factcheck.org does have its facts… wrong.
“New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said that Social Security would be insolvent in seven to eight years. But even after the trust funds are exhausted — estimated to be in 14 to 19 years — the program can still pay out 73 percent of benefits for several decades.”
Actual economists agree with Gov. Chris Christie on the seven to eight years.
I can’t wait for the Democrats to hit the campaign trail and telling senior citizens that “we Democrats are sorry for the mismanagement of Social Security funds and our refusal to fix the system. Forget about what we promised you. You are just going to have to deal with a 27% reduction in your payments. I hope you really like tuna fish. Oh by the way, our 30 million dollar study has determined that your tuna fish allocation must be limited to two cans per week".You are either wrong or lying (again), and I don't really care which.
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/retirement/future-of-social-security.aspx
________________________________________________________________________
Your reliance on media stories shows the limits your information you use to falsely state the solvency of the so-called Social Security Trust Fund.
If you were to examine the GAO reports you would find what so many real economists call the dangerously emanate insolvency of the “Trust Fund”. When the politicians say that fund is full of “IOUs” that are accurate. The GAO states these as “temporary allocations to…”. Those “IOUs” now amount to (as of Gov’t year end 2014) to $912 billion dollars.
Move past the media and start using actual data.
[Edited on 10/30/2015 by Muleman1994]
emanate? LOL 😮 
factcheck.org does have its facts… wrong.
“New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said that Social Security would be insolvent in seven to eight years. But even after the trust funds are exhausted — estimated to be in 14 to 19 years — the program can still pay out 73 percent of benefits for several decades.”
Actual economists agree with Gov. Chris Christie on the seven to eight years.
I can’t wait for the Democrats to hit the campaign trail and telling senior citizens that “we Democrats are sorry for the mismanagement of Social Security funds and our refusal to fix the system. Forget about what we promised you. You are just going to have to deal with a 27% reduction in your payments. I hope you really like tuna fish. Oh by the way, our 30 million dollar study has determined that your tuna fish allocation must be limited to two cans per week".You are either wrong or lying (again), and I don't really care which.
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/retirement/future-of-social-security.aspx
________________________________________________________________________
Your reliance on media stories shows the limits your information you use to falsely state the solvency of the so-called Social Security Trust Fund.
If you were to examine the GAO reports you would find what so many real economists call the dangerously emanate insolvency of the “Trust Fund”. When the politicians say that fund is full of “IOUs” that are accurate. The GAO states these as “temporary allocations to…”. Those “IOUs” now amount to (as of Gov’t year end 2014) to $912 billion dollars.
Move past the media and start using actual data.
[Edited on 10/30/2015 by Muleman1994]
Deal, you just said that you can't rely on Fox News. Everyone here has known that Fox News was garbage for years. Glad you finally agree.
factcheck.org does have its facts… wrong.
“New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said that Social Security would be insolvent in seven to eight years. But even after the trust funds are exhausted — estimated to be in 14 to 19 years — the program can still pay out 73 percent of benefits for several decades.”
Actual economists agree with Gov. Chris Christie on the seven to eight years.
I can’t wait for the Democrats to hit the campaign trail and telling senior citizens that “we Democrats are sorry for the mismanagement of Social Security funds and our refusal to fix the system. Forget about what we promised you. You are just going to have to deal with a 27% reduction in your payments. I hope you really like tuna fish. Oh by the way, our 30 million dollar study has determined that your tuna fish allocation must be limited to two cans per week".You are either wrong or lying (again), and I don't really care which.
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/retirement/future-of-social-security.aspx
________________________________________________________________________
Your reliance on media stories shows the limits your information you use to falsely state the solvency of the so-called Social Security Trust Fund.
If you were to examine the GAO reports you would find what so many real economists call the dangerously emanate insolvency of the “Trust Fund”. When the politicians say that fund is full of “IOUs” that are accurate. The GAO states these as “temporary allocations to…”. Those “IOUs” now amount to (as of Gov’t year end 2014) to $912 billion dollars.
Move past the media and start using actual data.
[Edited on 10/30/2015 by Muleman1994]
Two of the links are media sources (FOX and Forbes, not exactly "mainstream liberal"), and two are not. Try again, sport.
factcheck.org does have its facts… wrong.
“New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said that Social Security would be insolvent in seven to eight years. But even after the trust funds are exhausted — estimated to be in 14 to 19 years — the program can still pay out 73 percent of benefits for several decades.”
Actual economists agree with Gov. Chris Christie on the seven to eight years.
I can’t wait for the Democrats to hit the campaign trail and telling senior citizens that “we Democrats are sorry for the mismanagement of Social Security funds and our refusal to fix the system. Forget about what we promised you. You are just going to have to deal with a 27% reduction in your payments. I hope you really like tuna fish. Oh by the way, our 30 million dollar study has determined that your tuna fish allocation must be limited to two cans per week".You are either wrong or lying (again), and I don't really care which.
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/retirement/future-of-social-security.aspx
________________________________________________________________________
Your reliance on media stories shows the limits your information you use to falsely state the solvency of the so-called Social Security Trust Fund.
If you were to examine the GAO reports you would find what so many real economists call the dangerously emanate insolvency of the “Trust Fund”. When the politicians say that fund is full of “IOUs” that are accurate. The GAO states these as “temporary allocations to…”. Those “IOUs” now amount to (as of Gov’t year end 2014) to $912 billion dollars.
Move past the media and start using actual data.
[Edited on 10/30/2015 by Muleman1994]
Two of the links are media sources (FOX and Forbes, not exactly "mainstream liberal"), and two are not. Try again, sport.
______________________________________________________________________
I said nothing about "mainstream media".
I simply pointed out that all of your information is based on media sources which demonstrates the weakness of your opinion.
Move past the media and start using actual data.
[Edited on 10/30/2015 by Muleman1994]
mule and alloak i understand your feelings that the moderators in all 3 debates seem to be taking cheap shots at the GOP candidates compared to the Dem's debates. it is probably somewhat/mostly true. but because of the tone and backgrounds and some of the things they have said on the campaign trail i have to wonder if they bring it on themselves. i know, i know, hillary has a past too and sanders is a socialist which should open them up to some of the nasty questions also. i'm just not sure if the GOP candidates are more worthy or more thin skinned or more defensive compared to clinton and sanders.
maybe that is a wrong assessment but i can't help but wonder if this is the case. i just don't buy the idea that everyone in the media is out to get them. that is just such a paranoid perspective and it doesn't make sense to me.
________________________________________________________________________
Everyone in the media is not “out to get them” but a significant portion of the mainstream media is liberal and have a vested interest in destroying any Republican.
The Press has but one obligation: To hold the government accountable and report to the people. That duty, the basis of their constitutional “Free Press” privilege, has long been corrupted.
In this particular instance, CNBC was chosen by The RNC specifically to address economic issues and CNBC agreed to that course. Obviously CNBC’s moderators chose to put on an attack the candidate scheme. No one can know whether the moderators themselves, their management or their mother ship NBC News chose to dump their agreed upon theme. The moderators crafted their questions with intentionally false, personal and inappropriate lead-in statements.
Compare if you will these CNBC moderators questions with those of CNN at the Democrat Party debate. CNN purposely lofted softballs and when the Democrat candidates did not answer the questions the moderators failed to press the candidates for an answer. The glaring example was the Democrat candidates attempting to outdo each other with the “Free Stuff” yet the moderators never asked them how they intend to pay for their vote buying giveaways.
The purpose of the debates is to expose the candidates for the Presidency to the public and allow the public to form their own opinions based on the candidate’s answers to questions about matters important to the citizens. The liberal mainstream media has deliberately failed in that respect and instead pushed their left-wing political agenda.
The bias in the mainstream media is clearly evident. CNN and NBC are beholden to the Clintons. CBS News in controlled by The White House.
The CNBC debates audience booing the moderators was also clear. The upside was the Republican candidates ripping the moderators a new one and exposing their politically motivated agenda. This is of course what the DNC wants. Note that every DNC debate scheduled is hosted by liberal media outlets.
It is not a good day when The LA Times, The Washington Post and many more liberal publications are panning CNBCs debate performance and noting their bias.
The media owe the country fair and balanced debates and information.
emanate? LOL 😮
_________________________________________________________________________
Your public school education is showing again.
"em·a·nate
[?em??n?t]
VERB
(emanate from)
(of something abstract but perceptible) issue or spread out from (a source):
"warmth emanated from the fireplace"
synonyms: originate · stem · derive · proceed · spring · issue · [more]"
And for pops, there are picture dictionaries to bring words and their meanings down to your level.
mule and alloak i understand your feelings that the moderators in all 3 debates seem to be taking cheap shots at the GOP candidates compared to the Dem's debates. it is probably somewhat/mostly true. but because of the tone and backgrounds and some of the things they have said on the campaign trail i have to wonder if they bring it on themselves. i know, i know, hillary has a past too and sanders is a socialist which should open them up to some of the nasty questions also. i'm just not sure if the GOP candidates are more worthy or more thin skinned or more defensive compared to clinton and sanders.
maybe that is a wrong assessment but i can't help but wonder if this is the case. i just don't buy the idea that everyone in the media is out to get them. that is just such a paranoid perspective and it doesn't make sense to me.
________________________________________________________________________
Everyone in the media is not “out to get them” but a significant portion of the mainstream media is liberal and have a vested interest in destroying any Republican.
The Press has but one obligation: To hold the government accountable and report to the people. That duty, the basis of their constitutional “Free Press” privilege, has long been corrupted.
In this particular instance, CNBC was chosen by The RNC specifically to address economic issues and CNBC agreed to that course. Obviously CNBC’s moderators chose to put on an attack the candidate scheme. No one can know whether the moderators themselves, their management or their mother ship NBC News chose to dump their agreed upon theme. The moderators crafted their questions with intentionally false, personal and inappropriate lead-in statements.
Compare if you will these CNBC moderators questions with those of CNN at the Democrat Party debate. CNN purposely lofted softballs and when the Democrat candidates did not answer the questions the moderators failed to press the candidates for an answer. The glaring example was the Democrat candidates attempting to outdo each other with the “Free Stuff” yet the moderators never asked them how they intend to pay for their vote buying giveaways.
The purpose of the debates is to expose the candidates for the Presidency to the public and allow the public to form their own opinions based on the candidate’s answers to questions about matters important to the citizens. The liberal mainstream media has deliberately failed in that respect and instead pushed their left-wing political agenda.
The bias in the mainstream media is clearly evident. CNN and NBC are beholden to the Clintons. CBS News in controlled by The White House.
The CNBC debates audience booing the moderators was also clear. The upside was the Republican candidates ripping the moderators a new one and exposing their politically motivated agenda. This is of course what the DNC wants. Note that every DNC debate scheduled is hosted by liberal media outlets.
It is not a good day when The LA Times, The Washington Post and many more liberal publications are panning CNBCs debate performance and noting their bias.
The media owe the country fair and balanced debates and information.
my friend, i accept your position and understanding of it, but i do not agree with it.
[Edited on 10/31/2015 by LeglizHemp]
mule and alloak i understand your feelings that the moderators in all 3 debates seem to be taking cheap shots at the GOP candidates compared to the Dem's debates. it is probably somewhat/mostly true. but because of the tone and backgrounds and some of the things they have said on the campaign trail i have to wonder if they bring it on themselves. i know, i know, hillary has a past too and sanders is a socialist which should open them up to some of the nasty questions also. i'm just not sure if the GOP candidates are more worthy or more thin skinned or more defensive compared to clinton and sanders.
maybe that is a wrong assessment but i can't help but wonder if this is the case. i just don't buy the idea that everyone in the media is out to get them. that is just such a paranoid perspective and it doesn't make sense to me.
________________________________________________________________________
Everyone in the media is not “out to get them” but a significant portion of the mainstream media is liberal and have a vested interest in destroying any Republican.
The Press has but one obligation: To hold the government accountable and report to the people. That duty, the basis of their constitutional “Free Press” privilege, has long been corrupted.
In this particular instance, CNBC was chosen by The RNC specifically to address economic issues and CNBC agreed to that course. Obviously CNBC’s moderators chose to put on an attack the candidate scheme. No one can know whether the moderators themselves, their management or their mother ship NBC News chose to dump their agreed upon theme. The moderators crafted their questions with intentionally false, personal and inappropriate lead-in statements.
Compare if you will these CNBC moderators questions with those of CNN at the Democrat Party debate. CNN purposely lofted softballs and when the Democrat candidates did not answer the questions the moderators failed to press the candidates for an answer. The glaring example was the Democrat candidates attempting to outdo each other with the “Free Stuff” yet the moderators never asked them how they intend to pay for their vote buying giveaways.
The purpose of the debates is to expose the candidates for the Presidency to the public and allow the public to form their own opinions based on the candidate’s answers to questions about matters important to the citizens. The liberal mainstream media has deliberately failed in that respect and instead pushed their left-wing political agenda.
The bias in the mainstream media is clearly evident. CNN and NBC are beholden to the Clintons. CBS News in controlled by The White House.
The CNBC debates audience booing the moderators was also clear. The upside was the Republican candidates ripping the moderators a new one and exposing their politically motivated agenda. This is of course what the DNC wants. Note that every DNC debate scheduled is hosted by liberal media outlets.
It is not a good day when The LA Times, The Washington Post and many more liberal publications are panning CNBCs debate performance and noting their bias.
The media owe the country fair and balanced debates and information.
my friend, i accept your position and understanding of it, but i do not agree with it.
[Edited on 10/31/2015 by LeglizHemp]
______________________________________________________________________
As Brother Duane would say "its all good"!
Mule, the media is not liberal. It is corporate.
Cute cut and paste.
The media are corporations but with a heavy liberal bias.
Your graphic also shows that the "Free Press" is in violation of their own obligation.
So far no candidate has been caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy... yet.
emanate? LOL 😮
_________________________________________________________________________
Your public school education is showing again.
"em·a·nate
[?em??n?t]
VERB(emanate from)
(of something abstract but perceptible) issue or spread out from (a source):
"warmth emanated from the fireplace"
synonyms: originate · stem · derive · proceed · spring · issue · [more]"And for pops, there are picture dictionaries to bring words and their meanings down to your level.
It's a word, just not the right one for that sentence............................. duh........... 😛
So, here is the clause in question: "you would find what so many real economists call the dangerously emanate insolvency of the “Trust Fund”. "
As Muleman angrily asserted, the word "emanate" is indeed a word, and it is a verb. However, no verb could ever fit into that part of the sentence, between an adverb and a noun. That's not how word order works in English.
Muleman also gave the definition of "emanate," and the meaning was correct. However, a word with that meaning does not fit into the logic of that sentence.
Muleman combined this offering of misapplied information with an insult to the public school system. He can use his private school education to look up the word "irony," I guess, but looking words up does not seem to do him any good.
So, here is the clause in question: "you would find what so many real economists call the dangerously emanate insolvency of the “Trust Fund”. "
As Muleman angrily asserted, the word "emanate" is indeed a word, and it is a verb. However, no verb could ever fit into that part of the sentence, between an adverb and a noun. That's not how word order works in English.
Muleman also gave the definition of "emanate," and the meaning was correct. However, a word with that meaning does not fit into the logic of that sentence.
Muleman combined this offering of misapplied information with an insult to the public school system. He can use his private school education to look up the word "irony," I guess, but looking words up does not seem to do him any good.
😛 😛 
So, here is the clause in question: "you would find what so many real economists call the dangerously emanate insolvency of the “Trust Fund”. "
As Muleman angrily asserted, the word "emanate" is indeed a word, and it is a verb. However, no verb could ever fit into that part of the sentence, between an adverb and a noun. That's not how word order works in English.
Muleman also gave the definition of "emanate," and the meaning was correct. However, a word with that meaning does not fit into the logic of that sentence.
Muleman combined this offering of misapplied information with an insult to the public school system. He can use his private school education to look up the word "irony," I guess, but looking words up does not seem to do him any good.
😛 😛
_______________________________________________________________________
My word usage is correct. Your simplistic sentence structure assertion merely shows the limits of your education.
The public school system is an insult to everyone stuck in it. The curriculum has been weakened to the point that many students potential is never achieved. That system is graduating students who cannot read or write. Many who actually do graduate cannot handle even a basic college education.
Teachers who are incapable of teaching are kept in the classroom by their unions. Look at the hundreds of teachers in the N.Y. Public School system and many others who are on paid leave for 10 years or more because they had to be removed from the classroom but cannot be fired because they are “protected”.
American taxpayers are forced to continue to pay for an inadequate and failed system. Liberals constantly call for more funding but you will never hear them call for accountability.
My word usage is correct. Your simplistic sentence structure assertion merely shows the limits of your education.
Wrong again............. 😛
Boy, Mule, by trying to appear high and mighty, you have embarrassed yourself. I didn't think this would get this odd.
Look back at your original sentence. What everyone knows is that you wrote the verb "emanate" when you meant the adjective "imminent." That is the word that truly does fit the meaning of that sentence. "Imminent" is the word, so you got called for using the wrong word, "emanate." That word does not work grammatically, nor does it work in terms of meaning.
When you got called on as basic and inarguable of an error as confusing "constipated" with "congregated," the simple thing to do is simply say "Late night!" Or "Too much Jack" or better yet, "Gregg does this all the time!" But you angrily and aggressively pursued a "down is up!" argument, embarrassing yourself.
I'll go back to your sentence. What part of speech goes in this space?
"....the dangerously _____________ insolvency"
So, you have the article "the," followed by the adverb "dangerously," then the word in question, and then a noun.
Please explain how a verb (such as "emanate") could fit in that slot.
[Edited on 11/1/2015 by JimSheridan]
Cute cut and paste.
The media are corporations but with a heavy liberal bias.Your graphic also shows that the "Free Press" is in violation of their own obligation.
The "Corporate Press" has no obligation to anyone except their shareholders. They exist to make money. They don't have an obligation to cover any "news" except "news" that will make people tune in to their channels or buy their media. The idea that the media is "liberal" is delusional and completely discounts reality.
There are very few outlets where you can get news unfiltered by corporations. Try "Democracy Now the War and Peace Report" with Amy Goodman on Free Speech TV. It is unlike any main stream media you've ever watched.
In my area I can get Fox news M-F for 9 1/2 hours daily in a 24 hour period.
Damn liberal corporate media bastards...
factcheck.org does have its facts… wrong.
“New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said that Social Security would be insolvent in seven to eight years. But even after the trust funds are exhausted — estimated to be in 14 to 19 years — the program can still pay out 73 percent of benefits for several decades.”
Actual economists agree with Gov. Chris Christie on the seven to eight years.
I can’t wait for the Democrats to hit the campaign trail and telling senior citizens that “we Democrats are sorry for the mismanagement of Social Security funds and our refusal to fix the system. Forget about what we promised you. You are just going to have to deal with a 27% reduction in your payments. I hope you really like tuna fish. Oh by the way, our 30 million dollar study has determined that your tuna fish allocation must be limited to two cans per week".You are either wrong or lying (again), and I don't really care which.
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/retirement/future-of-social-security.aspx
________________________________________________________________________
Your reliance on media stories shows the limits your information you use to falsely state the solvency of the so-called Social Security Trust Fund.
If you were to examine the GAO reports you would find what so many real economists call the dangerously emanate insolvency of the “Trust Fund”. When the politicians say that fund is full of “IOUs” that are accurate. The GAO states these as “temporary allocations to…”. Those “IOUs” now amount to (as of Gov’t year end 2014) to $912 billion dollars.
Move past the media and start using actual data.
[Edited on 10/30/2015 by Muleman1994]
Two of the links are media sources (FOX and Forbes, not exactly "mainstream liberal"), and two are not. Try again, sport.
______________________________________________________________________
I said nothing about "mainstream media".
I simply pointed out that all of your information is based on media sources which demonstrates the weakness of your opinion.Move past the media and start using actual data.
I said nothing about "mainstream media" either, and what you "simply pointed out" is indeed flat out wrong. *shocker*
And what the heck do you mean by this exactly: "the dangerously emanate insolvency of the “Trust Fund”"?? Did you mean to use "imminent" instead of "emanate"? Oh wait, I see someone already has pointed that out and doubled down by saying you did mean to use "emanate" and seem to think it fits in that sentence somehow. Ok, that explains a lot actually.
factcheck.org does have its facts… wrong.
“New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said that Social Security would be insolvent in seven to eight years. But even after the trust funds are exhausted — estimated to be in 14 to 19 years — the program can still pay out 73 percent of benefits for several decades.”
Actual economists agree with Gov. Chris Christie on the seven to eight years.
I can’t wait for the Democrats to hit the campaign trail and telling senior citizens that “we Democrats are sorry for the mismanagement of Social Security funds and our refusal to fix the system. Forget about what we promised you. You are just going to have to deal with a 27% reduction in your payments. I hope you really like tuna fish. Oh by the way, our 30 million dollar study has determined that your tuna fish allocation must be limited to two cans per week".You are either wrong or lying (again), and I don't really care which.
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/retirement/future-of-social-security.aspx
________________________________________________________________________
Your reliance on media stories shows the limits your information you use to falsely state the solvency of the so-called Social Security Trust Fund.
If you were to examine the GAO reports you would find what so many real economists call the dangerously emanate insolvency of the “Trust Fund”. When the politicians say that fund is full of “IOUs” that are accurate. The GAO states these as “temporary allocations to…”. Those “IOUs” now amount to (as of Gov’t year end 2014) to $912 billion dollars.
Move past the media and start using actual data.
[Edited on 10/30/2015 by Muleman1994]
Two of the links are media sources (FOX and Forbes, not exactly "mainstream liberal"), and two are not. Try again, sport.
______________________________________________________________________
I said nothing about "mainstream media".
I simply pointed out that all of your information is based on media sources which demonstrates the weakness of your opinion.Move past the media and start using actual data.
I said nothing about "mainstream media" either, and what you "simply pointed out" is indeed flat out wrong. *shocker*
And what the heck do you mean by this exactly: "the dangerously emanate insolvency of the “Trust Fund”"?? Did you mean to use "imminent" instead of "emanate"? Oh wait, I see someone already has pointed that out and doubled down by saying you did mean to use "emanate" and seem to think it fits in that sentence somehow. Ok, that explains a lot actually.
____________________________________________________________________
And yet your assertion on the number of years Social Security can still meet it's obligations without significant changes remains wrong.
Boy, Mule, by trying to appear high and mighty, you have embarrassed yourself. I didn't think this would get this odd.
Look back at your original sentence. What everyone knows is that you wrote the verb "emanate" when you meant the adjective "imminent." That is the word that truly does fit the meaning of that sentence. "Imminent" is the word, so you got called for using the wrong word, "emanate." That word does not work grammatically, nor does it work in terms of meaning.
When you got called on as basic and inarguable of an error as confusing "constipated" with "congregated," the simple thing to do is simply say "Late night!" Or "Too much Jack" or better yet, "Gregg does this all the time!" But you angrily and aggressively pursued a "down is up!" argument, embarrassing yourself.
I'll go back to your sentence. What part of speech goes in this space?
"....the dangerously _____________ insolvency"
So, you have the article "the," followed by the adverb "dangerously," then the word in question, and then a noun.
Please explain how a verb (such as "emanate") could fit in that slot.
[Edited on 11/1/2015 by JimSheridan]
________________________________________________________________________
You sound way too stressed out. Attempting to try and cover for sang and pops will do that to you.
Read their posts and you see something consistently missing. Once you realize it your angst should abate.
Gotta agree, the Social Security system is in emanate danger of collapse.
Gotta agree, the Social Security system is in emanate danger of collapse.
___________________________________________________________________________
The main problem is that if a politician were to offer a solution they would be skewered, humiliated and destroyed.
For starters.
Gotta agree, the Social Security system is in emanate danger of collapse.
___________________________________________________________________________
The main problem is that if a politician were to offer a solution they would be skewered, humiliated and destroyed.
For starters.
LMAO..... you still don't get it..............
What ? He's right, given the current political vibes that now imminent from DC, the Social Security issue is a red hot potato.
What ? He's right, given the current political vibes that now imminent from DC, the Social Security issue is a red hot potato.
________________________________________________________________________
And it is election season.
Wait... it is always election season.
Maybe it will be addressed when it hits the fan. When the Social Security "Trust Fund" is gone The Government will have to take emergency measures!
"Trust Fund"?
Trust it is there...yea, right.
