[normhead]

SO did you post pointing out G W Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction? Are you opposed to lying or just Democrats? Opposing lying in politics... really? It's part of the system. You can't legally hold a politician to a campaign promise, because.... politicians believe in lying, or they wouldn't be politicians. Anyway, G W Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and Americans gave him a second term, so just exactly what is it you're trying to accomplish? The truth is so far removed from politics it's a farce to even post something like that. Tell me , how can an honest man survive in American politics, given the obvious advantage that good liars have. An honest man would appear to be unreliable. Of course, Reagan didn't need to lie because he either forgot or never knew.

[Parallax]

SO did you post pointing out G W Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction? Are you opposed to lying or just Democrats? Opposing lying in politics... really? It's part of the system.

I think I've made it fairly clear that I don't trust any politician. I would love to point out all of the lies that all of them have told over the years, but I figured that wasn't the best use of my time 24 hours a day, seven days a week for the rest of my life, so I have to be a bit selective. Part of the problem is people just accepting that it is part of the system.
(BTW, there are a whole lot of Kurds that dispute your claim that Sadam had no WMDs)

[larryinlc]

I agree. What amazes me is how so many have this sort of "unconditional love" for their party/elected official like a puppy towards it's master. Or, my team verses your team and win at all costs mentality. I'll admit that I sometimes get caught up in the game and I don't know why. Do you think there might be some sort of subliminal ora in the air causing me to be assimilated into the fold of one party instead of another?? Maybe I need an exorcism. Do they do this for political demons or is this strictly for religious cleansing?

I think I've made it fairly clear that I don't trust any politician. )

[GeneV]

I'm probably missing something but it would seem that government employees are needed for those checks to be printed and mailed?

I heard the speech. That is exactly what he was talking about. If there are not enough SSA employees working, no one will mail the checks or the checks will be delayed. Based on what happened last time in 1996, it's not very clear whether recipients will be paid. The U.S. Social Security Administration maintained a few employees to administer benefits, but after a while it became difficult. Checks went out in the beginning, but this could not have continued for very long without someone getting a delay.

[skyredoubt]

About those Socieal Security trust funds being "raided":

Interest Rates and Fiscal Sustainability, page 18:

The same logic demonstrates why surpluses run by the Social Security and Medicare programs
are not “saved,” since such “saving” of surplus revenue results in a reserve drain (Bell and Wray, 2000).
Instead, the surplus revenues received lead the Treasury to either sell fewer bonds when the general
budget (i.e., the budget not including these entitlement programs) is in deficit or to retire additional bonds
when the general budget is in surplus (as it did during 1998-2001). Widespread accusations from the
media, politicians, and some economists that the Treasury has been “spending the surplus” revenue from
these programs to “cover” a deficit position in the general budget misunderstand the effects of Treasury
account flows on reserve balances and monetary operations. Selling bonds to “finance” the entire general
budget deficit while “saving” surplus revenue generated by these programs would result in a net drain in
reserve balances; the Fed would then be forced to buy bonds in the same dollar amount as the “saved”
surplus revenue as a defensive offset in order to achieve its interest rate target. (This further demonstrates
that the trust funds do not provide “financing” of future benefits, but—as explained previously—are
instead “legal ownership” of future allocations from the general budget for these programs.)

[JohnInIndy]

True insofar as the cookies all come out of the same jar. The difference is that Congress does not have to authorize the Social Security Administration take cookies out and pass them around.
The point here is that with regard to this issue Obama either does not know how the government that he heads works; or he deliberately lied about it to the people. It's a little vexing either way.

Sometime they even take out the cookies then count them again as new cookies.

[skyredoubt]

Sometime they even take out the cookies then count them again as new cookies.

Huh? I miss the point of the metaphor

[JohnInIndy]

Huh? I miss the point of the metaphor

They count SS funds 2 and sometimes three times. Google it.

[shooz]

That's government acting like a business.
I agree, it needs to stop.

[skyredoubt]

They count SS funds 2 and sometimes three times. Google it.

But I just showed you a couple of comment above how this charge is total nonsense divorced from reality. John, you need to stop defying logic.

[Nesster]

defying logic

I googled that: Defying Logic - Home

[Parallax]

But I just showed you a couple of comment above how this charge is total nonsense divorced from reality. John, you need to stop defying logic.

I googled that: Defying Logic - Home

Funny, I got a different result.
Defying Logic.