true at all. In days of full employment and not too many retirees they build funds into a RESERVE amount. But when, like today, we have a very high level of unemployed and a high level of retirees, then maybe the children will be working for their parents retiring after the RESERVE is distributed out.

 

[Grumpy Ol' Man]

SS funds are kept just like in a bank. Some accountant keeps records of your deposits and when you claim, they reach into their record and verify. Then they allow you to have your due.

For the story about children paying for retirees, not exactly true at all. In days of full employment and not too many retirees they build funds into a RESERVE amount. But when, like today, we have a very high level of unemployed and a high level of retirees, then maybe the children will be working for their parents retiring after the RESERVE is distributed out.

Many areas are at full employment. Our small town newspaper's Sunday edition will see three to four pages of help wanted classified ads. We're sitting at just under 4%. Full employment is considered somewhere between 5% and 6%. Employment numbers dipped dramatically during the 2008 recession. It's been a slow recovery, but there are jobs for anyone who really wants one. Employment may require relocation or other hardships. That's part of staying gainfully employed or not.

The real problem with Social Security is that the baby boomers are retiring en masse. As the number grow exponentially on the receiving end, there's just not enough coming in to keep the pot solvent. One of the other problems is that wage growth is stagnant. The Republicans fight tooth and nail against raising minimum wage. So, since your contributions to Social Security is a percent of your wages, the revenue stream has trouble growing.

We need those working to see their wages grow. We need to move the full retirement age reducing the payout and motivating people to remain in the workforce longer. And, we need to impose a duty tax on goods manufactured overseas in order to encourage moving jobs back Stateside.

 

[AZ Jim]

Two charts from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to show where our Unemployment was high and low and job creation under Bush and Obama.

 

[BobF]

A group of workers not being considered are those no longer collecting unemployment but still unemployed. They do not show up in the comments being shown.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/20/40-percent-of-unemployed-have-quit-looking-for-jobs.html

40 percent of unemployed have quit looking for jobs
Jeff Cox | @JeffCoxCNBCcom
Wednesday, 20 May 2015 | 12:29 PM ET At a time when 8.5 million Americans still don't have jobs, some 40 percent have given up even looking.

The revelation, contained in a new survey Wednesday showing how much work needs to be done yet in the U.S. labor market, comes as the labor force participation rate remains mired near 37-year lows.

A tight jobs market, the skills gap between what employers want and what prospective employees have to offer, and a benefits program that, while curtailed from its recession level, still remains obliging have combined to keep workers on the sidelines, according to a Harris poll of 1,553 working-age Americans conducted for Express Employment Professionals.

On the bright side, the number is actually better than 2014, the survey's inaugural year, when 47 percent of the jobless said they had given up.

(and more)

 

[BobF]

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2005	5.3	5.4	5.2	5.2	5.1	5.0	5.0	4.9	5.0	5.0	5.0	4.9
2006	4.7	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.6	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4
2007	4.6	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4	4.6	4.7	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.7	5.0
2008	5.0	4.9	5.1	5.0	5.4	5.6	5.8	6.1	6.1	6.5	6.8	7.3
2009	7.8	8.3	8.7	9.0	9.4	9.5	9.5	9.6	9.8	10.0	9.9	9.9
2010	9.8	9.8	9.9	9.9	9.6	9.4	9.4	9.5	9.5	9.4	9.8	9.3
2011	9.2	9.0	9.0	9.1	9.0	9.1	9.0	9.0	9.0	8.8	8.6	8.5
2012	8.3	8.3	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.0	7.8	7.8	7.7	7.9
2013	8.0	7.7	7.5	7.6	7.5	7.5	7.3	7.2	7.2	7.2	7.0	6.7
2014	6.6	6.7	6.6	6.2	6.3	6.1	6.2	6.1	5.9	5.7	5.8	5.6
2015	5.7	5.5	5.5	5.4	5.5	5.3

George Bush was President from 2001 until Jan 9, 2009. Notice how the unemployed stayed rather low until his follow on took over. Then it started going straight up. The reason it started going up in 2007 and 2008 was because the Democrats had taken over the Congress with Reid in Senate and Pelosi in the House. Bad times for our economy started as those two years our debt rose from 7.5 trillion to 10 trillion. Now with our current government debt has risen to 18.5 trillion and still rising.

 

[Don M.]

The problem with statistics....and how they relate to a given Presidency...is that the full effects of a Presidents Policies aren't felt until some years down the road. Much of the rise in the National Debt in recent years can be traced back the Unfunded Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan....indeed, GWB even passed a tax cut while he was preparing to spend untold billions on these wars. That, plus the economic collapse in 2007/2008 cost vast numbers their jobs, and reduced the governments intake of revenue, even further...while spending continued unabated.

I'm no big fan of Obama, and we will be living with his legacy for the rest of this decade. Keep an eye on soaring health care costs in the latter part of this decade, and how they relate to the ACA....THAT will punch a big hole in the Obama Legacy. Some of the biggest and most costly provisions of this legislation will not take full effect until 2017...After Obama leaves office...Coincidence??? Just imagine if he is successful in ramming the TPP down this nations throat, and destroying even more good American jobs.

Every Presidents administration seems to screw something up...Big Time...and these two certainly Won't be any different.

 

[BobF]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/11/us-public-defrauded-hidden-cost-iraq-war

Monday 11 March 2013 08.30 EDT

When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration estimated that it would cost $50-60bn to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a functioning government. This estimate was catastrophically wrong: the war in Iraq has cost $823.2bn between 2003 and 2011. Some estimates suggesting that it may eventually cost as much as $3.7tn when factoring in the long-term costs of caring for the wounded and the families of those killed.
........................................
The actual cost of war was $823.2 billion and Bush's charts to show that those costs were in the Debt Charts which I will show below.

I see these figures to be real as can be and they do show up in the DEBT Charts under Bush's term as President. His portion of the debt was more than 3 trillion while he was in office. So I don't see how he did not show the cost. This may be the way our current government has gotten their medical program going. All on the debit card just like Bush did. Just not in the open Congress with debates and authorizations as they should be.

Table 7.1—FEDERAL DEBT AT THE END OF YEAR: 1940–2020

2002	6,198,401
2003	6,760,014
2004	7,354,657
2005	7,905,300
2006	8,451,350
2007	8,950,744
2008	9,986,082
2009	11,875,851

.......................................

and

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/...-to-gdp.html?federal-debt-to-gdp-politics.gif

© Copyright 2015, Advisor Perspectives, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

[Don M.]

The cost of these "questionable" wars often depends upon which source you are looking at. Here's another perspective.....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629

And, yet another....

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...iraq-and-afghanistan-pricetag-over-4-trillion

With all the Smoke and Mirrors that comes out of Washington, who knows what the real figures will eventually turn out to be. One thing is for sure...the costs are in the Trillions, and Washington has taken NO steps to pay for these wars.

If you notice, on the chart you posted, our National Debt skyrocketed in the years of WWII. However, the government, back then, raised income tax rates to as high as 92%, and paid this debt off. What do you think the odds are of this current Washington bunch acting in such a responsible manner? All they can do is point fingers at each other.

These wars are only One of the major reasons why our National Debt has gotten out of control. If you and I ran our personal finances the same way Washington oversees this nations finances, we would be homeless.

 

[3horsefarm]

At the rate things are going, "homeless" may not be all that far off, when Mexico and China divide up the country.

 

[Don M.]

At the rate things are going, "homeless" may not be all that far off, when Mexico and China divide up the country.

That's for sure! It appears that the majority population in California is already Mexican, and the ramblings on the La Raza website indicate that they will not be satisfied until California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Southern Colorado are returned to Mexican control....which they claim were taken illegally from Mexico. China seems determined to do everything in its power to undermine all our industries, and steal away ever good job in this nation. We may have won the Cold War with the Soviet Union, but we are slowly being eaten alive by the Chinese.

 

[Debby]

Is China responsible for undermining your industries or is that entirely the fault of corporations looking for cheap labour and China has merely reacted to a prospective growth situation for them? Maybe look at your government (and mine) and you and me for wanting cheaper and cheaper 'stuff' and free trade agreements that made it possible for our industries to abandon ship with no penalty for doing so.

 

[BobF]

Debby, I think your are right. If it was up to our industries to build and sell computers we would still be paying $3,000 to $4,000 for our home computers. When people want it all done here in the US they forget the industries and dealers will have to pay full wages to the employees with vacation and benefits also to be paid. These companies and businesses all want, and need, profits to stay in business. Too much of the whining just does not consider how lucky we are in today's markets. The solutions demanded are just not going to work as some think.