Romney slams Obama, reflects on elect...

Romney slams Obama, reflects on election loss

There are 491 comments on the USA Today story from Mar 3, 2013, titled Romney slams Obama, reflects on election loss. In it, USA Today reports that:

Mitt Romney criticized President Obama for playing politics on the automatic budget cuts known as the sequester, in his first post-election TV interview.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at USA Today.

Mr Big Bad John Roberts

Irmo, SC

#298 Mar 10, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
DumBama is not black. He is a Mulatto. I know you don't like to think about his white half though. LOL!
Yo' rated piss, it is easy for that lying p.o.s. romney to criticize anything the Black president is doing after he has gotten his Mormon azz kicked by him.
Lol!!!!!!!!!!
Lol!!!!!!!!!!
Lol!!!!!!!!!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#299 Mar 10, 2013
Black Rhino wrote:
<quoted text>
Social Security will be fine.
It's the cost of living at that time is what concerns me.
Things that cost 10 dollars now will be triple in my old age.
that is what Nixon did he gave them a raise which he should have never done which Social Security was never designed that way.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#300 Mar 10, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Lyin' Ryan and the rest of the teabaggers don't want to save it. They want to get rid of it and have you invest a vocher in a private account. Why don't you buy some Enron stock?
the Federal Government & Congress can, the SCOTUS said so in Flemming Vs Nestor which Individuals have no contractual or property rights to any benefits whatsoever its not yours, mine or anyone elses its the Federal Governments money to do as they wish just like with Medicare because of two landmark cases, Flemming v. Nestor and Helvering v. Davis which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are not contributions or savings at all, but simply taxes, and that Social Security benefits are simply a government spending program, no different than, say, farm price supports. Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time and the way it is.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/s...

“Bullsh*% Detector Enabled”

Since: Dec 08

Brooklyn, New York

#301 Mar 10, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>that is what Nixon did he gave them a raise which he should have never done which Social Security was never designed that way.
Not the best system, but it beats any place else in the world...

God bless America.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#302 Mar 10, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>the Federal Government & Congress can, the SCOTUS said so in Flemming Vs Nestor which Individuals have no contractual or property rights to any benefits whatsoever its not yours, mine or anyone elses its the Federal Governments money to do as they wish just like with Medicare because of two landmark cases, Flemming v. Nestor and Helvering v. Davis which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are not contributions or savings at all, but simply taxes, and that Social Security benefits are simply a government spending program, no different than, say, farm price supports. Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time and the way it is.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/s...
And this post relates to my comment exactly how?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#303 Mar 10, 2013
Black Rhino wrote:
<quoted text>
Not the best system, but it beats any place else in the world...
God bless America.
its was modeled after Russia's Social Security which is the same thing under Leninism which we can thank the FDR advisor after their Meeting with Stalin & Trotsky who set the path & the direction of what became known as the New Deal.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#304 Mar 10, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>And this post relates to my comment exactly how?
right here in english.

Helvering v. Davis(Conservative Majoirty)

Opinion of the Court

The Opinion of the Supreme Court in the case was written by Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo. This decision supported the right of the Congress to interpret the "general welfare" clause in the U.S. Constitution. Excerpts from the opinion include:

"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare'...There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views...The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event...The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law."

"Congress did not improvise a judgment when it found that the award of old age benefits would be conducive to the general welfare. The President's Committee on Economic Security made an investigation and report, aided by a research staff of Government officers and employees, and by an Advisory Council and seven other advisory groups. Extensive hearings followed before the House Committee on Ways and Means, and the Senate Committee on Finance. A great mass of evidence was brought together supporting the policy which finds expression in the act...The evidence is impressive that, among industrial workers, the younger men and women are preferred over the older. In times of retrenchment, the older are commonly the first to go, and even if retained, their wages are likely to be lowered. The plight of men and women at so low an age as 40 is hard, almost hopeless, when they are driven to seek for reemployment."

"The problem is plainly national in area and dimensions. Moreover, laws of the separate states cannot deal with it effectively. Congress, at least, had a basis for that belief. States and local governments are often lacking in the resources that are necessary to finance an adequate program of security for the aged. This is brought out with a wealth of illustration in recent studies of the problem. Apart from the failure of resources, states and local governments are at times reluctant to increase so heavily the burden of taxation to be borne by their residents for fear of placing themselves in a position of economic disadvantage as compared with neighbors or competitors. We have seen this in our study of the problem of unemployment compensation...A system of old age pensions has special dangers of its own if put in force in one state and rejected in another. The existence of such a system is a bait to the needy and dependent elsewhere, encouraging them to migrate and seek a haven of repose. Only a power that is national can serve the interests of all."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Dav...

Flemming v. Nestor(Liberal Majority)

Opinion of the Court

The Court ruled that no such contract exists, and that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security payments. Payments due under Social Security are not “property” rights and are not protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The interest of a beneficiary of Social Security is protected only by the Due Process Clause.

Under Due Process Clause analysis, government action is valid unless it is patently arbitrary and utterly lacking in rational justification. This provision of §202(n) is not irrational; it could have been justified by the desire to increase the purchasing power of those living in America, because those living abroad would not spend their payments here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nest...

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#305 Mar 10, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>right here in english.
Helvering v. Davis(Conservative Majoirty)
Opinion of the Court
The Opinion of the Supreme Court in the case was written by Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo. This decision supported the right of the Congress to interpret the "general welfare" clause in the U.S. Constitution. Excerpts from the opinion include:
"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare'...There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views...The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event...The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law."
"Congress did not improvise a judgment when it found that the award of old age benefits would be conducive to the general welfare. The President's Committee on Economic Security made an investigation and report, aided by a research staff of Government officers and employees, and by an Advisory Council and seven other advisory groups. Extensive hearings followed before the House Committee on Ways and Means, and the Senate Committee on Finance. A great mass of evidence was brought together supporting the policy which finds expression in the act...The evidence is impressive that, among industrial workers, the younger men and women are preferred over the older. In times of retrenchment, the older are commonly the first to go, and even if retained, their wages are likely to be lowered. The plight of men and women at so low an age as 40 is hard, almost hopeless, when they are driven to seek for reemployment."
taxation to be borne by their residents for fear of placing themselves in a position of economic disadvantage as compared with neighbors or competitors. We have seen this in our study of the problem of unemployment compensation...A system of old age pensions has special dangers of its own if put in force in one state and rejected in another. The existence of such a system is a bait to the needy and dependent elsewhere, encouraging them to migrate and seek a haven of repose. Only a power that is national can serve the interests of all."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Dav...
Flemming v. Nestor(Liberal Majority)
Opinion of the Court
The Court ruled that no such contract exists, and that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security payments. Payments due under Social Security are not “property” rights and are not protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The interest of a beneficiary of Social Security is protected only by the Due Process Clause.
Under Due Process Clause analysis, government action is valid unless it is patently arbitrary and utterly lacking in rational justification. This provision of §202(n) is not irrational; it could have been justified by the desire to increase the purchasing power of those living in America, because those living abroad would not spend their payments here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nest...
Well, right here in your post it nowhere says Lyin' Ryan's proposal to do away with Social Security and shift Social Security funds to private retirement accounts as well as reduce benefits and gradually raise the age of eligibility. According to the CBO, you know who they are....
Congressional Budget Office said, Social Security payouts would “be more uncertain, despite the guarantee, because returns on stocks and corporate bonds are risky.” The plan seeks to protect against market fluctuations by guaranteeing seniors a rate return at least equal to the rate of inflation, and by shifting near-retirees’ money from stocks to government bonds. But funding losses from stock market swings could endanger the solvency of the program...

So just exactly how is that a solution?

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#306 Mar 10, 2013
Nowhere in your post does it state that Lyin Ryan's proposal is valid or economically fair or feasible...

Congressional Budget Office said, Social Security payouts would “be more uncertain, despite the guarantee, because returns on stocks and corporate bonds are risky.” The plan seeks to protect against market fluctuations by guaranteeing seniors a rate return at least equal to the rate of inflation, and by shifting near-retirees’ money from stocks to government bonds. But funding losses from stock market swings could endanger the solvency of the program.

The plan would allow workers to invest more than one-third of their Social Security taxes into private retirement accounts. Wall Street would likely enjoy a huge windfall from the private account investments..

A windfall for Wall Street. Whod'a thunk it.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#307 Mar 10, 2013
Mykro wrote:
Nowhere in your post does it state that Lyin Ryan's proposal is valid or economically fair or feasible...
Congressional Budget Office said, Social Security payouts would “be more uncertain, despite the guarantee, because returns on stocks and corporate bonds are risky.” The plan seeks to protect against market fluctuations by guaranteeing seniors a rate return at least equal to the rate of inflation, and by shifting near-retirees’ money from stocks to government bonds. But funding losses from stock market swings could endanger the solvency of the program.
The plan would allow workers to invest more than one-third of their Social Security taxes into private retirement accounts. Wall Street would likely enjoy a huge windfall from the private account investments..
A windfall for Wall Street. Whod'a thunk it.
I wouldnt trust Wall Street either but originally Social Security was supposed to goto the banks but FDR was against the Idea for simple fact that the Federal Government had just bailed out the Banks during the Great Depression and felt the Social Security tax money was in better hands with the Federal Government than the Banks and FDR was wrong on that too I feel people should be allowed to do with their money as they want to invest it not allowing bureaucrats to have the authority to change payouts as the wish and can do at anytime.

“Bullsh*% Detector Enabled”

Since: Dec 08

Brooklyn, New York

#308 Mar 10, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>its was modeled after Russia's Social Security which is the same thing under Leninism which we can thank the FDR advisor after their Meeting with Stalin & Trotsky who set the path & the direction of what became known as the New Deal.
It's a social program. It works. The problem is the vampires who have the control.

Any system set up to take care of the elderly after busting their ass all their young lives is a good thing. America should take care of the elderly. The theory makes solid sense.
The execution is the problem.
Fuggus

Rochester, PA

#309 Mar 10, 2013
youtube.com/watch... …… Eye Dreaming of a nice price
of Impeachment

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#310 Mar 10, 2013
Black Rhino wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a social program. It works. The problem is the vampires who have the control.
Any system set up to take care of the elderly after busting their ass all their young lives is a good thing. America should take care of the elderly. The theory makes solid sense.
The execution is the problem.
that is the problem these Social Programs which are formulated as a Tax and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Helvering v. Davis that Social Security taxes are not contributions or savings, but simply taxes, and that Social Security benefits are simply a government spending program, no different than, say, farm price supports which under Flemmning vs Nestor Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time.

SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT A TRUST FUND OR INSURANCE

http://www.usa-the-republic.com/mark%20of%20b...

Social Security’s Sham Guarantee

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/s...
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#311 Mar 10, 2013
Black Rhino wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a social program. It works. The problem is the vampires who have the control.
Any system set up to take care of the elderly after busting their ass all their young lives is a good thing. America should take care of the elderly. The theory makes solid sense.
The execution is the problem.
The real problem is that it's been used as a vote buying tool for years. Back in the late 70's through most of the 80's, I used to deliver and repair home medical equipment. As you might guess, we did a lot of work with Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Let's say we purchased an aluminum cane for around 20 bucks. We would rent that to people for 15 bucks per month. There was no limit on how long the patient could use that cane. In fact, government systems wouldn't even allow us to sell it to the patient under Medicare or Medicaid. They made us rent it to the patients. After the first month or so, everything was 100% profit. It was the same way with hospital beds, commodes, trapeze's, pressure pads for the bed, oxygen gauges, wheelchairs, wheelchair pads, and the list goes on and on.

Of course the system went broke. How could it not? So one day I was having a discussion with my cousin who's a research doctor and told her of how government setup the system to be ripped off. Mind you, she's a very liberal woman. She wrote back "You haven't seen anything yet!"

Okay everybody had their fun, everybody made a lot of money, but now the system is shot. What do we do now?
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#312 Mar 10, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Lyin' Ryan and the rest of the teabaggers don't want to save it. They want to get rid of it and have you invest a vocher in a private account. Why don't you buy some Enron stock?
I have a better idea. SS mails out your contributions and projected payouts if you retired today. Next time they do that, take that pamphlet to a reputable investment company and ask what you would be worth today had you been able to invest all that SS money in a conservative growth account (including what your employer put in for you). You'll probably be shocked.

If private investments didn't work, nobody would have IRA's today. But they do work. It's how many, many people made a lot of money during their lives.

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#314 Mar 10, 2013
Black Rhino wrote:
<quoted text>
Juvenile banter by a braindead neo-con...
Surprised? No.
Pro-gun voters put heat on Dems...

Obama staying out of negotiations... Obama again comes in with all the pretty speeches against guns and the second amendment, then runs and hides before the fingers start pointing to him to be accountable for attacking the constatution and breaking his oath once more.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#315 Mar 10, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Pro-gun voters put heat on Dems...
Obama staying out of negotiations... Obama again comes in with all the pretty speeches against guns and the second amendment, then runs and hides before the fingers start pointing to him to be accountable for attacking the constatution and breaking his oath once more.
Investigating Mark Kelly's AR-15 Purchase

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/...

“Bullsh*% Detector Enabled”

Since: Dec 08

Brooklyn, New York

#316 Mar 10, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>The real problem is that it's been used as a vote buying tool for years. Back in the late 70's through most of the 80's, I used to deliver and repair home medical equipment. As you might guess, we did a lot of work with Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Let's say we purchased an aluminum cane for around 20 bucks. We would rent that to people for 15 bucks per month. There was no limit on how long the patient could use that cane. In fact, government systems wouldn't even allow us to sell it to the patient under Medicare or Medicaid. They made us rent it to the patients. After the first month or so, everything was 100% profit. It was the same way with hospital beds, commodes, trapeze's, pressure pads for the bed, oxygen gauges, wheelchairs, wheelchair pads, and the list goes on and on.

Of course the system went broke. How could it not? So one day I was having a discussion with my cousin who's a research doctor and told her of how government setup the system to be ripped off. Mind you, she's a very liberal woman. She wrote back "You haven't seen anything yet!"

Okay everybody had their fun, everybody made a lot of money, but now the system is shot. What do we do now?
I don't know...

Pray?

“Bullsh*% Detector Enabled”

Since: Dec 08

Brooklyn, New York

#317 Mar 10, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Pro-gun voters put heat on Dems...

Obama staying out of negotiations... Obama again comes in with all the pretty speeches against guns and the second amendment, then runs and hides before the fingers start pointing to him to be accountable for attacking the constatution and breaking his oath once more.
Yawn...

We get it. You don't like Obama. Move on.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#318 Mar 10, 2013
Black Rhino wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know...
Pray?
No. Here's the thing:

Private insurance increases their premiums to keep up with costs of medical care. It's been going on for decades. Yet, Medicare has not taken any increase in contributions for years.

So what we currently have is a system of senior medical care where the contributions are less than the payouts for proper care for our elderly.

What's the solution? To increase the cost to working families to keep up with increasing medical care costs and retirement. But what politician will run on increased taxation for the working????

Look, if we insist on having these programs, then they have to be funded. It's as simple as that. So why don't Democrats insist on increased contributions? Because the populous would be angered. They would demand that the federal government get out of the retirement business and leave it to private industry; personal responsibility.

Democrats don't like personal responsibility. Personal responsibility means we have no need for Democrats. Republicans too would never run on increased contributions to fund our social safety net systems.

So we keep on going in a hole. And as we do, the hole gets bigger and bigger because it's not about what's logical, it's about telling people what they want to hear.

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.

John Kerry Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Climate change should not be 'partisan issue,' ... Feb '17 tina anne 175
News Palestinians say Trump freezes Obama's last-min... Jan '17 payola 3
News Pope Francis acknowledges State of Palestine (May '14) Jan '17 Canada 193
News Exxon's longtime CEO would be America's emissar... Dec '16 Brian_G 1
News Howard Dean announces run for head of Democrati... Nov '16 SirPrize 18
News Albright: Hillary to decide on her own (Jan '13) Jul '16 swedenforever 29
News Senators urge Kerry to address political crisis... (Jun '16) Jun '16 USA Today 2
More from around the web