Iraq

[Big Sarge]

Thank the Lord Obama pledged no ground troops in Iraq. Obama ended OIF and brought the troops home. Mission Accomplished.

Fast forward: There will be absolutely NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ! All U.S. military troops over there will...WEAR SANDALS! And, they will not be in a combat role. Incoming fire will be directed solely (pun intended) at the Iraqi troops our "advisors" are training. Failure of the IS militants to observe that courtesy will result in their being sued in the World Court!

Thank goodness we have a Glorious Leader. He follows a great tradition:

Income Tax will never be more than 3% of anyone's income: FDR

Social Security will be in a trust fund and cannot be spent by the government: FDR

I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky". Bill Clinton

[BigV]

How long should such a statement stand as an inviolable rule? When does it become less important to make one's current behavior consistent with a statement made in the past than it does to respond to current conditions in an appropriate fashion?

[BigV]

You're not real clear on how the Social Security trust fund works, are you? Here's a primer for you. Check out page 5, especially step 4). That's the step where the money collected from the SS taxes that isn't paid directly to the beneficiaries is invested; the surplus that accumulated is held in a "trust fund" and *invested*. Smart, right? It would be reckless and stupid to just store that money under the mattress or in a vault, losing value due to inflation, right?

What's the safest investment in the world? That's right, US Treasury bonds. That's what the were invested in. Not the highest return, just the most secure choice that has a return. Now, when the cash is "given" to the US Treasury by the Social Security Administration, the US Treasury gives the Social Security Administration a bond, a promise to repay the money, plus some interest. And the US Treasury gets the money, to spend. That's how much of the government's cash flow works, and you're not complaining about that. So let's just leave that alone.

Back to the SS trust fund. Actually, the government, the SS Administration, they *do* spend the money. They pay it out to the beneficiaries. But you probably meant some other part of the government. Regardless, there is no part of the government, apart from the SS Administration that has spent the money of the trust fund.

So... I don't know what you're complaining about.

[Rhianne]

Read my lips.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

Income Tax will never be more than 3% of anyone's income: FDR

Social Security will be in a trust fund and cannot be spent by the government: FDR

You're just spouting bullshit now.
When the income tax started in 1913 the top rate was 7%.

There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

[BigV]

That last one, the statement by President Clinton? Yep, that was a lie.

But I flatly refuse to accept that it was pertinent question, meaningful to *me* in any way whatsoever. And I have a LOT of company. The question itself was illegitimate. A better answer would have been "That's private." "That's none of your business." "No comment." Silence. "The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain." "Yes." "Next question." Any of those, all of those are better "answers" to the "question".

Such a massively ridiculous point of bullshit, then and now.

[Big Sarge]

Originally Posted by BigV

That last one, the statement by President Clinton? Yep, that was a lie.

But I flatly refuse to accept that it was pertinent question, meaningful to *me* in any way whatsoever. And I have a LOT of company. The question itself was illegitimate. A better answer would have been "That's private." "That's none of your business." "No comment." Silence. "The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain." "Yes." "Next question." Any of those, all of those are better "answers" to the "question".

Such a massively ridiculous point of bullshit, then and now.

So say ye, but what if a Republican president had lied under oath and been caught?? More important is Obama has totally broken his word about the deployment of US forces to Iraq. OIF was over and Iraq would not grant a status of forces agreement. Why are we back?? What did ISIS do to the US to warrant an intervention in a religious war in a current that a few years ago basically ran us out of their country??

Yes BigV, I am aware how Social Security works. It was simply another famous broken promise made by a Democrat president. didn't understand the program

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

So say ye, but what if a Republican president had lied under oath and been caught??
--snip--
It was simply another famous broken promise made by a Democrat president.

Let's get something out of the way first, ok?

Republican President
Democratic President
American President.

Not Republic President
Not Democrat President
Not America President.

You are a Republican
I am a Democrat
We are Americans.

Misuse of these terms makes the abuser look uninformed or confrontational.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

So say ye, but what if a Republican president had lied under oath and been caught??
--snip

Perhaps I was unclear in my previous post. The question was invalid and any party affiliation is irrelevant. The same question, same circumstances asked of a Republican president would be a matter of equally monumental insignificance.

Lying under oath is serious. But only for serious matters, only for significant matters. You tell me. Why was this question significant such that the answer yes or no mattered?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

snip--

Yes BigV, I am aware how Social Security works. It was simply another famous broken promise made by a Democrat president. didn't understand the program

Big Sarge, now I'm the one who doesn't understand.

You said:

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

snip--

Social Security will be in a trust fund and cannot be spent by the government: FDR

--snip

What's your point?

At first, I thought you said that because you believe that the Social Security trust fund *is* being spent by our government. Is that the case? If that's your point, tell me how you think it's being spent by our government. I'm not sure what you're talking about. You sound like you're complaining that "FDR broke a promise". While you're at it, and I ask this from ignorance, where did FDR say what you say he said? I can't find any reference to it.

Thanks.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

snip--

More important is Obama has totally broken his word about the deployment of US forces to Iraq. OIF was over and Iraq would not grant a status of forces agreement. Why are we back?? What did ISIS do to the US to warrant an intervention in a religious war in a current that a few years ago basically ran us out of their country??

--snip

Here's the easy answer.

Shit changes.

Different people, different agendas,

What are you upset about? That Obama's "promise" was "broken"? Come on. Thinking that any statement by any president is permanent, representing an unchangeable position by the president and our country is naive at best. I think you are probably more alarmed by the prospect of more combat, and particularly getting embroiled in fucking Iraq *again*. And that your longstanding dislike for President Obama gives you a wide open shot to take at him by tarring him with the label "promise breaker". Ok, go ahead, take your cheap shot. Get it out of your system.

But if there's more, if you want a serious discussion about what's going on in Iraq, with ISIS, our interests and how to protect them, that's ok too. Your call.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by BigV

...What are you upset about? That Obama's "promise" was "broken"? Come on.
Thinking that any statement by any president is permanent, representing an unchangeable position by the president
and our country is naive at best...

No V. Sarge is right.

Look at what Woodrow Wilson did when he was President...
He said he would keep the U.S. out of WW I... the "war to end all wars”

But then look what he did when elected to the Presdency...
Sure, there was the “deliberately unfriendly” act of sinking the Luscitania
which killed 128 Americans and then some submarines sank some U.S. merchant ships.
But it was only 3 years after being elected President, he asked(!) Congress
to declare war on Germany, and that was the “War to end all wars”.

Regardless of anything else they might do during their presidency,
Wilson and Obama are just typical of the lying and flip-flopping Democrats.

I had not fully appreciated Sarge's thoughts... until now.

[BigV]

Sarcasm noted.

[classicman]

Lying under oath is serious.

Agreed.

But only for serious matters, only for significant matters.

Bullshit. You can take this to the Nth degree, but it matters - without qualifiers.

[BigV]

Ok, fine.

It's serious in direct proportion to the significance of the question.

The significance of this question was solely to shame, embarrass and humiliate the president. I stand by my earlier remarks that a better, and truthful answer to the question would be "None of your business."