General Discussion

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)

88. Honestly? because theft is not an option, it isn't really true it's accounting fraud

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 03:30 PM

Feb 2013

fraud may make the books all pretty and black, but the money artificially counted a second time on your ledger belongs to the creditor it was stolen from.

If we are to embezzle our dept payments and fake the books to make debt appear to be revenue, why is that OK at all, and if fraud is OK, could we not steal from our elders but rather a creditor that is at least able to defend itself like the Chinese and Saudis?

Do you believe that embezzling debt owed is OK if done against the elderly because they are weak and unable to defend themselves? I know confidence men have believed that for a long time and prey on them as well.

You appear to have the morals of a garden slug, my guess, former Enron accountant or equivalent grifter that hangs around retirement homes with worthless paper to sell.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

159 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If no cuts to Social Security, why must the president include "protections for the vulnerable?" [View all] madfloridian Feb 2013 OP

-1000 to the OP. graham4anything Feb 2013 #1

Thanks,graham! sheshe2 Feb 2013 #3

Do you agree we need the cuts? madfloridian Feb 2013 #11

Why? Hissyspit Feb 2013 #40

What I do not agree to in this OP is sheshe2 Feb 2013 #45

That's fine, but madfloridian does not participate Hissyspit Feb 2013 #47

I truly think we should be far more concerned sheshe2 Feb 2013 #51

No, the GOP owns neither the SS cuts or the education reform. madfloridian Feb 2013 #57

You can not be serious. sheshe2 Feb 2013 #58

Very serious. If they made them their policies, they now own them. madfloridian Feb 2013 #64

Then teachers own salary and benefit concessions michigandem58 Feb 2013 #97

That analogy doesn't work. blackspade Feb 2013 #137

Think about it... madfloridian Feb 2013 #138

I'll agree with you on charter schools michigandem58 Feb 2013 #146

Then let them do it without personal propping. treestar Feb 2013 #79

That's funny, that's strange, but it is rather hateful to say. madfloridian Feb 2013 #81

OMG!!! a "Reverse Ad Hominem" !!! bvar22 Feb 2013 #92

Then let those who disagree with OP do it without substance-less first-post knee-jerk disapproval. Hissyspit Feb 2013 #95

Well it was rather treestar Feb 2013 #127

It bothered you because someone gave me a compliment? madfloridian Feb 2013 #131

Thank you treestar... sheshe2 Feb 2013 #132

Obama's plan includes chained CPI which = CUTS. It may be that this is some kind of 3-dimensional HiPointDem Feb 2013 #48

Except that's not the counterproposal in entirety, is it? Honestly, now....is it? Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #122

2/3 of SS recipients rely on it for 50% or more of their income, and the top 1/3 gets taxed on HiPointDem Feb 2013 #140

Protections for the vulnerable. That's the fact. Plus, the Repubs will NEVER accept that proposal. Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #156

'protections for the vulnerable' = meaningless blow job in this context HiPointDem Feb 2013 #157

You can believe what you want. Free country. But it's a meaningless proposal. Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #158

and there's no harm in raising a stink when any politician makes such a proposal. to let them HiPointDem Feb 2013 #159

Sometimes it is about far more than Obama. madfloridian Feb 2013 #53

No disrespect to you at all madforidian, sheshe2 Feb 2013 #55

By waiting and seeing, deals get implemented without input or protest from the affected tpsbmam Feb 2013 #147

The naysayers have *not* been proven wrong-- the pollyanna, "trust him" gang has been Marr Feb 2013 #54

Pollyanna, no. sheshe2 Feb 2013 #56

You were proven wrong when he proposed SS cuts. Marr Feb 2013 #71

exactly stupidicus Feb 2013 #128

Exactly who are you calling a freak/purist? nt sheshe2 Feb 2013 #133

obviously stupidicus Feb 2013 #151

Sounds like the poor on Social Security won't be affected by chained CPI, anyway. Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #121

Wow madfloridian Feb 2013 #5

In more ways then one. Hissyspit Feb 2013 #39

heh heh madfloridian Feb 2013 #73

At first I read it as +1000 & I thought, CrispyQ Feb 2013 #101

She's questioning authority. Bringing important facts and truths to our attention. Zorra Feb 2013 #20

I imagine his next post: are you now or have you ever been a Naderite Republican? Dragonfli Feb 2013 #26

I take it you didn't like that question. nt woo me with science Feb 2013 #22

Yeah, typical. Hissyspit Feb 2013 #38

Means a lot coming from you. madfloridian Feb 2013 #43

I'll second that. FogerRox Feb 2013 #61

FogerRox! Haven't seen you around in ages. madfloridian Feb 2013 #65

Sup FogerRox Feb 2013 #67

I'm at Kos also. Since 2004 I think. madfloridian Feb 2013 #70

ask for an invite to Social Security Defenders group FogerRox Feb 2013 #74

SSD @DK, ask 4 invite to group FogerRox Feb 2013 #75

Done. madfloridian Feb 2013 #85

Couldn't agree more. nt tpsbmam Feb 2013 #148

What a stupid post. Jakes Progress Feb 2013 #107

Does this mean you support Republicans putting SS cuts on the table, claiming sabrina 1 Feb 2013 #155

+ 1001 DJ13 Feb 2013 #2

And remember, the $1000 reduction over 15 years becomes the new baseline Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #4

Yep, its like compounding interest DJ13 Feb 2013 #6

Well, in their defense, there isn't a hell of a lot they can do about it. Marr Feb 2013 #9

+1. It's a recipe for immiseration and the destruction of the program. HiPointDem Feb 2013 #49

+10000 Thank you. woo me with science Feb 2013 #91

^^^^^Excellent point! Thanks, Demo_Chris^^^^^^ nt tpsbmam Feb 2013 #149

+1 leftstreet Feb 2013 #153

Nearly 10% of seniors are already below the poverty line. joshcryer Feb 2013 #7

And if he isn't actually selling it, why dress it up? Marr Feb 2013 #8

+1 woo me with science Feb 2013 #18

Here's a page of polls from google..perhaps those up for election in 2014 need to beware. madfloridian Feb 2013 #10

This President has a fetish for cutting Social Security MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #12

Choosing Simpson and Bowles sent a message to seniors, I think. madfloridian Feb 2013 #13

As Clinton's Chief of Staff, Bowles brokered a deal between Clinton and Gingrich MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #14

Yep...and just end of last week Simpson & Bowles were over the KoKo Feb 2013 #99

Hoping that they Nite Owl Feb 2013 #103

Yep. nt MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #112

Campaign promise kept! joshcryer Feb 2013 #15

Great big ol' K&R MotherPetrie Feb 2013 #16

It is obscene of Obama to pretend it is "balanced" to hurt seniors who forestpath Feb 2013 #17

Very sad state 840high Feb 2013 #21

+100000 It's unconscionable. woo me with science Feb 2013 #24

Unconscionable and incomprehensible. hay rick Feb 2013 #28

K&R and a +1000 to counteract the first reply :-D (n/t) a2liberal Feb 2013 #19

Thanks. madfloridian Feb 2013 #23

SS should be strengthened JEB Feb 2013 #25

Job creation and raising the min wage means more FICA FogerRox Feb 2013 #66

Must protect poor little, vulnerable banksters, as always. Fuddnik Feb 2013 #27

Actually, that REALLY IS one of the rationalizations used here, for reallzies: Dragonfli Feb 2013 #30

From that source, I'm not the least surprised. Fuddnik Feb 2013 #104

Huge, huge K&R, woo me with science Feb 2013 #29

Thank you for that. madfloridian Feb 2013 #41

You're so right. woo me with science Feb 2013 #134

It's eleventeen dimensional chess donchaknow. progressoid Feb 2013 #31

K & R AzDar Feb 2013 #32

First Democratic president to cut Social Security? Not quite. JayhawkSD Feb 2013 #33

Yes, and the impact ProSense Feb 2013 #42

That was then. This is now. I have criticized Clinton for things like that. madfloridian Feb 2013 #46

Are we getting disillusioned yet? nt fadedrose Feb 2013 #34

POTUS Obama has usually put neoliberal ideas on the table. PufPuf23 Feb 2013 #35

Why would President Obama want to "protections for the vulnerable?" ProSense Feb 2013 #36

Because "superlative CPI" is a BENEFIT CUT. nt hay rick Feb 2013 #37

If this is the benefits cuts Republicans want, why aren't they jumping on it? n/t ProSense Feb 2013 #44

cause they're playing 3-dimensional chess too.... HiPointDem Feb 2013 #50

Now that I think about it, you're right, Obama put it on the table, Dragonfli Feb 2013 #52

Obama is an individual Babel_17 Feb 2013 #123

I'm very much afraid that if Dems are linked to SS cuts... Jasana Feb 2013 #59

No. LWolf Feb 2013 #60

No, you are not being paranoid. madfloridian Feb 2013 #62

Not at all. It would make 2014 a potential Waterloo. FogerRox Feb 2013 #63

And we will be told to vote for the lesser of two evils again, CrispyQ Feb 2013 #113

Fuck with OUR Social Security and reap the whirlwind, Democrats. 99Forever Feb 2013 #68

New poll out from The Hill. 62% of Republicans oppose cuts. 82% of Democrats. madfloridian Feb 2013 #69

Count me in the 82% Progressive dog Feb 2013 #98

If it includes "protections for the vulnerable" Autumn Feb 2013 #72

Sigh. Yes, the chained CPI would reduce the budget deficit Recursion Feb 2013 #76

Not paying ones bills does "appear" to leave more money in the bank, Dragonfli Feb 2013 #86

Well, yes, defaulting on all foreign-held bonds would decrease the deficit also Recursion Feb 2013 #87

Honestly? because theft is not an option, it isn't really true it's accounting fraud Dragonfli Feb 2013 #88

We "owe" SS retirees precisely what we legally obligate ourselves to pay them Recursion Feb 2013 #89

keep telling yourself that, I am sure someday you will believe it Dragonfli Feb 2013 #90

What do you mean, "And that has changed over time?" John2 Feb 2013 #115

The same reason lipstick is applied to pigs. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #77

Finally an answer to the question! woo me with science Feb 2013 #82

Just about the truth. madfloridian Feb 2013 #84

The question is not whether it is a "cut" treestar Feb 2013 #78

Here are a bunch of links from a google search of "social security cuts 2013" madfloridian Feb 2013 #83

They won't. MessiahRp Feb 2013 #106

Then I'd prefer honesty Babel_17 Feb 2013 #116

K & R historylovr Feb 2013 #80

Vague and Arbitrary "Protections for The Vulnerable"? bvar22 Feb 2013 #93

That's the big question at the heart of that statement isn't it? Pretty damn sad. K&R nt riderinthestorm Feb 2013 #94

From Dean Baker at Truth Out. madfloridian Feb 2013 #96

A Definite Read...thanks for putting this in the thread... KoKo Feb 2013 #100

That Biden quote Babel_17 Feb 2013 #124

K&R for this POST. nt woo me with science Feb 2013 #141

Where is everyone? Nite Owl Feb 2013 #102

Kick and Rec. Fuddnik Feb 2013 #105

We have to face it. Jakes Progress Feb 2013 #108

We were only offered corporatists. woo me with science Feb 2013 #142

Even the very best Jakes Progress Feb 2013 #154

Wall Street wants that money... awoke_in_2003 Feb 2013 #109

George Carlin was right. dgibby Feb 2013 #152

kickety theaocp Feb 2013 #110

K&R (n/t) bread_and_roses Feb 2013 #111

K&R CrispyQ Feb 2013 #114

I seldom watch any political stuff on TV anymore. madfloridian Feb 2013 #125

Where's the AARP on this? Or have they lost all relevance? Canuckistanian Feb 2013 #117

Actually the AARP has been strongly against chained cpi. Link madfloridian Feb 2013 #143

Thanks! Canuckistanian Feb 2013 #144

I stand with Senator Sanders (nt) Babel_17 Feb 2013 #118

This is not what I voted for newfie11 Feb 2013 #119

"the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change" Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #120

the threat it represents to his legacy stupidicus Feb 2013 #126

A chained CPI would be an institutionalized lie. dawg Feb 2013 #129

For those who don't understand, this is how you flush away overwhelming advantage Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #130

+1 forestpath Feb 2013 #136

What utter BS ProSense Feb 2013 #145

Strange....Ya know? blackspade Feb 2013 #135

Food Stamps, Welfare, School lunches.... WCGreen Feb 2013 #139

Excellent question & post, madfloridian tpsbmam Feb 2013 #150