Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lets review Obamas political ad shall we..
----- Announcer: Three years ago John McCain campaigned for George Bush's plan to risk your Social Security in the stock market. And voted three times in favor of privatizing Social Security. So imagine if McCain and Bush had gotten their way, and invested your future retirement benefits at Lehman Brothers? Bankrupt. AIG? Bailed out. Merrill Lynch? Sold. John McCain; The risk is too great, trying four more years of the same.
-----
So lets imagine taking money and investing it into companies like AIG.. Ooh wait, we dont need to imagine, its come true.
The AIG bailout was implemented by the Fed. Last September. Going to put that on Obama's tab? But if complaining about the risks and costs associated with deciding to proceed with that bailout, one should compare, not to nothing as the right-wing typically does, but instead to the costs and risks associated with deciding NOT to proceed with that bailout. How many banks worldwide do you suppose would have failed within days if the AIG bailout had not occurred? What would the costs of that have been?
All of which goes to raise another grotesque insincerity in your post. The actual AIG bailout came in a desperate, last-minute, backs-to-wall, no-other-way-out scenario. What Bush and McCain had supported was not just that workers be allowed to do such buy-ins, but that they be encouraged to. If would be good for them, they said. It would make them more a part of the new "Ownership Society". Well, here's a little clue: All that anybody owns in this new "Ownership Society" is MORE RISK!!!
one massive difference is that if the federal government loses money in the stock market, they will need to borrow more to reinburse the Social Security fund.
The amount needed to reimburse the SS Trust Fund is fixed by the terms of the individual underlying notes. That amount will not change by one penny as the result of anything that happens under TARP or any other support program.
Response to this: Lets not even discuss that it was absolutely crazy for McCain to support putting Social Security funds into the market but when Obama did it, liberals called him "a genius"...
You DO remember posting that, do you not?
No, I indicated only that the claim you made was usually made by morons -- those who have made no effort at all to understand how Social Security works but make absurd claims about it anyway.
You aren't making many points for the defense here. Your original post equated McCain and Obama. Equal is even stronger than similar.
No, it's perfectly ordinary accounting that you don't seem to comprehend. Income accrues on the securities held by the SS Trust Fund. Upon dates stated in the underlying securities, that interest is paid into the Trust Fund, but by law, it must then be invested in more US Treasury securities. Maybe somewhere along the line you have heard of a "dividend reinvestment plan". This is the same sort of deal.
There is no connection to the stock market here at all. In the separate matter of acquiring equity in troubled banks and other entities under TARP, Obama is using funds appropriated by Congress by means and for purposes entirely consistent with that legislation. The ultimate financing of these deals is part of day-to-day financial operations at the Treasury. In that context, expeditures against TARP appropriations are no different from expenditures against the appropriations of the National Weather Service.
First I did not equate Obamas "plan" with McCains, I simply stated that Obama criticized McCain for wanting to put money in the market.. PERIOD, thats what he criticized, its in his ad which I posted right here on this thread. Obama went and then put money in the market.. Thats hypocritical..
Interest accrues on the Social Security fund paid by whom? The federal government pays interest to the Social Security fund in exchange for the borrowing, meaning who pays this interest? TAXPAYERS... Had we had a balanced budget we would not need to borrow and pay interest from ourself in order to operate our government but thats the way it is..
Obama BOUGHT private companies using money borrowed from the Chinese, and the Social Security fund... The fact that these funds are appropriated from Congress does not mean that the funds are not being used to buy up companies by buying up stocks in companies, a proposal that OBAMA criticized.
Its funny to see liberals defend Obamas spending as "appropriated by Congress", didnt Congress also appropriate funds to Bush? Many conservatives criticized that to, at least we're consistant..
The amount needed to reimburse the SS Trust Fund is fixed by the terms of the individual underlying notes. That amount will not change by one penny as the result of anything that happens under TARP or any other support program.
Fixed underlying notes paid back by whom?
Lets see, if the purchase of stocks is profitable, the sale of these stocks will pay back the notes, if its not, then TAXPAYERS have to pay for it.. Anotherwords, its risking Social Security money in the stock market..
The underlying value doesnt change? A theory only from those who live at Disneyland where you pretend that higher debts dont equal higher interest paid for other projects and other capital needed.
For the record, taxpayers have already lost about $50Billion gambling in Citibank stocks.. We might one day recover but thats a hell of a lot to catch up..
p.s. and all of this pretends its within the governments authority to risk ANY money in the stock market, Social Security funds, surplus funds, sales tax revenues, whatever.. The biggest criticism for Bush from Democrats was that the investments were to easily to be manipulated to benefits 'buddies' of the president, now they dont seem to have the same problem.
Lets see, if the purchase of stocks is profitable, the sale of these stocks will pay back the notes, if its not, then TAXPAYERS have to pay for it.. Anotherwords, its risking Social Security money in the stock market..
The underlying value doesnt change? A theory only from those who live at Disneyland where you pretend that higher debts dont equal higher interest paid for other projects and other capital needed.
For the record, taxpayers have already lost about $50Billion gambling in Citibank stocks.. We might one day recover but thats a hell of a lot to catch up..
p.s. and all of this pretends its within the governments authority to risk ANY money in the stock market, Social Security funds, surplus funds, sales tax revenues, whatever.. The biggest criticism for Bush from Democrats was that the investments were to easily to be manipulated to benefits 'buddies' of the president, now they dont seem to have the same problem.
OP"Where are all of the liberals at today who were all over the threads when the market was going up?
Todays statistics
out of the 7,000 stocks that I watch
71% of them are down
13% of them are even
16% up
All of you liberals who proclaimed that Obama was a genius, who claimed that Obama was to credit when the market went up, all of you who claimed the economy was better.. What happened?
I mean if your going to give Obama credit, then is he not responsible for the fall?"
Obama has been good for the stock market, he borrowed fro China and gave trillions of dollars to his rich fat cat buddies on Wall Street so Wall Street has been very well cared for. But never has the lower class expanded at such a fast rate and the deficit he will be leaving to be paid for by my kids and grandkids...criminal.
Republican policies nearly destroyed the economy. And now their solution is to complain that the black guy didn't clean up their mess fast enough.
Oh and they also blame the black guy for debts largely caused by their unfunded wars and tax cuts for the wealthy. I swear- it's amazing what people will believe when their fear and hate is pandered to.
Tall Traveler, You should have invested in the stock market, so your kids could inherit those gains. It would not have cost much given how low the DJ was on 1/20/2009.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
