What ? He's right, given the current political vibes that now imminent from DC, the Social Security issue is a red hot potato.
Ohhhh, I see what you did there...
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 Chris Christie's assertion on the number of years Social Security can still meet it's obligations without significant changes remains wrong.
Fixed it for you.
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 Chris Christie's assertion on the number of years Social Security can still meet it's obligations without significant changes remains wrong.
Fixed it for you.
___________________________________________________________________
Continuing to lie about the facts simply shows your inability or unwillingness to accept reality.
While running away from the problem is the Democrats standard it is the people who will suffer at their hands.
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 Chris Christie's assertion on the number of years Social Security can still meet it's obligations without significant changes remains wrong.
Fixed it for you.
___________________________________________________________________
Continuing to lie about the facts simply shows your inability or unwillingness to accept reality.
While running away from the problem is the Democrats standard it is the people who will suffer at their hands.
"Continuing to lie" is all you know how to do.
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 Chris Christie's assertion on the number of years Social Security can still meet it's obligations without significant changes remains wrong.
Fixed it for you.
___________________________________________________________________
Continuing to lie about the facts simply shows your inability or unwillingness to accept reality.
While running away from the problem is the Democrats standard it is the people who will suffer at their hands.
"Continuing to lie" is all you know how to do.
________________________________________________________________________
The word you need to learn is objectivity.
If you wish to purport an opinion you should at least be able to back it up with creditable sources.
So far that has eluded you.
[Edited on 11/5/2015 by Muleman1994]
I can understand small time politicos backing off from the Social Security issue to save their hides, and continue their climb, but when are imminent leaders on both sides of the house going to pony up on this?
I can understand small time politicos backing off from the Social Security issue to save their hides, and continue their climb, but when are imminent leaders on both sides of the house going to pony up on this?
________________________________________________________________________
When one or the other party declares the because of the other party, senior citizen's checks won't be going out.
Back in the only Democrat debate to date, Bernie Sanders threw cover for Hillary Clinton with his “enough about the damn emails!”.
Not any more:
Bernie Sanders takes gloves off against Hillary Clinton in interview
Sanders: 'Valid questions' raised over Clinton emails
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is drawing sharper distinctions with front-runner Hillary Clinton, casting her policy reversals over the years as a character issue that voters should take into account when they evaluate the Democratic field.
Sen. Sanders of Vermont, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, also said the federal investigation of the security surrounding Mrs. Clinton's private email account is appropriate.
In the Democratic debate last month, Mr. Sanders said voters were "sick and tired" of the focus on Mrs. Clinton's "damn emails." Afterward, many Democrats and political analysts said that he had appeared to dismiss her use of a private email account and server in her four years as secretary of state.
Mr. Sanders rejected that assessment on Wednesday. If her email practices foiled public-records requests or compromised classified information, those are "valid questions," Mr. Sanders said.
Mr. Sanders's pointed comments mark a turning point in what has been a polite Democratic contest. When he entered the race in the spring, Mr. Sanders barely mentioned Mrs. Clinton by name. When he did, it was merely to spell out plain-vanilla differences over policy.
