Sup echo chamber -- Waiting for Gov't Checks Threaed

[shagdrum]

Apparently it never occurred to Johnny that I simply don't want to waste my time engaging people who are not interested in any honest discussion.

If someone is going to assume, a priori, that your views are not just wrong but, "illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration" Then their only interest in debate would seem to be to find some way to rationalize their rejection of your view.

Wasting time engaging them will not lead to anything productive and will only get more contentious as they get more and more belligerent in their question to delegitimize your view.

Unfortunately that is the only attitude Johnny ever approaches any debate with in the political section of this forum.

 

[Calabrio]

What's that? Are you asking me to leave?

Not at all, I'm just reminding you that you're not forced to stay.
If you don't have the "time" or, more accurately, the ability to debate or discuss facts and current events, there's hardly any point in your periodic visits and troll droppings. That's all.

I wish we had more articulate and THOUGHTFUL social liberals and self-identified socialists in this community that would engage in an honest and frank exchange in ideas. So.. until then, we make do with people like you.

 

[fossten]

Thanks for the non-contribution to this thread. Now go back into hiding behind Cal's skirt, little boy.

Bak. Derk-derk-Allah. Derka derka, Mohammed Jihad. Haka sherpa-sherpa. Abaka-la.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

It is up to YOU to substantiate your statement w/ evidence or facts. Put-up or shut-up.

I can't substantiate my statment w/ evidence of facts, so I'll hide behind my cloak of not wanting to debate w/ people who challenge my false pretenses while I claim its a waste of my time to engage in honest debate.

FAIL. :sleep:

As typical of my visits here to this echo chamber, as soon as you 3 loudmouths spouting RWW rhetoric and talking points are challenged w/ facts, you retreat to the SAME tactics you accuse the left on here of doing: Condensession, dismissal & personal attacks. It is YOU who are incapable of engaging in an honest and frank exchange in ideas without resorting to your old tactics in the face of a sincere challenge. But that is already obvious to anyone who visits. It is still great entertainment to expose you for the hypocrites your are. I'll at least thank you for that.

 

[Calabrio]

I could go on and on but what's the point? I'm only talking to a brick wall thats been brainwashed by Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh, who hate this country so much they'd work to undermine EVERYTHING GOOD Obama / Dems are trying to do so that it appears they are "damaging this country" so that the GOBP will win back power.

This is the most interesting thing you've said.
It's also the most telling.

The complete paragraph not only demonstrates the absolutely depth of your ignorance and sheep like behavior, it also shows just how hostile and reactionary you are.

You start off, again, stating that you won't even be bothered to engage or discuss anything- the people that you don't seem to agree with aren't worth it, that they are "brainwashed." A ridiculous claim, but one you seem to repeat out of laziness and ignorance.

Then you presume that the political opposition to the agenda being thrust upon the American people right now is motivated by political opportunism. That the opposition to this massive expansion of federal power is really just a strategy to help "Republican" gain power, purely for partisan reasons.

And you close the paragraph off attempting to link the Republican party with British Petroleum.

It's just a staggering piece of writing.
It's absurd, hateful, focus, uncontrolled, and wildly ignorant all at one time.

Of course, BP was closely aligned with the Democrats and the Obama administration. Obama was the biggest recipient of BP donations. This doesn't mean Obama was necessarily responsible for the explosion, the handling of this administration in the 80 day old oil leak is a different conversation, but the implication that the GOP and BP were cozy with each other is simply untrue. If you know that, you're lying. If you didn't, you're ignorant. I won't call you a liar, I'll give you the doubt and presume you're just intellectually lazy and don't know these things.

I'm only talking to a brick ...who hate this country so much they'd work to undermine EVERYTHING GOOD Obama / Dems are trying to do so that it appears they are "damaging this country" so that the GOBP will win back power.

Look at what you said. You said that Fossten, Shag, and myself HATE this country. That we are attempting undermine it's success just to win seats for the Republican party. Do you realize how twisted and vile that logic is? Do you actually believe that?

Do you say that because that's what YOU and the people you associate would do? Because I can say with certainty that people like Shag, Fossten, and myself, people who oppose the political agenda being advanced in Washington aren't doing it for partisan reasons, it's motivated by principles, values, and LOVE of country.

Personally, I'm disgusted by the GOP, however I recognize that, right now, restoring the country might only be possible by using the GOP. Sadly, the GOP is the only party that has any room under it's big tent for people that believe in individual liberty, federalism, the constitution, and free-market capitalism. Unfortunately, the DNC has purged it's leadership of such believes years ago.

But what do you love about this country, Johnny?
Because, it's sounds to me like you really just like the real estate and some of the people, not the philosophy, the freedom, the constitution, our history, or the founding principles. If you did really love this country, you wouldn't support the destruction of those things.

Maybe you don't realize that, but those things are being destroyed.
It's been a steady process for many years, but this administration is doing that at a rate, with an intensity that hasn't ever been seen. He's a radical leftist, not the centrist, unifying moderate the the press presented himself as during the campaign. Have the honesty to admit that, or open your eyes and realize it.

 

[shagdrum]

So Johnny, you are no literally making up things for people to say? Unquestionably lying about them and putting words in their mouth?

Where did I ever say this:

I can't substantiate my statment w/ evidence of facts, so I'll hide behind my cloak of not wanting to debate w/ people who challenge my false pretenses while I claim its a waste of my time to engage in honest debate.​

There is no justification for that.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Oh my, a rant straight from a U-of-Beck lecture. Sweet.

Quote:
I'm only talking to a brick ...who hate this country so much they'd work to undermine EVERYTHING GOOD Obama / Dems are trying to do so that it appears they are "damaging this country" so that the GOBP will win back power.

Look at what you said. You said that Fossten, Shag, and myself HATE this country. That we are attempting undermine it's success just to win seats for the Republican party. Do you realize how twisted and vile that logic is? Do you actually believe that?

Nice attempt at taking my words out of context and twisting them to fit your distorted view of the world.

I never said that you, foss and shag hate this country, I was referring to Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh:

....... thats been brainwashed by Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh, who hate this country .......

Because, it's sounds to me like you really just like the real estate and some of the people, not the philosophy, the freedom, the constitution, our history, or the founding principles. If you did really love this country, you wouldn't support the destruction of those things.

Maybe you don't realize that, but those things are being destroyed.
It's been a steady process for many years, but this administration is doing that at a rate, with an intensity that hasn't ever been seen.

Your claims of "destruction" of these things is vastly exaggerated and flat out wrong. I could spend hours debunking each and every exaggerated claim you make, but it will be all for naught. In fact, most of those have already been debunked on this forum, but there is no convincing you of that.

He's a radical leftist, not the centrist, unifying moderate the the press presented himself as during the campaign. Have the honesty to admit that, or open your eyes and realize it

As for these claims, again exaggerated. I DO and HAVE admitted Obama is not the "manna from heaven" his campaign had portrayed. There have been several "progressive" things he has not pursued (some of which I don't agree with personally, so those broken promises aren't breaking my heart anyway). But given the choices between Obama and the old fart and the "Quitter From Wasiller", this country is MUCH better off than we would be had the '08 election gone the other way.

...but the implication that the GOP and BP were cozy with each other is simply untrue.

GOP not in bed w/ BP?? You are a joke.

 

[foxpaws]

And shag - as far as your little tax study at Heritage, in 2001 - you might want to look at some more recent information -

Evidence Shows That Tax Cuts Lose Revenue

The claim that tax cuts “pay for themselves” — i.e., cause so much economic growth that revenues rise faster than they would have without the tax cut — has been made repeatedly in recent years and is one of the many tax policy issues that is likely to receive renewed attention in light of the upcoming election. As explained briefly below, this claim is false. The evidence shows clearly that tax cuts lose revenue.[1]

The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts have not paid for themselves. There is no evidence that the tax cuts caused any increase in economic growth, let alone growth sufficient to offset their cost. In fact, the 2001-2007 economic expansion was among the weakest since World War II with regard to overall economic growth. [2] Moreover, revenue growth was very poor during 2001-2007. Real per-capita revenues fell deeply in 2001, 2002, and 2003 and have since risen to barely 2 percent above their 2001 level. Over the course of other postwar economic expansions, they grew by an average of 12 percent.[3]

Previous tax cuts did not pay for themselves either. In 1981, when Congress substantially lowered marginal income tax rates on the well-off, supporters claimed the cuts would boost economic growth. In 1990 and 1993, when Congress raised marginal income tax rates on the well-off, opponents claimed the increases would harm the economy.

In fact, the economy grew at about the same rate in the 1990s, following tax increases, as in the 1980s, following a large tax cut.[4] And revenues grew twice as fast in the in the 1990s (3.5 percent in real per-capita terms) as in the 1980s (1.5 percent).[5]

Capital gains rate cuts, like other tax cuts, lower revenue in the long run. Especially when a capital gains cut is temporary, like the 2003 cut, investors have a strong incentive to realize their capital gains before the old, higher rate returns. This can cause a short-term increase in revenues, as happened after 2003. (Capital gains realizations also went up after 2003 because of the increase in the U.S. stock market. The capital gains tax cut cannot take credit for the stock market recovery, though, since European stocks performed just as well as U.S. stocks during this period.[6])

Over the long run, however, there is virtually no evidence that cutting capital gains taxes spurs nearly enough economic growth to pay for itself. As the Congressional Budget Office recently stated, the “best estimates of taxpayers’ response to changes in the capital gains tax rates do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains — and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from lower rates.”[7]

Deficit-financed tax cuts carry significant costs that are likely to outweigh any short-term boost in economic growth. Deficit-financed tax cuts can stimulate an economy in recession and temporarily improve growth. In the long run, however, the resulting deficits lower national savings and are a drag on the economy. Thus, such tax cuts would lose revenues both by cutting tax rates and by harming the economy. Brookings Institution economist William Gale and now-CBO director Peter Orszag concluded that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are “likely to reduce, not increase, national income in the long term” because of their effect in swelling the deficit.[8] CBO’s recent study of a deficit-financed extension of the 2001 and 2003 income-tax cuts found that “real [Gross National Product] per person would decline by 13 percent in 2050” relative to a extension that was financed through a balanced mix of revenue and spending changes effective immediately.[9]

Given the evidence, economists across the political spectrum reject the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves. They include Edward Lazear, current chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers (who told Congress, “I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves”) and N. Gregory Mankiw, the CEA chair earlier in President Bush’s administration (who once compared an economist who says that tax cuts pay for themselves to a “snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure”).[10]

In addition, the Bush Treasury Department’s own “dynamic” analysis of the cost of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts estimated that they would generate only enough economic growth to cover less than 10 percent of their long-term cost.[11] Furthermore, that estimate was based on a best-case scenario; it depended on the assumption that the cost of the tax cuts would be fully offset by spending cuts.

In sum, the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves sounds too good to be true because it is too good to be true. Tax cuts lose revenue, and when they are deficit financed, they can also contribute to poorer economic performance over the long term.​

 

[fossten]

blah blah blah pay for itself blah blah blah

So why did Obama run on tax cuts then, Miss Smarty Pants? Is he stupid?

Bottom Line: Money spent by private citizens in the private sector is better spent than money confiscated, filtered, and redistributed by you idiot central planners.

Read my lips:

It's. Not. Your. Money. You. Statist. Authoritarian.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Where did I ever say this.

Get off your high horse, FRANCIS. The essence of that statement is IN YOUR OWN SIG! Not to mention that it is displayed by your own behavior.

 

[shagdrum]

Get off your high horse, FRANCIS. The essence of that statement is IN YOUR OWN SIG! Not to mention that it is displayed by your own behavior.

So, you chastise Cal for supposedly "taking your words out of context", but when you make up what someone else says, whole cloth; when you lie and misrepresent them, that is acceptable?

The term double standard, coined in 1912, refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, typically without a good reason for having said difference

Care to justify that double standard?

 

[Calabrio]

Nice attempt at taking my words out of context and twisting them to fit your distorted view of the world.

I never said that you, foss and shag hate this country, I was referring to Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh

That's what you said.
I'll accept your word when you say that's not what you meant to say, but that is certainly what you said. Do not make your failure to communicate my fault.

Your claims of "destruction" of these things is vastly exaggerated and flat out wrong.

Then let's have that discussion.

I could spend hours debunking each and every exaggerated claim you make, but it will be all for naught. In fact, most of those have already been debunked on this forum, but there is no convincing you of that.

You have hours available to leave troll droppings here, but never the time to actually address any of these "so-called" errors. Why is that?

GOP not in bed w/ BP?? You are a joke.

Support you claim, and disprove the fact that BP and it's employees donated heavily to the Obama campaign and that they were positioning themselves to benefit greatly from Cap&Trade.

 

[fossten]

Oh my, a rant straight from a U-of-Beck lecture. Sweet.

Ad hominem.

Nice attempt at taking my words out of context and twisting them to fit your distorted view of the world.

I never said that you, foss and shag hate this country, I was referring to Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh:

Copout.

Your claims of "destruction" of these things is vastly exaggerated and flat out wrong. I could spend hours debunking each and every exaggerated claim you make, but it will be all for naught. In fact, most of those have already been debunked on this forum, but there is no convincing you of that.

:bsflag:

As for these claims, again exaggerated. I DO and HAVE admitted Obama is not the "manna from heaven" his campaign had portrayed. There have been several "progressive" things he has not pursued (some of which I don't agree with personally, so those broken promises aren't breaking my heart anyway). But given the choices between Obama and the old fart and the "Quitter From Wasiller", this country is MUCH better off than we would be had the '08 election gone the other way.

Yeah that oil spill is going great, eh Johnny? Captain Kickass Community Agitator really knows how to handle a crisis. His nemesis Sarah Palin owned him again on that score.

"Can I just finish my putt?" :bowrofl:

83% employment - can't get much worse than that - your claim is absurd.

 

[foxpaws]

So why did Obama run on tax cuts then, Miss Smarty Pants?

Bottom Line: Money spent by private citizens in the private sector is better spent than money confiscated, filtered, and redistributed by you idiot central planners.

Read my lips:

It's. Not. Your. Money. You. Statist. Authoritarian.

Because they all run on tax cuts, because it is what we want to hear. However, he also ran on increasing taxes for the wealthy (letting the bush tax cuts expire). Perhaps it is also because it is what we want to hear.

So - give me your roads, your police, your military, the air you breathe and the water you drink. Give me your computer, the medical facility you go to and your cell phone. Give me your firemen, your parks and the internet.

want more?

 

[fossten]

Because they all run on tax cuts, because it is what we want to hear. However, he also ran on increasing taxes for the wealthy (letting the bush tax cuts expire). Perhaps it is also because it is what we want to hear.

Thanks for admitting that Obama is stupid and a liar.

But why do we want to hear it? Could it be because we want to keep more of our own money? And for that, you Statist Authoritarians call us greedy?

By the way, the income tax cuts expiring won't raise taxes on the wealthy. It will raise taxes on small business and high earners. Wealthy people (the Ted Kennedys and John Heinz Kerrys of the world) don't pay taxes - they shelter their money and they don't earn income.

So - give me your roads, your police, your military, the air you breathe and the water you drink. Give me your computer, the medical facility you go to and your cell phone. Give me your firemen, your parks and the internet.

want more?

Tsk tsk, foxie, please tell me, what is the percentage of the Federal Budget that is spent on roads and military compared to TARP, Porkulus, entitlements, etc etc etc? That argument won't wash since you're comparing apples to oranges. Heck, the entire Iraq War cost less in 8 years than Porkulus.

I built my computer myself - the government did not provide it for me. If anything, the government made it more difficult to assemble.

Since when do we have to pay for air? Do you Statist Authoritarians have nothing you won't tax? Give me more, more, MORE! The VORACIOUS MAW OF THE GOVERNMENT MUST BE FED!

 

[shagdrum]

Because they all run on tax cuts, because it is what we want to hear. However, he also ran on increasing taxes for the wealthy (letting the bush tax cuts expire). Perhaps it is also because it is what we want to hear.

Are you saying that Obama was simply pandering to voters?

Also, he is clearly going to let the Bush cuts expire (which is, in large part, setting up a double dip recession), has he actually cut taxes? Remember, giving handouts is not cutting taxes.

 

[foxpaws]

By the way, the income tax cuts expiring won't raise taxes on the wealthy. It will raise taxes on small business and high earners. Wealthy people (the Ted Kennedys and John Heinz Kerrys of the world) don't pay taxes - they shelter their money and they don't earn income.

And so do the Rush Limbaughs and the Murdocks of the world.

Tsk tsk, foxie, please tell me, what is the percentage of the Federal Budget that is spent on roads and military compared to TARP, Porkulus, entitlements, etc etc etc? That argument won't wash since you're comparing apples to oranges. Heck, the entire Iraq War cost less in 8 years than Porkulus.

I built my computer myself - the government did not provide it for me. If anything, the government made it more difficult to assemble.

Since when do we have to pay for air? Do you Statist Authoritarians have nothing you won't tax? Give me more, more, MORE! The VORACIOUS MAW OF THE GOVERNMENT MUST BE FED!

You can breathe because we have air pollution laws. You can drink the water because finally the government said that rivers catching on fire because of the massive amounts of pollutants in them was wrong. The government funded the technology that your computer is based on. There are things that the government can do very well. There are also things that the government is terrible at. Just as capitalism isn't great on the pollution issue, it is pretty darn good at the innovation part of the equation.

I would like some numbers on those foss - easily said - not so easily proved... last I looked the Iraq/Afghan War was projected to cost 3 trillion dollars (accrued and future expenditures) and I am not sure what value you place on a human life, but there is that immense cost that needs to be remembered as well.

And that isn't the entire military budget... I believe the cost each year is about 1/2 trillion dollars.

Roads - I believe the transportation dept. gives 60 billion dollars a year in highway funds.

 

[foxpaws]

Are you saying that Obama was simply pandering to voters?

Also, he is clearly going to let the Bush cuts expire (which is, in large part, setting up a double dip recession), has he actually cut taxes? Remember, giving handouts is not cutting taxes.

Yes he has - if you are a small business, your tax burden is measurably smaller.

Politicians pander - gosh shag - where have you been your entire life - under a rock? Politicians have pandered since Washington -

 

[shagdrum]

Yes he has - if you are a small business, your tax burden is measurably smaller.

Just because a tax burden is "measurably smaller" doesn't mean that there have been tax cuts. Also, what evidence do you have that the tax burden is "measurably smaller"?

 

[fossten]

And so do the Rush Limbaughs and the Murdocks of the world.

Limbaugh still makes income.

But I read your response as accepting my premise that income taxes do not impact the wealthy.

You can breathe because we have air pollution laws. You can drink the water because finally the government said that rivers catching on fire because of the massive amounts of pollutants in them was wrong.

A true believer. Look at that. How do you account for other countries like China that have no such laws? China's population exceeds any other country's, and is still growing.

Regardless, surely you're not suggesting that my entire tax bill only pays for roads, water, and air.

The government funded the technology that your computer is based on. There are things that the government can do very well. There are also things that the government is terrible at. Just as capitalism isn't great on the pollution issue, it is pretty darn good at the innovation part of the equation.

Really? Bill Gates got government funding? AMD got government funding? Or are you talking about the ENIAC? Because transistors died out decades ago - except in Communist Russia.

I would like some numbers on those foss - easily said - not so easily proved... last I looked the Iraq/Afghan War was projected to cost 3 trillion dollars (accrued and future expenditures) and I am not sure what value you place on a human life, but there is that immense cost that needs to be remembered as well.


And that isn't the entire military budget... I believe the cost each year is about 1/2 trillion dollars.

Misquoting me again, foxie - I said Iraq War, not Afghan/Iraq War. And the source I found says $1 trillion.

But hey - if you get to lump in the Afghan war, then I get to lump in Obamacare, TARP, and all current and future Porkulus expenses.

What are the accrued and future expenditures based on Obamacare, TARP, and Porkulus I, II, and III? $30 trillion or so?

And you don't have moral authority to talk about the cost of life, abortion-lover. That's FIFTY MILLION MURDERED AND COUNTING. Not to mention the Iraq War probably saved lives anyway.

Roads - I believe the transportation dept. gives 60 billion dollars a year in highway funds.

Chump change. What's the budget for entitlements?

 

[foxpaws]

A true believer. Look at that. How do you account for other countries like China that have no such laws? China's population exceeds any other country's, and is still growing.

And they are dying because of their air pollution. The Chinese have laws and are creating new, tougher standards with regards to air pollution - they are going through what we did in the 70s, 80s and early 90s.

Regardless, surely you're not suggesting that my entire tax bill only pays for roads, water, and air.

Of course not - I was stating what good things the government does with your money - government, working in socialist models (like for roads) is sometimes the 'correct' answer. Are programs like SS good models - not really. There the government would have been better off handing over the project to private enterprise and watching it, but not being the receiver and distributor of funds.

Really? Bill Gates got government funding? AMD got government funding? Or are you talking about the ENIAC? Because transistors died out decades ago - except in Communist Russia.

Nope - I was stating how the public education system worked, and two - how government programs, such as NASA helped moved industries like the computer industry.

Misquoting me again, foxie - I said Iraq War, not Afghan/Iraq War. And the source I found says $1 trillion.

But hey - if you get to lump in the Afghan war, then I get to lump in Obamacare, TARP, and all current and future Porkulus expenses.

What are the accrued and future expenditures based on Obamacare, TARP, and Porkulus I, II, and III? $30 trillion or so?

You separated the two wars so you could lower the apparent cost -however the two wars are interlinked, and so are their costs. My source takes into account future costs of the war, yours doesn't. Things like future veteran's care and benefits.

So where is your 30 trillion number from - do you have a source on that foss?

And you don't have moral authority to talk about the cost of life, abortion-lover. That's FIFTY MILLION MURDERED AND COUNTING. Not to mention the Iraq War probably saved lives anyway.

Glad to see that you are misrepresenting me again foss - and you also get to show how much you do really care for those men and women who have given their life in these conflicts. I am not pro-abortion, I am anti-abortion. I would never, ever have an abortion, no matter what the emotional costs were because I didn't.

I don't think that my beliefs should be forced onto anyone else. Unlike you foss who would gladly foist a large variety of religious and personal beliefs upon an entire nation.

Chump change. What's the budget for entitlements?

They aren't part of the Federal Budget general fund. The 3 big ones have separate accounts and have their own source of income. Social Security for instance is still paying for itself - however, I think it is on the verge of having to go into its large coffers (or at least on paper large coffers) and start withdrawing funds.

 

[fossten]

Nope - I was stating how the public education system worked, and two - how government programs, such as NASA helped moved industries like the computer industry.

Again, how did NASA help Bill Gates? How did NASA help Intel? How did NASA help Michael Dell? How well is the public education system working at creating wealth? We're ranked behind Poland for crying out loud - we can't even tell Polish jokes anymore.

You separated the two wars so you could lower the apparent cost -however the two wars are interlinked, and so are their costs. My source takes into account future costs of the war, yours doesn't. Things like future veteran's care and benefits.

Regardless, my point still stands.

So where is your 30 trillion number from - do you have a source on that foss?

It's been covered before, and we agreed that the bailouts alone will cost $20 trillion. I don't need to do a bunch of busywork just to suit you. Look it up yourself - I predict you will not do so because you know the figures I gave you are accurate.

Glad to see that you are misrepresenting me again foss - and you also get to show how much you do really care for those men and women who have given their life in these conflicts. I am not pro-abortion, I am anti-abortion. I would never, ever have an abortion, no matter what the emotional costs were because I didn't.

You're not anti-abortion. You are pro-choice. Next you'll be trying to convince us that you're a capitalist - oh, wait...

You're a chameleon!

I don't think that my beliefs should be forced onto anyone else. Unlike you foss who would gladly foist a large variety of religious and personal beliefs upon an entire nation.

Aw, did I strike a nerve there? Or maybe you're a little cranky when you wake up and just need more coffee. And you DO think your beliefs should be forced on people - via the government. For example, you believe that government should confiscate people's hard earned income at the point of a gun and then give it to those who do not work for it.

Anyway, look who's misrepresenting whom now.

They aren't part of the Federal Budget general fund. The 3 big ones have separate accounts and have their own source of income. Social Security for instance is still paying for itself - however, I think it is on the verge of having to go into its large coffers (or at least on paper large coffers) and start withdrawing funds.

Wrong. There is no separate account for Social Security. It's currently being paid from the general fund, and it's going broke. I'd love to see your source that says what you claim. I'm surprised that in the same post you say that SS is a poor model and yet defend it as fiscally solvent. It's a ponzi scheme. Surely you aren't that dumb.

Oh, and foxie - what "budget" are you talking about?

 

[foxpaws]

Again, how did NASA help Bill Gates? How did NASA help Intel? How did NASA help Michael Dell? How well is the public education system working at creating wealth? We're ranked behind Poland for crying out loud - we can't even tell Polish jokes anymore.

Without large government programs - such as NASA - the massive amounts of funds needed to further many different technologies - such as computers - aren't available. NASA is currently working on computers that use light (therefore work at the speed of light). The amount of money needed for research, research that might not pan out for many, many years, isn't possible within the private sector.

Regardless, my point still stands.
It's been covered before, and we agreed that the bailouts alone will cost $20 trillion. I don't need to do a bunch of busywork just to suit you. Look it up yourself - I predict you will not do so because you know the figures I gave you are accurate.

Well it is now down to 20 trillion - where did we agree on that foss? Where have you come up with that number?

You're not anti-abortion. You are pro-choice. Next you'll be trying to convince us that you're a capitalist - oh, wait...

I am personally anti-abortion, I would never have an abortion. Once again foss - that is based on a personal belief, one that I wouldn't feel comfortable forcing upon another woman who views the beginning of life (whether based on her religion, current science, or just a 'personal conviction') or the amount of control she has over her body, and the fetus, differently than I do.

Aw, did I strike a nerve there? Or maybe you're a little cranky when you wake up and just need more coffee. And you DO think your beliefs should be forced on people - via the government. For example, you believe that government should confiscate people's hard earned income at the point of a gun and then give it to those who do not work for it.

Where have I stated that foss -

Wrong. There is no separate account for Social Security. It's currently being paid from the general fund, and it's going broke. I'd love to see your source that says what you claim. I'm surprised that in the same post you say that SS is a poor model and yet defend it as fiscally solvent. It's a ponzi scheme. Surely you aren't that dumb.

Oh, and foxie - what "budget" are you talking about?

Ah, foss, yes there are a huge trust funds for social security and medicare - I did mention that we are/ or about to start using that trust fund to back the checks going out for SS and I believe the trust fund has been tapped for medicare for a few years now. Medicare is expected to be running in the red in 7 years, right now - it is being paid for by funds that were collected specifically for medicare. SS should be solvent for 27 years - once again only pulling money from the funds that were specifically deducted from your paycheck for that purpose.

You might want to try to understand how the federal government handles money foss - because it is your money. I would hate to think that you are that dumb, or maybe your wife handles the checkbook.

Entitlements are considered to be 'apart' from the general budget numbers that congress deals with. The general budget are expenditures that can be cut or altered by congress. Entitlements are fixed expenses that would need an act or law to alter the amount of money going in or out.

Once again foss - you might want to brush up on federal finance 101.

 

[fossten]

Without large government programs - such as NASA - the massive amounts of funds needed to further many different technologies - such as computers - aren't available. NASA is currently working on computers that use light (therefore work at the speed of light). The amount of money needed for research, research that might not pan out for many, many years, isn't possible within the private sector.

So - can't answer my direct question - got it.

Well it is now down to 20 trillion - where did we agree on that foss? Where have you come up with that number?

Forget it, foxie - you're not interested in an honest discussion, and I'm not interested in busywork for you. But we did discuss that the bailout ALONE was $20 trillion in another thread - and you accepted the premise. If you need the numbers, look them up yourself. Of course, you aren't going to do that, because you know I'm right. End of discussion.

I am personally anti-abortion, I would never have an abortion. Once again foss - that is based on a personal belief, one that I wouldn't feel comfortable forcing upon another woman who views the beginning of life (whether based on her religion, current science, or just a 'personal conviction') or the amount of control she has over her body, and the fetus, differently than I do.

Unresponsive - typical. Let me know when you're ready to be honest.

Where have I stated that foss -

In every single thread where you advocate a mixed economy and forced taxation and redistribution. You advocate it by voting for a redistributionist like Obama. You advocate it by arguing for more government control.

Ah, foss, yes there are a huge trust funds for social security and medicare - I did mention that we are/ or about to start using that trust fund to back the checks going out for SS and I believe the trust fund has been tapped for medicare for a few years now. Medicare is expected to be running in the red in 7 years, right now - it is being paid for by funds that were collected specifically for medicare. SS should be solvent for 27 years - once again only pulling money from the funds that were specifically deducted from your paycheck for that purpose.

You might want to try to understand how the federal government handles money foss - because it is your money. I would hate to think that you are that dumb, or maybe your wife handles the checkbook.

Entitlements are considered to be 'apart' from the general budget numbers that congress deals with. The general budget are expenditures that can be cut or altered by congress. Entitlements are fixed expenses that would need an act or law to alter the amount of money going in or out.

Once again foss - you might want to brush up on federal finance 101.

Jealous of my wife now, foxie? I knew you were bitter, but I didn't think you still had romantic issues with me. You really ought to get that looked at. Honestly, if you're so desperate that your best prospects are online people that you've never met, I really do pity you. I assume that gigolos still exist, although I don't know if Denver has a stable.

The Social Security 'trust fund' is a fraud - it's made up of no real assets, only government bonds. It's filled with IOUs - which are nothing but promises to raise taxes on future taxpayers - and that's unstable. Nice try.

These balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, make it easier for the government to pay benefits.

-- Bill Clinton

You might want to brush up on current events, foxie - what budget are you talking about? Which year, anyway?

 

[foxpaws]

So - can't answer my direct question - got it.

No - I answered foss - government programs have helped private industry and individuals by furthering technology. You probably don't know it but I bet you use a form of Win Vn for internet access at work, a NASA devopment. Dell is developing computers that use semiconductor cubing - created by NASA for the space program, which will be faster, and use less energy. Microcomputers were a NASA invention.

Forget it, foxie - you're not interested in an honest discussion, and I'm not interested in busywork for you. But we did discuss that the bailout ALONE was $20 trillion in another thread - and you accepted the premise. If you need the numbers, look them up yourself. Of course, you aren't going to do that, because you know I'm right. End of discussion.

You brought the numbers up - you need to back them up foss... not I.

In every single thread where you advocate a mixed economy and forced taxation and redistribution. You advocate it by voting for a redistributionist like Obama. You advocate it by arguing for more government control.

And your point is...

The Social Security 'trust fund' is a fraud - it's made up of no real assets, only government bonds. It's filled with IOUs - which are nothing but promises to raise taxes on future taxpayers - and that's unstable. Nice try.

You might want to brush up on current events, foxie - what budget are you talking about?

So, you didn't understand how the federal government handles money - nothing you have stated goes against how I corrected you foss - there is a trust fund - it is how SS and medicare get funded. Yes, the government has borrowed against it but that doesn't mean that the trust funds weren't set up. Those funds are still funding those programs - no money from the general fund has yet gone to pay one penny of SS or Medicare.

Once again - the Federal budget is made of 2 parts - the 'discretionary' (general fund) spending and the 'entitlement' spending.

Jealous of your wife - I can only say that the woman must be a saint.