Uh, Bee?

What Truman did was bring WW2 to a close.  Yup, that saved a lot of money all right.  Blowing up Nazis is real expensive.
[right][snapback]82244[/snapback][/right]

Blowing up Iraqis ain't exactly cheap either, ma'am.

No need to throw out progressive and responsible governance just because of one administration that is spectacularly neither.
[right][snapback]82249[/snapback][/right]

Alas, little Bee, you can't blame it on Iraq.

Iraq and Afghanistan, added together, account for only 1/6 of the debt we've accumulated in the last four years.
[right][snapback]82250[/snapback][/right]

Iraq and the tax cuts, taken together, account for only a little less than half of it, Bee.

The rest is just plain runaway spending, and the prescription drug plan hasn't even kicked in yet.
[right][snapback]82252[/snapback][/right]

As I recall, right after he said that, Ford ended up listening to Vogon poetry, no?

But thank you, I guess I am in need of a towel check.  We got 10 years, right?
[right][snapback]82248[/snapback][/right]

Come to Marxachusetts.

Orygun has been a quick study of Marxachusetts politics.
[right][snapback]82230[/snapback][/right]

Bee, you're still not getting it.  In the last 10 years, we have DOUBLED all the debt we ran up in the previous 200 years.  And more than half of it is owed to ourselves, in the form of the imaginary Social Security Trust Fund.

Try to think of it as a mortgage with a balloon payment due in 10 years, and ourselves with no hope in hell beyond, possibly, refinancing the debt.  (That's what really underlies Bushie's plan, I suspect.  The possibility of doing a re-fi under the guise of personal accounts.)

Problem is, we're already paying 11% and more of all our Federal spending just on INTEREST on that debt.  And rising.

We're going to have to go through some sort of national bankrupcy, and decide with debts we're going to reaffirm and which we're gonna blow off.

But, in a lighter strain, remember when we were kids, and our mommies told us to eat our dinner, children were starving in China?  Who'd a thunk we'd see the day that the US is getting international welfare from China, of all places?
[right][snapback]82236[/snapback][/right]

We also have a dynamic system.

Knowing that we have to finance  SS fund repayments, we should be conserving our borrowing ability, not increasing debt at this time.

If the Us were run like a business, we would be doing everything we could to drive down medical costs.
[right][snapback]82256[/snapback][/right]

We also have a dynamic system.

Knowing that we have to finance  SS fund repayments, we should be conserving our borrowing ability, not increasing debt at this time.

If the Us were run like a business, we would be doing everything we could to drive down medical costs.
[right][snapback]82256[/snapback][/right]

If the US were run like a business, they'd've downgraded our credit rating 7 years ago.

Meantime, though, I'm surprised you didn't have some droll comment on my post about the prescription drug plan over on the Medical Issues board.  Six and a half months from implementation, and they're still working on a DRAFT of the info booklet???
[right][snapback]82271[/snapback][/right]

It's OK with me if you want to give their taxes back to them as a handout or rebate or something, but I'm standing firm that I want EVERYBODY to pay at least a token tax (like $5).  It's essential that each and every one of us be a "taxpaying citizen", even if their taxes are a mere pittance.  Moreover, I want each and every one of our new taxpayers to SEE their taxes go up when the government spends more, even if they only see their token $2.50 payment go up to $2.60.  If "we" (that is, our reps) vote to fund a new program, I want our new taxpayer to see his taxes go up to $2.63.

It's my opinion that part of the cause underlying our 50-year spending spree has been that lack of direct, personal experience with the cause-and-effect of government spending.
[right][snapback]82137[/snapback][/right]

I don't recall the Family Assistance Plan of the 70s.  Could you remind me, if you weren't being sarcastic?
[right][snapback]82137[/snapback][/right]

Do you really think we need another entitlement program?

ANOTHER one? I suppose if you think that is what social security is... but it ain't.

The historical 'rationale' for having everyone pay into it have been posted here, perhaps you missed them?

Or perhaps, like arebuntz, you just want to make social security into a welfare program and in a few years have Rush and the RW zealots to go to work killing it?

Pity. Thank goodness the selfish are still a minority.
[right][snapback]82140[/snapback][/right]

You mean the special treasury bonds the people put aside to pay for this?

Guess Reagan and Greenspan were total morons.

Either that or you're seeing a problem where none exist. Kinda of like your hero, GW.
[right][snapback]82141[/snapback][/right]

Every decent person tht wants to honor the promises made to our elderly.

Of course that lets out selfish pigs at the trough.

Did you miss the fact that there is no crisis?
[right][snapback]82142[/snapback][/right]

SSI is not an entitlement program.

It is social insurance...

If your friend is blind, she's not on Social Security, she's on SDI.

Different progrm.

By lumping them together, you are doing Rush Limbaugh proud.
[right][snapback]82146[/snapback][/right]

Try to follow along here. In 2018 SSA will have to start cashing in the special treasury bonds to pay OASI benefits.
[right][snapback]82279[/snapback][/right]

The Treasury will get the money to pay off those bonds from the general fund. The general fund will be paying for an increasing percentage of OASI benefits until the Trust Fund is exhausted. That will reduce the amount of dollars in the general fund to pay for other government spending. That will be good.

And of course it was Congress (Democratic House, Republican Senate) that passed the legislation to reform OASI in 1983 that cut benefits and increased taxes. You can see the votes here.

Social Security Reform 1983 Congressional  Votes

No, you have to lie and scheme and act smug and be false.

'nuff said.
[right][snapback]82148[/snapback][/right]

I never heard that before.

Everyone here believes that there is a huge pot 'o gold in a file drawer somewhere.
[right][snapback]82154[/snapback][/right]

There is for the 10% of seniors on OASI who live in poverty.
[right][snapback]82280[/snapback][/right]

Read for comprehension.

There is nothing admirable about being "superior."

Most find it dispicable, especially when there is no apparent reason for the smug attitude.
[right][snapback]82139[/snapback][/right]

But I suuuure hope buntsy is enjoying his 'tax cut'

It sure ain't paying for a lot. Just leave it to the working classes, they know how to fix it. The rich are a pox on society.
[right][snapback]82158[/snapback][/right]

No lies, no schemes, just telling you facts you can't face about OASI.
[right][snapback]82284[/snapback][/right]

You don't believe in the full faith and credit of the United States?

tsk
[right][snapback]82159[/snapback][/right]

No, you have to lie and scheme and act smug and be false.

'nuff said.
[right][snapback]82148[/snapback][/right]

Time to take that vow of poverty.
[right][snapback]82167[/snapback][/right]

So you are saying the government is insolvent?

ALL the bonds must be repaid on a certain day in 2018? Oh my. Who knew.

maybe you'd better not tell the Chinese that
[right][snapback]82168[/snapback][/right]

You don't have to be poor to be "poor" grasshopper.
[right][snapback]82292[/snapback][/right]

I believe in this Country and it's ability to pay it's debts.



Just because W has us on the brink of insolvency doesn't mean a decent administration can't pull us back. Unless we allow it to happen.

Things were on track a few short years ago. Under the Democrats. I'm afraid I don't buy into this bogocrisis of W's making.
[right][snapback]82173[/snapback][/right]

It is the gubment, after all.
[right][snapback]82274[/snapback][/right]

Look.

I understand you see this as an awful bad situation, it is. but I don't see it as unchangable.
Look how much it has changed in a few short years.

Imagine what an honest leader could really do. The answer isn't to forget our principles and roll back 50 years of being a great society, though that might be the easiest.

If America has to go down, let's hope she keeps those at least. I'm not ready to abandon the ship to wolves like buntsy and crew. Not hardly.
[right][snapback]82203[/snapback][/right]

Yeah, I'd as soon keep it at 10%

You wanna drown it and make it 100%.



You should admit that much.
[right][snapback]82286[/snapback][/right]

You mean in the late 90s when the Rs controlled the House and Senate?
[right][snapback]82295[/snapback][/right]

You're proof of that.
[right][snapback]82294[/snapback][/right]

Actually the Arebuntz Plan makes it 100% of seniors on OASI at least at or above 120% of poverty. You know that, you just can't handle that. BBH (Blinding Bush Hatred)
[right][snapback]82298[/snapback][/right]

and Clinton beat them into actual fiscal responsiblilty?

[right][snapback]82299[/snapback][/right]

[right][snapback]82225[/snapback][/right]

You're a shill by proposing unrealistic solutions. Even if you're too dim to fathom that, that's what you are.

Enough of your bs. You're a rather droll troll


[right][snapback]82301[/snapback][/right]

Well I will agree to do away with withholding and require everyone to write a check to the government for whatever taxes they owe on a regular basis. It would be good for most folks to really see what they are paying. I file quarterly and it isn't a problem.
Me, sarcastic? Nixon proposed the Family Assistance Plan in 1969/1970 with the help of Daniel Moynihan. One of the early originators as a Negative Income Tax was Milton Friedman and Walter E. Williams in the early 60s. Basically did away with Federal poverty programs and replaced with job training and guaranteed annual income for the poor. In todays world could give the poor a debit card with automatic payment of monthly necesities like housing, utilities etc.

Family Assistance Plan Story
[right][snapback]82276[/snapback][/right]

You're proof of that.
[right][snapback]82294[/snapback][/right]

OK, Bee.  You win.  I'm completely convinced that you're even more innumerate than Bush is, and will henceforward refrain from discussing public finance with you.
[right][snapback]82305[/snapback][/right]

I note most ... uh, notably ... that the initial rationale for these anti-poverty programs is not softheartedness, nor bleeding-heartedness, nor charity, nor noblesse oblige, nor any of the rest. It is simply rational self-protection.
[right][snapback]82307[/snapback][/right]

I "understand" that you all want to see ss turned into a welfare program.

That is a very, very, VERY bad idea.

I'll stick with the mob on this one.
[right][snapback]82329[/snapback][/right]

Make everyone hate it, kill it and claim to be a champion of the people.
[right][snapback]82331[/snapback][/right]

That is the long and short of it.

Call me innumerate for not believing the government is insolvent and that 1+1+1=111, but I know bunk when it's presented.

What is sad is that these people are so enamored of their own superiority, they overlook the obvious. I think that's called hubris.



The thing that makes me sad is to see good and otherwise intelligent people fall for the bs and act as de facto tools for the Rockefellers and Bushies.

[shakes head]
[right][snapback]82333[/snapback][/right]

That is the long and short of it.

Call me innumerate for not believing the government is insolvent and that 1+1+1=111, but I know bunk when it's presented.

What is sad is that these people are so enamored of their own superiority, they overlook the obvious. I think that's called hubris.



The thing that makes me sad is to see good and otherwise intelligent people fall for the bs and act as de facto tools for the Rockefellers and Bushies.

[shakes head]
[right][snapback]82333[/snapback][/right]

I see Jack Welch (I think I got it right) former CEO of General Electric talking about the problems with unions at GM.

Stephanopolous said $1500 was added to the cost of each US car because of medical benefits. Welch wholeheartedly agreed but when Stephanopolis said each of our major foreign competitors had national health care that wasn't even added to the car he ho hummed around and said it wasn't about health care it was about both sides coming to an agreement to reduce the cost of US healthcare.

He wouldn't even consider that part of it. He just dismissed it out of hand.
[right][snapback]82336[/snapback][/right]