Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1262014 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Nov 5, 2008, titled Barack Obama, our next President. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.

Yeah

Mililani, HI

#955126 Jul 27, 2013
shinningelectr0n wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. Times up. You back to the institution now.
Dress, hi-heels and all.
is that your favorite hunting ground for being a peeping tom?

hmmmmm..........
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#955127 Jul 27, 2013
Waxman wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Dummy. What does the word "Abandon" mean, moron?
Was Clinton Impeached?
Baaawaahh!!!
You are an old idiot.
awwwww... but you hate America son. and you hate the US Navy....

at least he's American!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#955128 Jul 27, 2013
Waxman wrote:
Clueless fk:
<quoted text>
lol! That's you son!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#955129 Jul 27, 2013
Waxman wrote:
Clueless fk # 2:
<quoted text>
You win this hands down son! For you there's no competition in this area!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#955130 Jul 27, 2013
Waxman wrote:
<quoted text>
You are scum. Any questions?
Andy you're foreign scum, son!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#955131 Jul 27, 2013
Waxman wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi!
Have you been a moron for decades?
lol! In you're case, it's a statement, not a question mr for-eign-er!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#955132 Jul 27, 2013
Waxman wrote:
<quoted text>
I left the Democrat Party too. They are full of hate.
... says the foreign hate monger of the US Constitution!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#955133 Jul 27, 2013
Waxman wrote:
<quoted text>
I left the Democrat Party too. They are full of hate.
I'm sure you were dumped, son!
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#955134 Jul 27, 2013
USAsince1680 wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't matter. We were discussing the leave of absence given to IRS employees. In their case "the employer" must show 'just cause' for firing them. That involves an investigation. Otherwise, they could easily file a wrongful termination lawsuit the would result in you (the taxpayer) shoveling out millions in settle fees.
There is no such thing as "wrongful termination" when most business employees are "employees at will."

Government employment conditions are an anachronism that need to be changed. If you screw up, you're history.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#955135 Jul 27, 2013
USAsince1680 wrote:
<quoted text>
So? The voters elected another Democrat and she decided to stab them in the backs by not serving her community. The Democrats loss to farmer whatshisname because they didn't pick a better candidate. Being a Dumbo, you should be familiar with that scenario.
51.9 to 41,7 in a special election after the incumbent DemoKKKrat resigned.

Spin away.

Nice job trashing a Latina, you racist pig.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#955136 Jul 27, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>They're so party centric, they prefer a bad con over a good democrat...
... requires no thinking on their part!
The voters elected a farmer, one of their neighbors, over a professional political hack.

Shame on them.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#955137 Jul 27, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a SS Trust Fund.
I guess you think that there is a box in the bank that hold's your money. When you buy something using a check or debit card, a man goes to that box, pulls the correct amount of money & sends it to the recipient.
BS. No trust fund. No guarantee of benefits.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#955138 Jul 27, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, they could claim executive privilege if Obama was directly involved in their actions.
Kind of like Libya, and WTH were we doing there to start with?

More than 1,000 detainees escaped from a prison near the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi in a massive jailbreak Saturday, officials said, as protesters stormed political party offices in Libya's main cities.

It wasn't immediately clear if the jailbreak at the Koyfiya prison came as part of the demonstrations. Protesters had massed across the country angry over the killing of an activist critical of the country's Muslim Brotherhood group.,...

Benghazi's security situation is among the most precarious in post-revolution Libya. Last year, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in the city.

Meanwhile Saturday, hundreds gathered in the capital Tripoli after dawn prayers, denouncing the Friday shooting death of Abdul-Salam Al-Musmari.

They set fire to tires in the street and demanded the dissolution of Islamist parties....

....The two incidents highlighted Libya's precarious security situation and the challenges the North African country faces as it tries to restore security nearly two years after the ouster and killing of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

In Tripoli, protesters appeared to be inspired by events in neighboring Egypt, where millions took to the streets Friday to answer a call from the army chief, who said he wanted a mandate to stop "potential terrorism" by supporters of the country's ousted president, Mohammed Morsi, who hails from the Brotherhood.

"We don't want the Brotherhood, we want the army and the police," Libyan protesters chanted, repeating a slogan also used in Egypt. Libya's nascent security forces are struggling to control the country's militias, most of whom have roots in the rebel groups that overthrew Gadhafi in 2011.....

Gunmen outside of the prison fired into the air as inmates inside began setting fires, suggesting the jailbreak was preplanned, a Benghazi-based security official said.....

\ Mohamed, E. "More than 1,000 detainees escape Libyan prison near Benghazi, officials say". AP/NBCWordnews. Web. 7/27/2013
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#955139 Jul 27, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a SS Trust Fund.
I guess you think that there is a box in the bank that hold's your money. When you buy something using a check or debit card, a man goes to that box, pulls the correct amount of money & sends it to the recipient.
Alot of it in theory ONLY duhmmy.

he Treasury both receives the payroll taxes (and income taxes that higher-income retirees pay on their Social Security benefits) and pays monthly benefits on behalf of the Social Security Administration (SSA). The money stays in the Treasury's hands until it is either paid out as Social Security benefits or otherwise spent by the government. In fact, no money ever goes into the trust fund. Instead, the trust fund balance is the result of two accounting entries by the Treasury.
First, the Treasury estimates how much of the aggregate tax receipts are Social Security taxes and "credits" the Social Security trust fund with that amount. Then the Treasury "subtracts" the total amount paid in monthly Social Security benefits from the trust fund balance. No money actually changes hands; these are strictly accounting entries.
Any "money" remaining in the trust fund is converted into special-issue Treasury bonds, which are really nothing more than IOUs. In addition, the Treasury pays interest on the trust fund's balance by crediting the trust fund with additional IOUs. These are also strictly accounting entries, and again no money changes hands. After crediting the trust fund with the proper amount in IOUs, the government spends the extra Social Security tax collections just like any other tax revenue--to finance anything from aircraft carriers to education research.
At the end of 2002, the Social Security trust fund had a balance of $1.22 trillion. During 2003, the Treasury received $544 billion in Social Security taxes and paid out $406 billion in Social Security benefits. Therefore, the trust fund received $138 billion in these special-issue Treasury bonds, resulting in a trust fund balance of $1.36 trillion at the end of 2003.
Why the Social Security Trust Fund Differs from Real Trust Funds. Private-sector trust funds invest in real assets ranging from stocks and bonds to mortgages and other financial instruments. However, the Social Security trust funds are only "invested" in a special type of Treasury bond that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. As the Congressional Research Service noted in a report on May 5, 1998;
When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against another entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another.
According to the Office of Management and Budget under the Clinton Administration in 1999:
These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.[Emphasis added.]
In short, the Social Security trust fund is really only an accounting mechanism. The trust fund shows how much the government has borrowed from Social Security, but it does not provide any way to finance future benefits. The money to repay the IOUs will have to come from taxes that are being used today to pay for other government programs. For that reason, the most important date for Social Security is 2018, when taxpayers must begin to repay the IOUs, not 2042, when the trust fund is exhausted.
This public Service announcement brought to yo by
The T(axed) E(nough) A(lready Drained dry) Party.
DON'T be touching the WORKING Class contributions!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#955140 Jul 27, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a SS Trust Fund.
I guess you think that there is a box in the bank that hold's your money. When you buy something using a check or debit card, a man goes to that box, pulls the correct amount of money & sends it to the recipient.
No there is not and never has been a Social Security Trust Fund since Social Security was started which it is based on a Ponzi Scheme that is based on pay as you go besides the Federal Government Can spend the Social Security Tax anyway the Federal Government wants as stated in the SCOTUS case of Helvering v. Davis established in 1937 which FDR was spending it and FDR did and remember when the Federal Government has no more money there is no more Social Security because its not a Trust Fund.

Below explains the logic why there is no Social Security Trust Fund from the Article link below

Why the Social Security Trust Fund Differs from Real Trust Funds. Private-sector trust funds invest in real assets ranging from stocks and bonds to mortgages and other financial instruments. However, the Social Security trust funds are only "invested" in a special type of Treasury bond that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. As the Congressional Research Service noted in a report on May 5, 1998:

When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against another entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another.

Misleading the Public: How the Social Security Trust Fund Really Works

As political leaders debate how best to fix Social Security, many policymakers are focusing on the wrong issue. Their sole concern seems to be the date when the Social Security retirement and survivors trust fund will run out of its paper assets. This mistaken emphasis misses the fundamental point about Social Security's problems: There is no cash in the Social Security trust fund, and there never has been any.

The Social Security trust fund is merely an accounting device filled with IOUs that future taxpayers must repay. Far too soon, payroll taxes will be insufficient to pay all of the promised benefits. Unless Congress promptly takes action, taxpayers will have to pump hundreds of billions of additional tax dollars into Social Security to pay the promised benefits.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004...

Social Security, Ponzi Schemes,
and the Need for Reform
by Michael Tanner

Pg12 of the PDF As the Clinton administrationís Fiscal Year 2000 Budget explained it

However, in reality, the Social Security Trust Fund is not an asset that can be used to pay benefits. As the Clinton administrationís Fiscal Year 2000 Budget explained it:

These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures ó but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.
Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will
have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.

The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Governmentís ability to pay benefits.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs...
TSM

El Paso, TX

#955141 Jul 27, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Evan Bayh is a traditional Democrat who no longer has a place in the party.
Letís not forget about Joe Lieberman He had to switch Partyís!!
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#955142 Jul 27, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>I say eliminate Social Security & Medicare now since the Pseudo Liberal Warren SCOTUS ruled in 1960 in the case of Flemming V Nestor that Individuals have no rights to Social Security and it is the same Medicare which are based on a tax besides the 1937 SCOTUS ruling stated that the Social Security Tax is just a tax like any other Tax and the Federal Government is free to spend it anyway the Federal Government wishes which why there has never been a Social Security Trust Fund just on paper as an accounting practice which Clinton admitted in his 2000 Budget which is one thing I will give Bill Clinton Credit for and he wasnt lying.
The obam admin would be OWING ALOT OF PEOPLE, that have worked and PAID alot into it over YEARS and YEARS.

So how about they just CAP, CURB and maybe even Cut some of it to ONLY 18 and over sectors- that should reduce some of dar fwee montly givverment payouts and shore it up a little for the ones that DID!!
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#955143 Jul 27, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>No there is not and never has been a Social Security Trust Fund since Social Security was started which it is based on a Ponzi Scheme that is based on pay as you go besides the Federal Government Can spend the Social Security Tax anyway the Federal Government wants as stated in the SCOTUS case of Helvering v. Davis established in 1937 which FDR was spending it and FDR did and remember when the Federal Government has no more money there is no more Social Security because its not a Trust Fund.
Below explains the logic why there is no Social Security Trust Fund from the Article link below
Why the Social Security Trust Fund Differs from Real Trust Funds. Private-sector trust funds invest in real assets ranging from stocks and bonds to mortgages and other financial instruments. However, the Social Security trust funds are only "invested" in a special type of Treasury bond that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. As the Congressional Research Service noted in a report on May 5, 1998:
When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against another entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another.
Misleading the Public: How the Social Security Trust Fund Really Works
As political leaders debate how best to fix Social Security, many policymakers are focusing on the wrong issue. Their sole concern seems to be the date when the Social Security retirement and survivors trust fund will run out of its paper assets. This mistaken emphasis misses the fundamental point about Social Security's problems: There is no cash in the Social Security trust fund, and there never has been any.
The Social Security trust fund is merely an accounting device filled with IOUs that future taxpayers must repay. Far too soon, payroll taxes will be insufficient to pay all of the promised benefits. Unless Congress promptly takes action, taxpayers will have to pump hundreds of billions of additional tax dollars into Social Security to pay the promised benefits.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004...
Social Security, Ponzi Schemes,
and the Need for Reform
by Michael Tanner
Pg12 of the PDF As the Clinton administrationís Fiscal Year 2000 Budget explained it
However, in reality, the Social Security Trust Fund is not an asset that can be used to pay benefits. As the Clinton administrationís Fiscal Year 2000 Budget explained it:
These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures ó but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.
Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will
have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.
The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Governmentís ability to pay benefits.
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs...
We just went over that.

And STILL--the government will OWING ALOT OF PEOPLE-that WORKED and contributed over A LOT of years, they're hard earned dollars-BACK TO THEM.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#955144 Jul 27, 2013
TSM wrote:
<quoted text>
Letís not forget about Joe Lieberman He had to switch Partyís!!
That is still one of the BEST examples of TRUE DEMOCRACY in action!!

The INDEPENDENT VOTERS And Candiadates of America!

Heck YA!
:-)
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#955145 Jul 27, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as "wrongful termination" when most business employees are "employees at will."
Government employment conditions are an anachronism that need to be changed. If you screw up, you're history.
I always found that warped entitleMENTALed assumption on workers UI to be the biggest one to have raise an eyebrow at.

Being as EMPLOYERS pay that (and ONLY employers) as a precautionary economic measure.

I've heard some entitleMENTAL cases carry on in abject ignorance, as if UI was out of of employee pockets.

The TOXIC poison of the cluelessness of libuhrulTICS, entitleMENTAL diseases and socio-ILLogical disorders!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 min Dr Guru 194,339
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 9 min Lt Joe Kenda 100,206
Abby 7-28-15 3 hr mrs gladys kravitz 9
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 4 hr Mark 52,052
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 5 hr Lexus1985 1,698
Fun Song Combos (Sep '12) 5 hr Lexus1985 453
No reports of flash mobs recently? Because the... 5 hr Warning to tourists 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages