Re: Reagan quadrupled the national deficit

[Transition Zone]

On Apr 28, 5:01 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:01:27 -0500, RD Sandman
>
>
>
>
>
> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
> >John out west <n...@replyhere.com> wrote in
> >news:kli3tb$qsi$1...@wieslauf.sub.de:
>
> >> On 4/27/2013 4:01 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> >>> Transition Zone <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >>>news:8e9d1edf-c96e-46b3...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>>> Reagan quadrupled the debt, "wouldn't obama have to spend 30
> >>>> trillion to quadruple the debt like reagan/bush did. "            -
> >>>> Last post: Aug 3, 2009
>
> >>>> --http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090803030351AA74Tvr
>
> >>>> --
> >>>>http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=20040701&id=lGRPAAAAIB
> >>>> AJ &sjid=JQQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1983,53818
>
> >>>> (Toledo Blade)
>
> >>> Hmmm. I have 50 cents in my pocket.  Assume you have a thousand
> >>> dollars in yours.  Which of us can double our amounts the quickest?
>
> >> Let's say I have a thousand dollars in my pocket. You are a Kenyan
> >> born village idiot who has never held a real job or had to earn his
> >> own money. You think half of my money should be yours because you are
> >> lazy, stupid and think I am lucky. Who should take his black ass down
> >> the street and bullshit someone else?
>
> >Ahhhh, racism.....the scapegoat for anyone who is out of ideas and can't
> >think for him or herself.
>
>       Where do you see racism, or is there such a
> thing as half-racism?   :-)
>
>A lot of the Reagan budget went to the
>build up of stealth, the world situation was
> such that it was a good idea.

Why did he fight against tax INCREASES, then ??

[emoneyjoe]

Probably because his advisors knew that
the baby boomers were entering the work
force in the highest number during the 1980s.

That eased up completely by Clinton's
second or third year.

The economy was really broken in 1980,
not necessarily because of anything Carter
had been doing, just the fact that women
were entering the work force for the first
time in droves, the baby boomers too,
demand for everything was driving up
prices, and interest rates went sky high
because more people were borrowing
than had money to loan.

It took more than 4 years to really
get straightened out, but it did, and
the democrats coerced Bush I to
raise taxes after he said he wouldn't,
maybe that helped cause the job
problem that caused him to not
get a second term.

The demand didn't just start
during Carter, it was so bad in the
mid 1970s that we could not use
catalog prices on industrial and
commercial electric equipment
and supplies, we had to check
invoices and estimate what new
stock would cost, else we would
have been selling for less than
what it would cost to replace
inventory.


The problem is just the opposite
now, demand is so low in some areas
it is nonexistent, there is only a fraction
of the money circulating now locally,
and it is getting worse.
And the problem of the economic
roller coaster becomes the federal
government's nightmare of barely
half the tax revenue needed to
avoid borrowing.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:25:25 -0700 (PDT), Transition Zone

<mog...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

Why did Reagan sign one of the largest tax increases in history?

[maxw...@my-deja.com]

Exactly. It was a brilliant scam of scams. The SSA
Act of 1983 increased SS taxes and with the baby
boomers created a surplus that for nearly 30 years
has been invested in special US treasury bonds.
It help fund the govt in lieu of other taxes.
Now to complete the scam the current republicans
want to reform (cut) SS just as interest is starting
to flow to SSA and just before the principle gets
paid back. It is called theft.

[emoneyjoe]

Since when does a government scam itself?
Wasn't it the democrats and socialist democrats
(a nice term for pinkos of the time) that promoted
the SSA without a rational mechanism to deal
with inflation?
I am a perfect example of the lack of any
financial planning in the SSA, I probably have
collected 20 times what I paid in, and I sure
ain't no baby boomer.

The SS trust funds have not helped with
federal funding except to liberal democrats
who think money can be spent twice, if
the money wasn't borrowed from the trust
funds it would have been borrowed from
somebody else.

>It help fund the govt in lieu of other taxes.

Only in you delusion.

>Now to complete the scam the current republicans
>want to reform (cut) SS just as interest is starting
>to flow to SSA and just before the principle gets
>paid back. It is called theft.

What principal gets paid back?

The past 12 months saw the first time
that payouts exceeded payins, that means
at least one of the trust funds is shrinking,
and something will have to be done some
time soon to avoid having to use general
funds to pay the OASDI payouts.

You have a different twist on the
complaint about SS, most of those
who don't know the facts think they
will never get back what they paid in,
which is wrong if they live to be 72
or maybe 75 depending on when
they retire and how much they
earned.


The people that planned the
financing of SS were dumb as dirt,
or knew it could not work, but they
wanted the social-ism caring kind
of government.
Then as the rates went up and
benefits were added, the financing
got even more silly.

The SS taxes harmed the economy
from 1937 until last year by taking
more taxes than was paid out in
benefits.

Now we have people saying that
there is a hundred Trillion or so in
unfunded liabilities, not counting
the national debt and the interest
on it.

Why you think doing what has
to be done to keep the fund(s)
solvent is beyond me, the fund
money is kept separate (in the
accounting) even though Clinton
used it to reduce the debt owed
to the public.


I use this nym because I am
out to try to make some sense
of the federal debt and to find
ways to avoid an eventual very
disastrous default.

Congress and the president
must be in confused denial to
think the present situation can
be resolved with spending cuts
and increased taxes.

[Dakota]

Excellent analysis. Thanks.

[Jason]

In article
<29dc8409-bcf8-427a...@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
maxw...@my-deja.com wrote:

> On Apr 30, 5:39=A0pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:25:25 -0700 (PDT), Transition Zone
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > >On Apr 28, 5:01=A0pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:01:27 -0500, RD Sandman
> >
> > >> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> >John out west <n...@replyhere.com> wrote in
> > >> >news:kli3tb$qsi$1...@wieslauf.sub.de:
> >
> > >> >> On 4/27/2013 4:01 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> > >> >>> Transition Zone <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote in

> > >> >>>news:8e9d1edf-c96e-46b3...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.c=

> om:
> >
> > >> >>>> Reagan quadrupled the debt, "wouldn't obama have to spend 30

> > >> >>>> trillion to quadruple the debt like reagan/bush did. " =A0 =A0 =
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0-

> > >> >>>> Last post: Aug 3, 2009
> >

> > >> >>>> --http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=3D20090803030351AA7=
> 4Tvr
> >
> > >> >>>> --
> > >> >>>>http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=3D1350&dat=3D20040701&id=3Dl=
> GRPAAAAIB
> > >> >>>> AJ &sjid=3DJQQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3D1983,53818
> >
> > >> >>>> (Toledo Blade)
> >
> > >> >>> Hmmm. I have 50 cents in my pocket. =A0Assume you have a thousand
> > >> >>> dollars in yours. =A0Which of us can double our amounts the quicke=

> st?
> >
> > >> >> Let's say I have a thousand dollars in my pocket. You are a Kenyan
> > >> >> born village idiot who has never held a real job or had to earn his

> > >> >> own money. You think half of my money should be yours because you a=
> re
> > >> >> lazy, stupid and think I am lucky. Who should take his black ass do=

> wn
> > >> >> the street and bullshit someone else?
> >

> > >> >Ahhhh, racism.....the scapegoat for anyone who is out of ideas and ca=

> n't
> > >> >think for him or herself.
> >

> > >> =A0 =A0 =A0 Where do you see racism, or is there such a
> > >> thing as half-racism? =A0 :-)

> >
> > >>A lot of the Reagan budget went to the
> > > >build up of stealth, the world situation was

> > >> =A0such that it was a good idea.

> >
> > >Why did he fight against tax INCREASES, then ??
> >

> > =A0 =A0 =A0 Probably because his advisors knew that

> > the baby boomers were entering the work
> > force in the highest number during the 1980s.
>
> Exactly. It was a brilliant scam of scams. The SSA
> Act of 1983 increased SS taxes and with the baby
> boomers created a surplus that for nearly 30 years
> has been invested in special US treasury bonds.
> It help fund the govt in lieu of other taxes.
> Now to complete the scam the current republicans
> want to reform (cut) SS just as interest is starting
> to flow to SSA and just before the principle gets
> paid back. It is called theft.
>
> >

> > =A0 =A0 =A0 That eased up completely by Clinton's
> > second or third year.
> >
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 The economy was really broken in 1980,

> > not necessarily because of anything Carter
> > had been doing, just the fact that women
> > were entering the work force for the first
> > time in droves, the baby boomers too,
> > demand for everything was driving up
> > prices, and interest rates went sky high
> > because more people were borrowing
> > than had money to loan.
> >

> > =A0 =A0 =A0It took more than 4 years to really

> > get straightened out, but it did, and
> > the democrats coerced Bush I to
> > raise taxes after he said he wouldn't,
> > maybe that helped cause the job
> > problem that caused him to not
> > get a second term.
> >

> > =A0 =A0 =A0The =A0demand didn't just start

> > during Carter, it was so bad in the
> > mid 1970s that we could not use
> > catalog prices on industrial and
> > commercial electric equipment
> > and supplies, we had to check
> > invoices and estimate what new
> > stock would cost, else we would
> > have been selling for less than
> > what it would cost to replace
> > inventory.
> >

> > =A0 =A0 =A0The problem is just the opposite

> > now, demand is so low in some areas
> > it is nonexistent, there is only a fraction
> > of the money circulating now locally,
> > and it is getting worse.

> > =A0 =A0 =A0And the problem of the economic

> > roller coaster becomes the federal
> > government's nightmare of barely
> > half the tax revenue needed to
> > avoid borrowing.

What was the national debt when Obama took office and what is it as of today?

[maxw...@my-deja.com]

On Apr 30, 10:04 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:

It scams the people. Not hard to comprehend.

> Wasn't it the democrats and socialist democrats
> (a nice term for pinkos of the time) that promoted
> the SSA without a rational mechanism to deal
> with inflation?
>       I am a perfect example of the lack of any
> financial planning in the SSA, I probably have
> collected 20 times what I paid in, and I sure
> ain't no baby boomer.
>
>      The SS trust funds have not helped with
> federal funding except to liberal democrats
> who think money can be spent twice, if
> the money wasn't borrowed from the trust
> funds it would have been borrowed from
> somebody else.

Borrowed?? why? to pay for tax cuts?

>
> >It help fund the govt in lieu of other taxes.
>
>      Only in you delusion.

It paid for tax cuts.
$2.7 trillion US

>
> >Now to complete the scam the current republicans
> >want to reform (cut) SS just as interest is starting
> >to flow to SSA and just before the principle gets
> >paid back. It is called theft.
>
>       What principal gets paid back?

$2.7 trillion in bonds.

>
>       The past 12 months saw the first time
> that payouts exceeded payins,

Correct.

that means
> at least one of the trust funds is shrinking,
> and something will have to be done some
> time soon to avoid having to use general
> funds to pay the OASDI payouts.

It is the interest on those bonds that is being
paid out. The principle on the bond is not.

>
>      You have a different twist on the
> complaint about SS, most of those
> who don't know the facts think they
> will never get back what they paid in,
> which is wrong if they live to be 72
> or maybe 75 depending on when
> they retire and how much they
> earned.

You make a good case for cutting
current SS receipients.

>
>       The people that planned the
> financing of SS were dumb as dirt,
> or knew it could not work, but they
> wanted the social-ism caring kind
> of government.
>      Then as the rates went up and
> benefits were added, the financing
> got even more silly.
>
>      The SS taxes harmed the economy
> from 1937 until last year by taking
> more taxes than was paid out in
> benefits.
>
>      Now we have people saying that
> there is a hundred Trillion or so in
> unfunded liabilities, not counting
> the national debt and the interest
> on it.
>
>      Why you think doing what has
> to be done to keep the fund(s)
> solvent is beyond me, the fund
> money is kept separate (in the
> accounting) even though Clinton
> used it to reduce the debt owed
> to the public.

Yes, but those bonds are a liability
to the US treasury. Other monies
will be needed to pay for those bonds.
This is why some want to cut SS.
You are falling for the big lie.

[Dakota]

We really need to start snipping these irrelevant crossposts. The woo
groups and political groups are dropping morons into alt.atheism like
a deluge.

<global warming, religion, and political newsgroups snipped>

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The National debt was lower and today it's much higher!



Obama lies and he's stealing wealth from America.

[Ken]

On Apr 30, 9:16 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: Nothing worth
repeating, BUT

What was the national debt when Shrub took office and what is it
when he left?

How about this::
"The Bush administration began with a $5.8 trillion gross federal
debt, which grew by $6.1 trillion to reach $11.9 trillion -- an
increase of 105 percent, or slightly more than double. The Times
ascribed the increase in debt to "tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, (the) economic downturn in 2001 and recession starting in
2007."

[BeamMeUpScotty]

You miss the FACT that Bush did this over 8 years..... and Obama has
added $6.0 trillion in *ONLY* 4 years.

At the end of Obama's reign of power and destruction(8 years), the
damage is likely to be more than double that of Bush and Obama will have
added another $12T to the $6T that Bush ran up.


The National Debt won't be just $12T it's going to be $24-26T and that
is the Legacy of Obama and his Socialism.




*Rumination*
#64 - *He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

[Nickname unavailable]

yep, "THE CONSERVATIVES" looted s.s. to fund a scam that has failed
three times now, its called pee'ed on economics. now they do not want
to pay us back. "CONSERVATIVES" will never recognize a contract,
unless its in their favor.

[Liberal Here]

On May 1, 12:16 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <29dc8409-bcf8-427a-ad08-13de9c957...@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

What were the deficit drivers in the Bush 1/2 maladministration and
what are they today?

Hint: the same things.

[Liberal Here]

On May 1, 11:28 am, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 5/1/2013 10:56 AM, Ken wrote:> On Apr 30, 9:16 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: Nothing worth
> > repeating, BUT
>
> >  What was the national debt when Shrub  took office and what is it
> > when he left?
>
> > How about this::
> > "The Bush administration began with a $5.8 trillion gross federal
> > debt, which grew by $6.1 trillion to reach $11.9 trillion --  an
> > increase of 105 percent, or slightly more than double. The Times
> > ascribed the increase in debt to "tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and
> > Afghanistan, (the) economic downturn in 2001 and recession starting in
> > 2007."
>
> You miss the FACT that Bush did this over 8 years.....  and Obama has
> added $6.0 trillion in *ONLY* 4 years.

YOU! miss the fact that the Obama *****INHERITED***** the bush 1/2
deficit drivers.

Otherwise, you'd gleefully list all the new programs Obama demanded be
passed into law.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/1/2013 11:36 AM, Liberal Here wrote:
> On May 1, 11:28 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 5/1/2013 10:56 AM, Ken wrote:> On Apr 30, 9:16 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: Nothing worth
>>> repeating, BUT
>>
>>> What was the national debt when Shrub took office and what is it
>>> when he left?
>>
>>> How about this::
>>> "The Bush administration began with a $5.8 trillion gross federal
>>> debt, which grew by $6.1 trillion to reach $11.9 trillion -- an
>>> increase of 105 percent, or slightly more than double. The Times
>>> ascribed the increase in debt to "tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and
>>> Afghanistan, (the) economic downturn in 2001 and recession starting in
>>> 2007."
>>
>> You miss the FACT that Bush did this over 8 years..... and Obama has
>> added $6.0 trillion in *ONLY* 4 years.
>
> YOU! miss the fact that the Obama *****INHERITED***** the bush 1/2
> deficit drivers.

And Obama increased the deficits, didn't he?



Obama said he knew how to fix all that, didn't he?


So Obama didn't inherit anything, he asked for the opportunity and
America gave that to him, and suddenly after he discovered his planned
Socialism was NOT going fix anything (which I say he always knew) he
started blaming anyone and everyone else.

It still remains that Obama has failed, regardless of what he was
handed. Obama said he could fix any problem that the United States had
or will have during his time in office..... So why isn't anything
fixed? Instead it's all getting worse.


*Rumination*
#46 - Welcome to Socialism, where mediocrity is the highest achievement
possible.

[emoneyjoe]

I can't tell if you are talking about
"the people as the government", or
of individuals being scammed.

The only way an individual doesn't
get his money's worth is if he doesn't
live long enough to get all his money
back and dies without survivors eligible
for benefits.

Unless something is done, the trust
fund will run out of money in 10 years
or so, there is time to make fixes.

>> Wasn't it the democrats and socialist democrats
>> (a nice term for pinkos of the time) that promoted
>> the SSA without a rational mechanism to deal
>> with inflation?
>>       I am a perfect example of the lack of any
>> financial planning in the SSA, I probably have
>> collected 20 times what I paid in, and I sure
>> ain't no baby boomer.
>>
>>      The SS trust funds have not helped with
>> federal funding except to liberal democrats
>> who think money can be spent twice, if
>> the money wasn't borrowed from the trust
>> funds it would have been borrowed from
>> somebody else.
>
>Borrowed?? why? to pay for tax cuts?

No, I call it federal borrowing when
any entity buys US Savings Bonds,
all others call it investing.

The "money" can't just be put in
a bank vault and sit there, it is all
emoney now, just bits on a computer
disk, the government doesn't have to
sell treasury paper to the trust funds
and pay interest, congress just thinks
it looks better if the trust funds collect
interest even if the government (people)
pays the interest to itself.

>> >It help fund the govt in lieu of other taxes.
>>

>>      Only in your delusion.

>
>It paid for tax cuts.
>$2.7 trillion US

No it didn't, the money is still in the
trust funds as treasury paper drawing
interest, how in the world can you claim
it paid for anything.

If you put money in a CD, do you
claim the bank paid for anything with
that money?

>> >Now to complete the scam the current republicans
>> >want to reform (cut) SS just as interest is starting
>> >to flow to SSA and just before the principle gets
>> >paid back. It is called theft.
>>
>>       What principal gets paid back?
>
>$2.7 trillion in bonds.

It gets paid back anytime the trust fund
needs payout money. Whether or not
the government has to borrow the money
to pay it back with is not an issue at all.

>>       The past 12 months saw the first time
>> that payouts exceeded payins,
>
>Correct.
>
>> that means
>> at least one of the trust funds is shrinking,
>> and something will have to be done some
>> time soon to avoid having to use general
>> funds to pay the OASDI payouts.
>
>It is the interest on those bonds that is being
>paid out. The principle on the bond is not.

Only because the payins are still
enough that the principle doesn't have
to be gone into, that is a good thing
for the future of the trust fund, but
a few more people turning 66 and
less people with jobs and that could
change quickly.

>>      You have a different twist on the
>> complaint about SS, most of those
>> who don't know the facts think they
>> will never get back what they paid in,
>> which is wrong if they live to be 72
>> or maybe 75 depending on when
>> they retire and how much they
>> earned.
>
>You make a good case for cutting
>current SS receipients.

No, dummy, don't believe the
leftist gossip, nobody even thinks
of cutting current recipients, all
the fund fixes would be in retirement
age, increased max FICA earnings,
or possibly higher FICA rates.

So what, they borrowed the money
from the fund back then, the fund gets
the interest, it makes more sense than
putting the money in risk investments.

>Other monies
>will be needed to pay for those bonds.
>This is why some want to cut SS.
>You are falling for the big lie.

No, you are falling for the biggest
lies of all, nobody wants to cut any
current SS benefits, if they did I would
be screaming bloody murder.


You are correct to be concerned,
not about current benefits or retirees
not getting back what they paid in,
but about the future viability of the
debt maintenance, the continued
increase in the debt of about a Trillion
a year is something that needs to be
fixed.

It isn't a question of blame, it is
a necessity to plan for some way
to keep going without going into
default, because the job picture
is not going to improve much,
federal tax revenues are not
going to increase much, and
the deficit problems will continue
unless radical changes are made.

We should all hope and pray
with all our might that it doesn't
result in more authoritative socialism.

[zayton]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 10:28:43 AM UTC-5, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 5/1/2013 10:56 AM, Ken wrote:
>
> > On Apr 30, 9:16 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: Nothing worth
>
> > repeating, BUT
>
> >
>
> > What was the national debt when Shrub took office and what is it
>
> > when he left?
>
> >
>
> > How about this::
>
> > "The Bush administration began with a $5.8 trillion gross federal
>
> > debt, which grew by $6.1 trillion to reach $11.9 trillion -- an
>
> > increase of 105 percent, or slightly more than double. The Times
>
> > ascribed the increase in debt to "tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and
>
> > Afghanistan, (the) economic downturn in 2001 and recession starting in
>
> > 2007."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> You miss the FACT that Bush did this over 8 years..... and Obama has
>
> added $6.0 trillion in *ONLY* 4 years.
>

Most of that during the first year, while the Bush era economic collapse was being reversed.

>
>
> At the end of Obama's reign of power and destruction(8 years), the
>
> damage is likely to be more than double that of Bush and Obama will have
>
> added another $12T to the $6T that Bush ran up.

On the contrary,it now appears that Obama is likely, by the end of his 8 years, to give us the first budget surpluses since Clinton.

[emoneyjoe]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:28:43 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>On 5/1/2013 10:56 AM, Ken wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 9:16 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: Nothing worth
>> repeating, BUT
>>
>> What was the national debt when Shrub took office and what is it
>> when he left?
>>
>> How about this::
>> "The Bush administration began with a $5.8 trillion gross federal
>> debt, which grew by $6.1 trillion to reach $11.9 trillion -- an
>> increase of 105 percent, or slightly more than double. The Times
>> ascribed the increase in debt to "tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and
>> Afghanistan, (the) economic downturn in 2001 and recession starting in
>> 2007."
>>
>>
>You miss the FACT that Bush did this over 8 years..... and Obama has
>added $6.0 trillion in *ONLY* 4 years.

It is a problem that won't go away, it is
not all Bush's fault, it is not all Obama's fault,
tax revenues are going to remain inadequate
for some time.

>At the end of Obama's reign of power and destruction(8 years), the
>damage is likely to be more than double that of Bush and Obama will have
>added another $12T to the $6T that Bush ran up.

That isn't known for sure, and it could be
worse than that, the shocker is the amount
added to the debt the last fiscal year;

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

>The National Debt won't be just $12T it's going to be $24-26T and that
>is the Legacy of Obama and his Socialism.
>
> *Rumination*
>#64 - *He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

Retail sales could drop this year, people are
getting tired of cheap Chinese junk, and there
isn't much of anything new on the shelves to
buy, so tax revenue could drop big time, those
with capital gains can defer selling anything,
and the big issue will be how many people
lose their job or don't get hired because of
the health care act.

Less spending and higher taxes can
really slow the economy.

[emoneyjoe]

What kind of leftist gossip lies are
the communists spreading now?

Learn the facts, no money was looted,
SS is a stable, viable program that is a big
help in stabilizing the economy, and every
penny paid in is accounted for.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

http://www.ssa.gov/history/tftable.html

In the second url, notice the SS trust
fund only had $24 million in it by the time
Reagan took office, the preceding 6 years
more was paid out than paid in,

During the time of Bush II, the trust
fund doubled, and now has more than
at any time, so there is time to fix it,
the big fix may be to add other types
of income to the FICA contributions.

[emoneyjoe]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 08:36:37 -0700 (PDT), Liberal Here
<liber...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 1, 11:28 am, BeamMeUpScotty
><ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 5/1/2013 10:56 AM, Ken wrote:> On Apr 30, 9:16 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: Nothing worth
>> > repeating, BUT
>>
>> >  What was the national debt when Shrub  took office and what is it
>> > when he left?
>>
>> > How about this::
>> > "The Bush administration began with a $5.8 trillion gross federal
>> > debt, which grew by $6.1 trillion to reach $11.9 trillion --  an
>> > increase of 105 percent, or slightly more than double. The Times
>> > ascribed the increase in debt to "tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and
>> > Afghanistan, (the) economic downturn in 2001 and recession starting in
>> > 2007."
>>
>> You miss the FACT that Bush did this over 8 years.....  and Obama has
>> added $6.0 trillion in *ONLY* 4 years.
>
>YOU! miss the fact that the Obama *****INHERITED***** the bush 1/2
>deficit drivers.

It's ALL Bush's fault. :-)

>Otherwise, you'd gleefully list all the new programs Obama demanded be
>passed into law.

We all will after we see the effects of the
unaffordable care act next year.

Don't blame the presidents, blame the
inventors for not inventing new things for
people to buy that would be made in the
US and create new jobs so the tax revenues
would be enough to pay the necessary
operation of government plus all the free
stuff the leftists expect.

[Liberal Here]

On May 1, 11:55 am, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 5/1/2013 11:36 AM, Liberal Here wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 11:28 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/1/2013 10:56 AM, Ken wrote:> On Apr 30, 9:16 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: Nothing worth
> >>> repeating, BUT
>
> >>>  What was the national debt when Shrub  took office and what is it
> >>> when he left?
>
> >>> How about this::
> >>> "The Bush administration began with a $5.8 trillion gross federal
> >>> debt, which grew by $6.1 trillion to reach $11.9 trillion --  an
> >>> increase of 105 percent, or slightly more than double. The Times
> >>> ascribed the increase in debt to "tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and
> >>> Afghanistan, (the) economic downturn in 2001 and recession starting in
> >>> 2007."
>
> >> You miss the FACT that Bush did this over 8 years.....  and Obama has
> >> added $6.0 trillion in *ONLY* 4 years.
>
> > YOU! miss the fact that the Obama *****INHERITED***** the bush 1/2
> > deficit drivers.
>
> And Obama increased the deficits, didn't he?

Oooooo, ya deleted the next line I wrote....didn't ya you fascist
asshole....

"Otherwise, you'd gleefully list all the new programs Obama demanded
be
passed into law."

List all the new programs Obama is responsible for that have added to
the deficit left over from your buttbuddy Bush 1/2-----
>__________________________________________

>
> Obama said he knew how to fix all that, didn't he?

Increase the tax rate on the top 5%. Hasn't happened yet. Oops, don't
try pointing to the expired Bush 1/2 ***TEMPORARY*** cut that finally
expired....the one your buttbuddy Bush 1/2 claimed was needed to keep
the Clinton economic boom going.

>
> So Obama didn't inherit anything, he asked for the opportunity and
> America gave that to him, and suddenly after he discovered his planned
> Socialism was NOT going fix anything (which I say he always knew) he
> started blaming anyone and everyone else.

Oooooo, be a tad precise....WHAT SOCIALISTIC PROGRAMS DO YOU REFER TO?
RomneyCare???

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Son of Stimulus, shovel ready Jobs?
ObamaCare
ObamaPhones
99weeks of unemployment
canceling the oil pipe line, lost jobs
Solyndra 500 billion that it cost?

Fisker that electric car company Obama dumped $200-500Billion into and
it never produced any cars in the USA.
http://theweek.com/article/index/243261/fisker-the-solyndra-of-electric-cars

I'm getting tired of listing all the Obama Failures so someone else can
continue.... there are many many more it's easy but time consuming like
all Obama's screw ups they consume our energy/wealth and produce zero in
return.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Obama extended that tax cut..... why ?

>> So Obama didn't inherit anything, he asked for the opportunity and
>> America gave that to him, and suddenly after he discovered his planned
>> Socialism was NOT going fix anything (which I say he always knew) he
>> started blaming anyone and everyone else.
>
> Oooooo, be a tad precise....WHAT SOCIALISTIC PROGRAMS DO YOU REFER TO?
> RomneyCare???

for one..... and redistribution in general. Redistribution didn't
create any Jobs did it?

[Liberal Here]

On May 1, 1:31 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

And a conservative one at that. Bitch to Romney. Obama wanted Medicare-
for-All....a much better, cheaper idea, but settled for RomneyCare.
Don't believe Medicare-for-All would be cheaper??? Check the Peter G.
Peterson Foundation website (Peterson is **CONSERVATIVE**). Several
nations with national health services are listed....the closest to the
US cost comes in at just over half the US cost.

>  and redistribution in general.  Redistribution didn't
> create any Jobs did it?

Unemployment down. Job losses (800K+ month stopped).

You suffer from the same problem B1ackwater suffers from...you toss in
terms without defining what you mean by them. The only outright
"redistribution" system I know of are things like direct oil company
subsidies and tax rebates to companies that off-shore manufacturing.
You might profit (excuse the pun) from a lesson in economics about
economic stagnation when the wealthy/elite can profit too much and the
wealth of the **NATION** moves into their pockets.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> It still remains that Obama has failed, regardless of what he was
> >> handed. Obama said he could fix any problem that the United States had
> >> or will have during his time in office.....  So why isn't anything
> >> fixed?  Instead it's all getting worse.
>
> >>               *Rumination*
> >> #46 - Welcome to Socialism, where mediocrity is the highest achievement
> >> possible.

Conservatives on the Internet have a problem realizing liberals on the
Internet have some knowledge about that which is at issue. You assume
stupidity....I hope for honesty. We both are wrong.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Yet it received NOT one conservative vote.
Which refutes what you say. It and Romney are Progressive intrusions
into the Republican Party.

And Romney lost NOT because of more Liberal votes "because Obama got
fewer votes" but Romney lost because he had fewer Conservative votes
than Obama's fewer number of Liberal votes.

In other words Romney drove-off more conservative voters than Obama
drove-off Socialist voters. The election loss was due to a lack of
enthusiasm for their candidate.

I surmise that Romney and his connection to Socialist type Health care
drove-off those voters.



--


*Rumination*
#29 - For your WELFARE there's the CHINESE MASTERCARD, but Freedom is
priceless.

[emoneyjoe]

I heard him say he is "not the socialist
muslim he used to be", don't you believe him? :-)

[BeamMeUpScotty]

My question is....

Are the Muslims using the Socialists to destroy America?

OR

Are the Socialists using the Muslims to destroy America?



Is Obama a Socialist that's using the Muslim Jihadist or a Jihadist
that's using the Socialists?








You and Obama aren't as much alike as Obama and the dead Boston Bomber
are alike.


They both hate America.....

They both left the country to go to Jihad vacations in their 20's

They both had an anonymous benefactor pay for their Jihad vacations to
Jihadistan where they both disappeared for an extended period.

they Both felt alone and abandoned here in America "so they said".

The both had college classes paid for by America's federal programs.

They both have terrorists for friends Like Obama has Bill Ayres.... The
Boston Bomber had terrorist friends on the internet.

They both quit drugs and drinking in their early 20's and found Islam
appealing.

They both kill people with bombs, Obama uses drone bombs and kills
people mostly in other Nations. But they both blow up U.S. citizens.

They both know how I should live my life and want to force their beliefs
on me.

Neither Obama or the Boston Bomber ever held a "real" job as far as
anyone can tell.

They both think they're good at sports...


--


*Rumination*
#13 - Being Liberal means, never knowing that, you are your own worst enemy.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/1/2013 2:34 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:

My question is....

Are the Muslims using the Socialists to destroy America?

OR

Are the Socialists using the Muslims to destroy America?



Is Obama a Socialist that's using the Muslim Jihadist or a Jihadist
that's using the Socialists?








You and Obama aren't as much alike as Obama and the dead Boston Bomber
are alike.


They both hate America.....

They both HOPED to FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE America.

They both left the country to go to Jihad vacations in their 20's

They both had an anonymous benefactor pay for their Jihad vacations to
Jihadistan where they both disappeared for an extended period.

They Both felt alone and abandoned here in America "so they said".

They both had college classes paid for by America's federal programs.
And they attended American government run high schools and Liberal Colleges.

They both have *TERRORISTS* for friends Like Obama has Bill Ayres....

The Boston Bomber had terrorist friends on the internet.

They both quit drugs and drinking in their 20's and found Islam
appealing.

They both kill people with bombs, Obama uses drone bombs and they both
kill people mostly in other Nations than their home. But they both blow
up U.S. citizens.

They both know how I should live my life, and want to force their

beliefs on me.

Neither Obama or the Boston Bomber ever held a "real" job as far as
anyone can tell.

They were both thinking they're good at sports.

They both had mothers that hated America.



--


*Rumination*
#52 - Socialism is a philosophy of mediocrity, a creed of intolerance,
and a feeling of malice towards the good fortune of others!

[emoneyjoe]

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/25/morning-bell-believe-it-obamas-a-big-spender/

The 2009 stimulus doubled the deficit for
that year to near two Trillion.

I was wondering why many people say he
is a big spender, so I looked at the above url.

That wasn't very convincing, so I found

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/just-federal-spending.jpg

showing that Obama has spent almost $300
more per capita than Bush, and almost $1100 more
than Clinton, who spent $246 more per capita than
Bush I.

So the statement that Obama is the biggest
spender stands, it just may not mean he had
much to do with it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/24/think-obamas-a-huge-spender-then-you-need-to-see-these-two-charts/

>>__________________________________________
>
>
>>
>> Obama said he knew how to fix all that, didn't he?
>
>Increase the tax rate on the top 5%. Hasn't happened yet. Oops, don't
>try pointing to the expired Bush 1/2 ***TEMPORARY*** cut that finally
>expired....the one your buttbuddy Bush 1/2 claimed was needed to keep
>the Clinton economic boom going.

The cry for higher taxes is not going to cut it,
the problem is too huge to solve with tax increases,
and spending cuts will hurt the economy.

There are just too many social programs,
which actually discourage people from doing
business or working because they lose too
much in free benefits if they try to earn.

That is the present fascist-socialist policy,
give people benefits, and take them away if
a dollar is earned.

It may seem fair to the legislators, but
it isn't fair because there are unseen costs
to trying to earn that never show up, and
anybody that tries, loses.

>> So Obama didn't inherit anything, he asked for the opportunity and
>> America gave that to him, and suddenly after he discovered his planned
>> Socialism was NOT going fix anything (which I say he always knew) he
>> started blaming anyone and everyone else.
>
>Oooooo, be a tad precise....WHAT SOCIALISTIC PROGRAMS DO YOU REFER TO?
>RomneyCare???

That was a state thing, states have a right
and the responsibility to manage the health
care of state citizens.

The problem is, the ACA is going to cost
the federal government money, and you will
be demanding taxes be raised again.

>> It still remains that Obama has failed, regardless of what he was
>> handed. Obama said he could fix any problem that the United States had
>> or will have during his time in office.....  So why isn't anything
>> fixed?  Instead it's all getting worse.
>>
>>               *Rumination*
>> #46 - Welcome to Socialism, where mediocrity is the highest achievement
>> possible.

The problem is, the problem has to be
understood before it can be fixed, and
nobody that matters understands the
problem.

It is a lack of new sales items, which
causes a lack of jobs, which means there
is a lack of taxes being paid.

And there probably won't be much new
to buy, so sales won't go up much, and
that means the deficits are not going to
be reduced much, if at all.

[Liberal Here]

> http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/25/morning-bell-believe-it-obamas-a-...

>
>        The 2009 stimulus doubled the deficit for
> that year to near two Trillion.
>
>        I was wondering why many people say he
> is a big spender, so I looked at the above url.

You mean the stimulus package that saved the US auto industry? Sounds
like it was a bargin and thus self-financing.

>
>        That wasn't very convincing, so I found
>

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/just-feder...

>
>        showing that Obama has spent almost $300
> more per capita than Bush, and almost $1100 more
> than Clinton, who spent  $246 more per capita than
> Bush I.
>
>        So the statement that Obama is the biggest
> spender stands, it just may not mean he had
> much to do with it.

Oops...now that was truthful.....did it hurt?


>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/24/think-obam...

>
> >>__________________________________________
>
> >> Obama said he knew how to fix all that, didn't he?
>
> >Increase the tax rate on the top 5%. Hasn't happened yet. Oops, don't
> >try pointing to the expired Bush 1/2 ***TEMPORARY*** cut that finally
> >expired....the one your buttbuddy Bush 1/2 claimed was needed to keep
> >the Clinton economic boom going.
>
>         The cry for higher taxes is not going to cut it,
> the problem is too huge to solve with tax increases,
> and spending cuts will hurt the economy.

Nope. As you don't understand the problem you don't recognize valid
solutions. The underlying problem is that low top income tax rates
incentivize the off-shoring of US manufacturing. If manufacturing
returned and employment reached Clinton levels....the deficit would
plummet to zero as it did during the Clinton Admin. The way to bring
manufacturing back is to end not-so-free trade and raise the top rate
back to (at least) 70% with deductions for rebuilding factories in the
US.

>
>         There are just too many social programs,
> which actually discourage people from doing
> business or working because they lose too
> much in free benefits if they try to earn.

Reichtard horse manure....new businesses aren't being created because
customers can't afford to buy.

>
>        That is the present fascist-socialist policy,
> give people benefits, and take them away if
> a dollar is earned.

List your benefit programs that have been created following 2008.

Moronic nonsense. Even Laffer has begun to admit supply-side doesn't
work. Funny that when Clinton raised taxes the economy
boomed....although Gingrich predicted a new depression. Took bush to
bring it about.

Bet you don't know ***WHY*** the economy boomed under Clinton?


No....it wasn't cuz he raised taxes....it was because despite raising
taxes, businesses saw wide-spread computerization as a big cost
saving, after taxes, well worth the investment.What America needs
today is to make the reindustrialization of America more profitable,
after taxes, than not reindustrializing. Try to get it.

[emoneyjoe]

I didn't mean that, no, there was a lot more,
and maybe the $250 per taxpayer helped, a
reverse tax, essentially, but it added to the
deficit.

The president can't spend much money
unless congress tells him to, but people
consider anything spent while he is in
office his work.

>>        That wasn't very convincing, so I found
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/just-feder...
>>
>>        showing that Obama has spent almost $300
>> more per capita than Bush, and almost $1100 more
>> than Clinton, who spent  $246 more per capita than
>> Bush I.
>>
>>        So the statement that Obama is the biggest
>> spender stands, it just may not mean he had
>> much to do with it.
>
>Oops...now that was truthful.....did it hurt?

It is what I always say, I want to see the
economy fixed, and I am tired of the bickering
in Washington, but they may not be able to
ever understand the problem.

>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/24/think-obam...
>>
>> >>__________________________________________
>>
>> >> Obama said he knew how to fix all that, didn't he?
>>
>> >Increase the tax rate on the top 5%. Hasn't happened yet. Oops, don't
>> >try pointing to the expired Bush 1/2 ***TEMPORARY*** cut that finally
>> >expired....the one your buttbuddy Bush 1/2 claimed was needed to keep
>> >the Clinton economic boom going.
>>
>>         The cry for higher taxes is not going to cut it,
>> the problem is too huge to solve with tax increases,
>> and spending cuts will hurt the economy.
>
>Nope. As you don't understand the problem you don't recognize valid
>solutions. The underlying problem is that low top income tax rates
>incentivize the off-shoring of US manufacturing. If manufacturing
>returned and employment reached Clinton levels....the deficit would
>plummet to zero as it did during the Clinton Admin. The way to bring
>manufacturing back is to end not-so-free trade and raise the top rate
>back to (at least) 70% with deductions for rebuilding factories in the
>US.

I know exactly what the problem is, and
it is not taxes, it is not imports.

I worked in factories in the early 1950s
where new materials like vinyl and glass
reinforced plastic products were being
developed, and where new products
were being made, and tool and die shops,
that have very little business now because
there isn't anything new to make and
no new materials to make it out of,
the growth in manufacturing is over,
the leftist liberal policies helped cause
the problem, but the big thing is a lack
of new products to make.

>>         There are just too many social programs,
>> which actually discourage people from doing
>> business or working because they lose too
>> much in free benefits if they try to earn.
>
>Reichtard horse manure....new businesses aren't being created because
>customers can't afford to buy.
>
>
>>
>>        That is the present fascist-socialist policy,
>> give people benefits, and take them away if
>> a dollar is earned.
>
>List your benefit programs that have been created following 2008.

Didn't I say most of the problem is not
Obama's fault, it is the liberal trend, a very
gradual shift toward socialism, just what
the Fabians preach and the communists
love, gaining gimme-freebee voters and
ruining the economy.

More blame Bush.

>Bet you don't know ***WHY*** the economy boomed under Clinton?

Actually, it didn't do anything unusual,
retail sales have increased about the same
all along, what helped was less people
entering the work force, all the women
that wanted to work had jobs, and the
low unemployment resulted.

http://www.census.gov/retail/marts/www/download/text/adv44000.txt

>No....it wasn't cuz he raised taxes....it was because despite raising
>taxes, businesses saw wide-spread computerization as a big cost
>saving, after taxes, well worth the investment.What America needs
>today is to make the reindustrialization of America more profitable,
>after taxes, than not reindustrializing. Try to get it.

Nothing government does is going to
help businesses, the less government
does, the better.

The problem is the federal deficit,
and so many people without income.

So much has been produced, just
about everybody has everything they
need or want, so manufacturing is not
going to improve much, and there will
not be as many jobs as before.

The important thing is to resolve
the federal deficit problem, and that
can easily be done by congress, with
money, regardless of what industry
or the economy does.

[Syd M.]

On May 1, 10:51 am, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 5/1/2013 12:16 AM, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article

> > <29dc8409-bcf8-427a-ad08-13de9c957...@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

Nope.
Still only you rethuglians.

PDW

[Syd M.]

On May 1, 11:55 am, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 5/1/2013 11:36 AM, Liberal Here wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 11:28 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/1/2013 10:56 AM, Ken wrote:> On Apr 30, 9:16 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: Nothing worth
> >>> repeating, BUT
>
> >>>  What was the national debt when Shrub  took office and what is it
> >>> when he left?
>
> >>> How about this::
> >>> "The Bush administration began with a $5.8 trillion gross federal
> >>> debt, which grew by $6.1 trillion to reach $11.9 trillion --  an
> >>> increase of 105 percent, or slightly more than double. The Times
> >>> ascribed the increase in debt to "tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and
> >>> Afghanistan, (the) economic downturn in 2001 and recession starting in
> >>> 2007."
>
> >> You miss the FACT that Bush did this over 8 years.....  and Obama has
> >> added $6.0 trillion in *ONLY* 4 years.
>
> > YOU! miss the fact that the Obama *****INHERITED***** the bush 1/2
> > deficit drivers.
>
> And Obama increased the deficits, didn't he?
>
>

No.

PDW

[Syd M.]

On May 1, 3:05 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

Stupid.

PDW

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<edfc886c-da35-402d...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

Why don't these idiots know that the deficit has gone down every year
that Obama's been President?

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 15:19:21 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>In article
><edfc886c-da35-402d...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> "Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 1, 11:55�am, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> > On 5/1/2013 11:36 AM, Liberal Here wrote:

...

>> > > YOU! miss the fact that the Obama *****INHERITED***** the bush 1/2
>> > > deficit drivers.
>> >
>> > And Obama increased the deficits, didn't he?
>>
>> No.

The Bush Recession did.

>
>Why don't these idiots know that the deficit has gone down every year
>that Obama's been President?

That doesn't fit the lies they have been taught to believe.

[Jason]

In article <hlwdjsd2-7EAA1C...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

What was the national debt when lame duck Obama took office and what is it
as of today.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 1, 5:19 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <edfc886c-da35-402d-a11e-9a1d26a05...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

the key word you used is "IDIOTS". remember in their world, if rush,
glen, sean, o'lielly, or fox said it ain't so, it ain't so

[Tom McDonald]

Obama only became a lame duck a few months ago. And why do you not reply
to the fact that he's reduced the deficit every year since he became
President?

[emoneyjoe]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 15:19:21 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article
><edfc886c-da35-402d...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> "Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>> On May 1, 11:55!m, BeamMeUpScotty

>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> > On 5/1/2013 11:36 AM, Liberal Here wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On May 1, 11:28 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>> > > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> > >> On 5/1/2013 10:56 AM, Ken wrote:> On Apr 30, 9:16 pm, Ja...@nospam.com
>> > >> (Jason) wrote: Nothing worth
>> > >>> repeating, BUT
>> >

>> > >>> hat was the national debt when Shrub 4ook office and what is it

>> > >>> when he left?
>> >
>> > >>> How about this::
>> > >>> "The Bush administration began with a $5.8 trillion gross federal

>> > >>> debt, which grew by $6.1 trillion to reach $11.9 trillion -- !n

>> > >>> increase of 105 percent, or slightly more than double. The Times
>> > >>> ascribed the increase in debt to "tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and
>> > >>> Afghanistan, (the) economic downturn in 2001 and recession starting in
>> > >>> 2007."
>> >

>> > >> You miss the FACT that Bush did this over 8 years..... !nd Obama has

>> > >> added $6.0 trillion in *ONLY* 4 years.
>> >
>> > > YOU! miss the fact that the Obama *****INHERITED***** the bush 1/2
>> > > deficit drivers.
>> >
>> > And Obama increased the deficits, didn't he?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> No.
>
>Why don't these idiots know that the deficit has gone down every year
>that Obama's been President?

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm


The fiscal year is the one the treasury goes by,
you do the math.

[emoneyjoe]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 18:39:27 -0500, Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Starting from almost 2 Trillion for the
2009 fiscal year, it should be easy (on
him but not the middle class he raised
taxes on).

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 1, 6:10 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 May 2013 15:19:21 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>
>
> >In article
> ><edfc886c-da35-402d-a11e-9a1d26a05...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

> > "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On May 1, 11:55 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> >> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >> > On 5/1/2013 11:36 AM, Liberal Here wrote:
> ...
> >> > > YOU! miss the fact that the Obama *****INHERITED***** the bush 1/2
> >> > > deficit drivers.
>
> >> > And Obama increased the deficits, didn't he?
>
> >> No.
>
> The Bush Recession did.
>
>
>
> >Why don't these idiots know that the deficit has gone down every year
> >that Obama's been President?
>
> That doesn't fit the lies they have been taught to believe.

BINGO!!!!

"CONSERVATIVES" cannot escape their ideological boxes and are
creatures of their biases. They want their prejudices vindicated and
their beliefs supported. A writer who tells them something that they
do not want to hear receives abuse. These readers cannot benefit from
facts and new information and change their minds. They already know
everything and only want information that supports their beliefs and
advances their agendas. 

If a writer makes the case so clear that
readers simply cannot avoid it, the reader will intentionally misread
the article or book and attack the writer for saying everything that
he does not say. The chorus will join in the effort to shut down the
unwelcome information before it reaches others
"CONSERVATIVES" are hostile to facts and truths that do not support
their biases and serve their interests, there is a disconnect from
reality, which is the situation in America today.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 1, 6:35 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article <hlwdjsd2-7EAA1C.15192101052...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <edfc886c-da35-402d-a11e-9a1d26a05...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

yes it was bushes fault and it still is: The Iraq war says economist
Joseph Stiglitz, is the first U.S. war financed entirely on
credit.:There’s no such thing as a free war Stiglitz said. The U.S.
and the world will be paying the price for decades to come



http://theweek.com/article/index/40617/briefing-the-iraq-money-pit


Briefing: The Iraq money pit
What has all that money bought for the U.S.—and the Iraqis?
By The Week Staff | May 1, 2008

The war in Iraq is costing the U.S. $12 billion a month, and no one
can say when the spending will stop. What has all that money bought
for the U.S.—and the Iraqis?
How much has the war cost so far?
About $600 billion since 2003, and
the total is rising fast. Because of soaring fuel costs and the high
price of repairing or replacing damaged equipment, the U.S. is
spending about $12 billion a month this year, up from $4 billion a
month in 2003. About $1.5 billion of the monthly total covers
reconstruction, and perhaps an additional $4.5 billion flows to
private contractors doing everything from serving food to guarding
diplomats. The remainder covers fuel, ammunition, and equipment, as
well as the cost of paying, feeding, housing, and providing medical
care to more than 150,000 U.S. military personnel. The $600 billion
figure does not include such costly consequences as higher oil prices,
the interest on the billions borrowed to pay for the war (see below),
and the burden of long-term care and benefits for Iraq war veterans.
So what’s a more realistic figure?
Anywhere from $1 trillion to $5
trillion. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently said
that the war’s cost would amount to $1.2 trillion to $1.7 trillion by
2017. Harvard researcher Linda Bilmes and Nobel Prize–winning
economist Joseph Stiglitz, in their book The $3 Trillion War, say that
the war’s long-term cost will range from $2 trillion to $5 trillion.
Iraq is already the second most expensive war in U.S. history. Only
World War II cost more, about $5 trillion, adjusted for inflation. As
a point of perspective, consider what the $600 billion we’ve spent
already could have purchased, says Bilmes. “The money spent on the war
could have fixed Social Security for 75 years or provided health
insurance to all American children,” she says. 

Has the money been
well spent?
In many cases, no. Audits and oversight groups have found
that tens of billions have been squandered in waste, fraud, and
corruption. Contractors hired to rebuild the country’s infrastructure
or provide security have overcharged the U.S. for everything from soft
drinks—$45 a can—to gasoline. Millions of dollars in no-bid
reconstruction contracts were diverted to things such as Super Bowl
tickets, prostitutes, watches, and jewelry. And much of the
reconstruction work has been substandard. The U.S., for example, paid
$72 million to Parsons, a U.S. contractor, to build a police academy
in Baghdad. But the building was so badly put together that raw sewage
seeps from its walls and ceilings. “This became the lens through which
Iraqis now see America—incompetence, profiteering, arrogance,” said
House Democrat Henry Waxman of California, a vocal critic of the war.

Are the Iraqis chipping in for reconstruction?
Barely, and that’s a
sore point with Congress. With oil nearing $120 a barrel, the Iraqi
government is looking at a $70 billion windfall in oil revenues this
year—twice what it expected when it drew up its $48 billion budget for
2008. But instead of financing the reconstruction of Iraq’s decrepit
electrical grid, sewer systems, roads, and public buildings, most of
the money is going unspent. “The Iraqis have translated their oil
revenues into budget surpluses rather than effective services,” said
Missouri Democratic Rep. Ike Skelton. Congress has cut off further
funds for reconstruction and is looking into ways to prod the Iraqi
government into shouldering more of the load. 

Why is reconstruction
going so slowly?
In part because it’s hard to work in a combat zone,
where unguarded workers can be killed by snipers and bombs. The
largest share of any reconstruction contract in Iraq goes to security.
But corruption plays a large role, too. The former head of Iraq’s anti-
corruption commission recently told Congress that at least $18 billion
of Iraq’s own funds has been lost to corruption, with much of the
money ending up in the hands of Shiite militias and Sunni insurgent
groups. That total doesn’t include the losses from oil smuggling and
theft. When the U.S. renovated Iraq’s oil pipelines, it failed to
install meters to monitor the flow of oil. So no one can say how much
oil has been siphoned off illegally. 

Is life at least better for the
Iraqi people?
By some measures, unquestionably. Recent polls show that
45 percent of Iraqis expect conditions to improve over the next 12
months, up from 29 percent in 2007. Unlike in the Saddam Hussein era,
when political opponents were killed or tortured and only state-
sponsored media were permitted, Iraq now has 268 privately owned
newspapers and 54 commercial TV stations. Thanks to the surge of
28,000 additional U.S. forces and peacekeeping deals with “Sunni
awakening” groups, war-related deaths among Iraqi civilians have
dropped to fewer than 600 a month, compared to almost 1,800 a month in
2006. But more than 60,000 Iraqis have died in the sectarian violence
thus far, and many portions of the country remain dangerous. In
Baghdad, electricity is available less than 12 hours a day, and many
areas have no running water or sewer systems. Unemployment stands at
around 33 percent, and inflation is soaring. About 2 million Iraqis
have fled Iraq, mostly to Syria and Jordan, and many vow not to go
back. Meanwhile, the political impasse between the government and
Sunnis and insurgent Shiite groups keeps the country stuck in a
primitive, largely dysfunctional state. Americans “are the best in
destroying things,” said 26-year-old Zaid Saleem, who mans a stall in
a Baghdad market. “But they are the worst in rebuilding.”

The credit card war
The Iraq war, says economist Joseph Stiglitz, is
“the first U.S. war financed entirely on credit.” When the war
started, the Bush administration said it would cost no more than $60
billion. But the U.S. budget was already in deficit, so the
administration had to borrow money to finance the invasion. About 40
percent of the money was borrowed from China and other international
investors—the first time since the Revolutionary War that foreigners
financed a U.S. war. At the same time, the administration and Congress
lowered taxes instead of raising them, as is customary in wartime. The
Federal Reserve kept interest rates low, which encouraged middle-class
Americans to go on a consumption binge financed by credit cards and
home-equity loans. Today, say Stiglitz and other economists, the bills
for the country’s spending spree are starting to come due, in the form
of higher prices, a weakened dollar, and lower living standards.
“There’s no such thing as a free war,” Stiglitz said. “The U.S.—and
the world—will be paying the price for decades to come.”

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 1, 6:59 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 May 2013 18:39:27 -0500, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 5/1/2013 6:35 PM, Jason wrote:

> >> In article <hlwdjsd2-7EAA1C.15192101052...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> >> Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> In article
> >>> <edfc886c-da35-402d-a11e-9a1d26a05...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

yes it still is bushes fault: the Bush administration masked the cost
of the war with deficit spending to ensure that the American people
would not face up to its costs while President Bush was in office.
Despite their recent discovery of outrage over the national debt, the
Republicans followed the advice of Vice-President Dick Cheney that
"deficits don't matter" and spent freely on domestic programs
throughout the Bush years. The Bush administration encouraged the
American people to keep spending and "enjoy life", while the
government paid for the occupation of Iraq on a credit card they hoped
never to have to repay.
As a result, the average American was never forced to confront whether
pouring money borrowed from China into the corrupt Iraqi security
services was worth it, or whether it made more sense to rebuild
infrastructure in Diyala, rather than, say, Philadelphia.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34251.htm

How the US Public was Defrauded by the Hidden $ Cost of the Iraq War
and Occupation

George Bush sold the war as quick and cheap; it was
long and costly. Even now, the US is paying billions to private
contractors

By Michael Boyle

March 11, 2013 "Information Clearing
House" - "The Guardian" --  When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003,
the Bush administration estimated that it would cost $50-60bn to
overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a functioning government. This
estimate was catastrophically wrong: the war in Iraq has cost $823.2bn
between 2003 and 2011. Some estimates suggesting that it may
eventually cost as much as $3.7tn when factoring in the long-term
costs of caring for the wounded and the families of those killed.
The most striking fact about the cost of the war in Iraq has been the
extent to which it has been kept "off the books" of the government's
ledgers and hidden from the American people. This was done by design.
A fundamental assumption of the Bush administration's approach to the
war was that it was only politically sustainable if it was portrayed
as near-costless to the American public and to key constituencies in
Washington. The dirty little secret of the Iraq war – one that both
Bush and the war hawks in the Democratic party knew, but would never
admit – was that the American people would only support a war to get
rid of Saddam Hussein if they could be assured that they would pay
almost nothing for it.
The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept
hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the
occupation. By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or
emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon's annual
budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield
the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the
war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the
scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular
appropriations.
With the Iraq war treated as an "off the books" expense, the Pentagon
was allowed to keep spending on high-end military equipment and
cutting-edge technology. In fiscal terms, it was as if the messy wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq were never happening.
More fundamentally, the Bush administration masked the cost of the war
with deficit spending to ensure that the American people would not
face up to its costs while President Bush was in office. Despite their
recent discovery of outrage over the national debt, the Republicans
followed the advice of Vice-President Dick Cheney that "deficits don't
matter" and spent freely on domestic programs throughout the Bush
years. The Bush administration encouraged the American people to keep
spending and "enjoy life", while the government paid for the
occupation of Iraq on a credit card they hoped never to have to repay.
Most Americans were not asked to make any sacrifice for the Iraq war,
while its real costs were confined to the 1% of the population who
fought and died there. As a result, the average American was never
forced to confront whether pouring money borrowed from China into the
corrupt Iraqi security services was worth it, or whether it made more
sense to rebuild infrastructure in Diyala, rather than, say,
Philadelphia.
One consequence of the way that the true costs of the Iraq war was
hidden from the American people was an explosion of fraud, waste and
abuse. The recent final report of the Special Inspector General for
Iraq Reconstruction (Sigir) estimates that the US lost to corruption
or waste at least $8bn of the $60bn devoted to reconstructing Iraq.
Much of the reconstruction expense had no useful political effect: as
Spencer Ackerman has pointed out, Iraqi officials cannot point to a
single completed project that the US managed during the course of the
occupation. The hundreds of ill thought-out projects and half-baked
ideas that marred the American reconstruction effort provides a
powerful explanation for why the US campaign for "hearts and minds"
never worked, and why Iraq is hardly a pro-American bastion in the
Middle East today.
An occupation conducted through under-scrutinized emergency
appropriations enabled dozens, if not hundreds, of private companies
to act like pigs at the trough – wasting taxpayer dollars on frivolous
expenses while the insurgency raged around them. These private
companies were able to behave so rapaciously because they were so
desperately needed by the US government to run the Iraq war without
revealing its true cost to the American public.
Another factor that was kept hidden from the American public was the
skyrocketing costs of deploying US troops abroad. According to a
Congressional Research Service estimate (pdf), the average annual
operational cost per US soldier in Iraq was $462,000 between 2005 and
2009. To control costs and avoid imposing a draft, the US resorted to
a parallel army of private contractors, numbering 100,000 people or
more at the height of the war.
Yet, this policy backfired, as private contractors cost nearly as much
and wasted millions – by one estimate, losing $12m a day between the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only advantage they had was that
they allowed the American people to be lulled into thinking that the
Iraq war had cost them nothing.
The extent to which the US hid the costs of the war by relying on
private contractors has left a disastrous legacy within Iraq itself.
Many of these contractors behaved recklessly; sometimes, they even
shot at crowds when they felt trapped or threatened. Thus private
military contracting help to turn the population even more against the
US and the occupation.
Even after the US withdrawal, Iraq has had to contend with dozens of
private security companies, many still under US contract, running
operations in contravention of Iraqi law. An estimate in February 2012
revealed there were 109 separate private security companies, with
36,000 men under arms, still operating in Iraq months after the
American army had gone home. While US attention has drifted from Iraq,
the costs of this reckless war are still being incurred. The American
embassy in Baghdad remains a heavily-armed fortress: a relic of the
imperial ambitions that the US had in that country.
Through 2012, the US is projected to have spent $17.7bn (pdf) on
police training and civilian reconstruction projects in Iraq. This at
a time when hundreds of states and towns across the US face harsh
budget cuts in essential services and care for their poor and sick.
The Iraq war provides many lessons, but among the most important is
that the promise of a cheap and easy war never turns out to be true.
The Bush administration sold the American people a bill of goods with
Iraq, offering them a short and glorious war while secretly running up
a tab that future generations will be left with. Along with
Afghanistan, the war in Iraq added $1.4tn to the national debt.
The dishonesty of this approach is due to a fundamental fact about the
United States: that while its leaders may have grand international
ambitions, most Americans have no appetite for, or interest in, nation-
building abroad. This mismatch between our leaders and ourselves means
that our politicians will lie to us about running their wars on the
cheap while finding ways to pass on the costs to those not yet born.
That lesson should be remembered by any American who sees a future
president promise, as George Bush did, that such embarking on such a
conflict today will "lift a terrible threat from the lives of our
children and grandchildren".

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 16:35:38 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

>In article <hlwdjsd2-7EAA1C...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
>Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <edfc886c-da35-402d...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 1, 11:55�am, BeamMeUpScotty
>> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

...

>> > > And Obama increased the deficits, didn't he?
>> >
>> > No.
>>
>> Why don't these idiots know that the deficit has gone down every year
>> that Obama's been President?
>
>What was the national debt when lame duck Obama took office and what is it
>as of today.
>

Your question shows that you are making excuses for the Republicans and
their war on the United States' economy.

[emoneyjoe]

>advances their agendas. ??If a writer makes the case so clear that

>readers simply cannot avoid it, the reader will intentionally misread
>the article or book and attack the writer for saying everything that
>he does not say. The chorus will join in the effort to shut down the
>unwelcome information before it reaches others
>"CONSERVATIVES" are hostile to facts and truths that do not support
>their biases and serve their interests, there is a disconnect from
>reality, which is the situation in America today.

What is it you are trying to say, that between
the liberal spenders and the thrifty conservatives,
things are a mess?

Actually, there wasn't much grass roots
politics in 2012, I only saw one bumper
sticker, maybe 2014 will be different.

[emoneyjoe]

That article is from about the date when
the plug got pulled on the money game.

The cost of the war in money was less
than what is being spent on social programs,
in the 20th century, the craze was a discount,
now it is everything free.

And the worse may be yet to come, ACA!

[emoneyjoe]

Sure, you can say that.

>the Bush administration masked the cost
>of the war with deficit spending to ensure that the American people
>would not face up to its costs while President Bush was in office.

I don't know what you mean, was it hidden?
I thought much of it was done with add on legislation.

>Despite their recent discovery of outrage over the national debt, the
>Republicans followed the advice of Vice-President Dick Cheney that
>"deficits don't matter" and spent freely on domestic programs
>throughout the Bush years. The Bush administration encouraged the
>American people to keep spending and "enjoy life", while the
>government paid for the occupation of Iraq on a credit card they hoped
>never to have to repay.

I know of democrats who say it doesn't
have to be repaid. The government can
repay it any time, as long as it stays sovereign.

>As a result, the average American was never forced to confront whether
>pouring money borrowed from China into the corrupt Iraqi security
>services was worth it, or whether it made more sense to rebuild
>infrastructure in Diyala, rather than, say, Philadelphia.

.
>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34251.htm

What is that, a Bin Laden web site, wow!

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

What part of the world does not believe CNN?

>How the US Public was Defrauded by the Hidden $ Cost of the Iraq War

>and Occupation??
[snip the paste]

Yes, a lot of the funding was done through
supplemental legislation, they were mentioned
in the news every time, I don't know what that
writer thinks was hidden.

It sounds like somebody would have rather
had Saddam take over all the middle east oil,
and that web site seems to be supporting
the Syrian government, not the UN or the
world condemnation of abuse of citizens.


But maybe you can explain it better.

[emoneyjoe]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 19:07:14 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

:-) Can the government afford any more
free lunches, or free anything, the people sure
can't afford to pay 3.5 Trillion in taxes with a
15 Trillion economy.

A lot of people forget this economy is
the biggest in the world, and it can't afford
all the free stuff, and the rest of the free
world is in the same boat. the left has
made the cost so high, it will take a lot
of work to get back on track.

[maxw...@my-deja.com]

On May 1, 12:10 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 03:38:32 -0700 (PDT), maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >On Apr 30, 10:04 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:

> >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:25:28 -0700 (PDT), maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> >On Apr 30, 5:39 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:25:25 -0700 (PDT), Transition Zone
>
> >> >> <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> >On Apr 28, 5:01 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:01:27 -0500, RD Sandman
>
> >> >> >> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >John out west <n...@replyhere.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >news:kli3tb$qsi$1...@wieslauf.sub.de:
>
> >> >> >> >> On 4/27/2013 4:01 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> Transition Zone <mogu...@hotmail.com> wrote in

> >> >> >> >>>news:8e9d1edf-c96e-46b3...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:

>
> >> >> >> >>>> Reagan quadrupled the debt, "wouldn't obama have to spend 30

> >> >> >> >>>> trillion to quadruple the debt like reagan/bush did. "            -

> >> >> >> >>>> Last post: Aug 3, 2009
>

> >> >> >> >>>> --http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090803030351AA74Tvr
>
> >> >> >> >>>> --
> >> >> >> >>>>http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=20040701&id=lGRPAAAAIB
> >> >> >> >>>> AJ &sjid=JQQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1983,53818
>
> >> >> >> >>>> (Toledo Blade)
>
> >> >> >> >>> Hmmm. I have 50 cents in my pocket.  Assume you have a thousand
> >> >> >> >>> dollars in yours.  Which of us can double our amounts the quickest?

>
> >> >> >> >> Let's say I have a thousand dollars in my pocket. You are a Kenyan
> >> >> >> >> born village idiot who has never held a real job or had to earn his

> >> >> >> >> own money. You think half of my money should be yours because you are
> >> >> >> >> lazy, stupid and think I am lucky. Who should take his black ass down

> >> >> >> >> the street and bullshit someone else?
>

> >> >> >> >Ahhhh, racism.....the scapegoat for anyone who is out of ideas and can't

> >> >> >> >think for him or herself.
>

> >> >> >>       Where do you see racism, or is there such a

> >> >> >> thing as half-racism?   :-)

>
> >> >> >>A lot of the Reagan budget went to the
> >> >> > >build up of stealth, the world situation was

> >> >> >>  such that it was a good idea.
>
> >> >> >Why did he fight against tax INCREASES, then ??
>

> >> >>       Probably because his advisors knew that
> >> >> the baby boomers were entering the work
> >> >> force in the highest number during the 1980s.
>
> >> >Exactly. It was a brilliant scam of scams. The SSA
> >> >Act of 1983 increased SS taxes and with the baby
> >> >boomers created a surplus that for nearly 30 years
> >> >has been invested in special US treasury bonds.
>

> >>        Since when does a government scam itself?
>
> >It scams the people. Not hard to comprehend.
>
>      I can't tell if you are talking about
> "the people as the government", or
> of individuals being scammed.
>
>      The only way an individual doesn't
> get his money's worth is if he doesn't
> live long enough to get all his money
> back and dies without survivors eligible
> for benefits.

They get scammed when the trust fund
doesn't pay out as it should and cuts
are made instead. Baby boomers are
responsible for the surplus and the surplus
should be paid to them as planned in 1983.
>
>      Unless something is done, the trust
> fund will run out of money in 10 years
> or so, there is time to make fixes.

Wrong, You should read. It should be
solvent until 2034. You are a victim of
mis-information or maybe you were thinking
of Medicare.
>
> >> Wasn't it the democrats and socialist democrats
> >> (a nice term for pinkos of the time) that promoted
> >> the SSA without a rational mechanism to deal
> >> with inflation?
> >>       I am a perfect example of the lack of any
> >> financial planning in the SSA, I probably have
> >> collected 20 times what I paid in, and I sure
> >> ain't no baby boomer.
>
> >>      The SS trust funds have not helped with
> >> federal funding except to liberal democrats
> >> who think money can be spent twice, if
> >> the money wasn't borrowed from the trust
> >> funds it would have been borrowed from
> >> somebody else.
>
> >Borrowed?? why? to pay for tax cuts?
>
>       No, I call it federal borrowing when
> any entity buys US Savings Bonds,
> all others call it investing.

But had there not been the big tax cuts....
then there would not be the need for
the borrowing.
>
>       The "money" can't just be put in
> a bank vault and sit there, it is all
> emoney now, just bits on a computer
> disk, the government doesn't have to
> sell treasury paper to the trust funds
> and pay interest, congress just thinks
> it looks better if the trust funds collect
> interest even if the government (people)
> pays the interest to itself.

>
> >> >It help fund the govt in lieu of other taxes.
>

> >>      Only in your delusion.
>
> >It paid for tax cuts.
> >$2.7 trillion US
>
>        No it didn't, the money is still in the
> trust funds as treasury paper drawing
> interest, how in the world can you claim
> it paid for anything.
>
>       If you put money in a CD, do you
> claim the bank paid for anything with
> that money?

If you don't believe that the money in
a CD or bond is used for other purposes
then I am wasting my time with you.
It has to be paid back, but unlike a bank
the govt decides when and how.

>
> >> >Now to complete the scam the current republicans
> >> >want to reform (cut) SS just as interest is starting
> >> >to flow to SSA and just before the principle gets
> >> >paid back. It is called theft.
>

> >>       What principal gets paid back?
>
> >$2.7 trillion in bonds.
>
>        It gets paid back anytime the trust fund
> needs payout money.    Whether or not
> the government has to borrow the money
> to pay it back with is not an issue at all.

Yes it is an issue because certain politicians make
the debt and taxes and issue. Congress can make
decisions on slowing down the payout to SS receipients.
That is what is happening now. If they slow it down then
less borrowing from other sources is needed and taxes
don't have to be raised.
>
> >>       The past 12 months saw the first time
> >> that payouts exceeded payins,
>
> >Correct.
>
> >> that means
> >> at least one of the trust funds is shrinking,
> >> and something will have to be done some
> >> time soon to avoid having to use general
> >> funds to pay the OASDI payouts.
>
> >It is the interest on those bonds that is being
> >paid out. The principle on the bond is not.
>
>        Only because the payins are still
> enough that the principle doesn't have
> to be gone into, that is a good thing
> for the future of the trust fund, but
> a few more people turning 66 and
> less people with jobs and that could
> change quickly.

But according to you that should not be a problem
since " It gets paid back anytime the trust fund
> needs payout money"

>
> >>      You have a different twist on the
> >> complaint about SS, most of those
> >> who don't know the facts think they
> >> will never get back what they paid in,
> >> which is wrong if they live to be 72
> >> or maybe 75 depending on when
> >> they retire and how much they
> >> earned.
>
> >You make a good case for cutting
> >current SS receipients.
>
>        No, dummy, don't believe the
> leftist gossip, nobody even thinks
> of cutting current recipients, all
> the fund fixes would be in retirement
> age, increased max FICA earnings,
> or possibly higher FICA rates.

But by age 75 everyone should at least
break even. So why not limit the payouts
that you seem concerned about?
>
> >>       The people that planned the
> >> financing of SS were dumb as dirt,
> >> or knew it could not work, but they
> >> wanted the social-ism caring kind
> >> of government.
> >>      Then as the rates went up and
> >> benefits were added, the financing
> >> got even more silly.
>
> >>      The SS taxes harmed the economy
> >> from 1937 until last year by taking
> >> more taxes than was paid out in
> >> benefits.
>
> >>      Now we have people saying that
> >> there is a hundred Trillion or so in
> >> unfunded liabilities, not counting
> >> the national debt and the interest
> >> on it.
>
> >>      Why you think doing what has
> >> to be done to keep the fund(s)
> >> solvent is beyond me, the fund
> >> money is kept separate (in the
> >> accounting) even though Clinton
> >> used it to reduce the debt owed
> >> to the public.
>
> >Yes, but those bonds are a liability
> >to the US treasury.
>
>       So what, they borrowed the money
> from the fund back then, the fund gets
> the interest, it makes more sense than
> putting the money in risk investments.
>
> >Other monies
> >will be needed to pay for those bonds.
> >This is why some want to cut SS.
> >You are falling for the big lie.
>
>        No, you are falling for the biggest
> lies of all, nobody wants to cut any
> current SS benefits, if they did I would
> be screaming bloody murder.
>
>       You are correct to be concerned,
> not about current benefits or retirees
> not getting back what they paid in,
> but about the future viability of the
> debt maintenance, the continued
> increase in the debt of about a Trillion
> a year is something that needs to be
> fixed.
>
>      It isn't a question of blame, it is
> a necessity to plan for some way
> to keep going without going into
> default, because the job picture

> is not going to improve much,

> federal tax revenues are not
> going to increase much, and
> the deficit problems will continue
> unless radical changes are made.

From what I read from you then the $2,7T owed
to SS should simply be replaced by other borrowing.
And the FICA tax should be raised or at least the amount
of income it applies to.
Problem solved.
>
>      We should all hope and pray
> with all our might that it doesn't
> result in more authoritative socialism.>>      I use this nym because I am
> >> out to try to make some sense
> >> of the federal debt and to find
> >> ways to avoid an eventual very
> >> disastrous default.
>
> >>     Congress and the president
> >> must be in confused denial to
> >> think the present situation can
> >> be resolved with spending cuts
> >> and increased taxes.

>
> >> >>       That eased up completely by Clinton's
> >> >> second or third year.
>

> >> >>       The economy was really broken in 1980,
> >> >> not necessarily because of anything Carter
> >> >> had been doing, just the fact that women
> >> >> were entering the work force for the first
> >> >> time in droves, the baby boomers too,
> >> >> demand for everything was driving up
> >> >> prices, and interest rates went sky high
> >> >> because more people were borrowing
> >> >> than had money to loan.
>

> >> >>      It took more than 4 years to really
> >> >> get straightened out, but it did, and
> >> >> the democrats coerced Bush I to
> >> >> raise taxes after he said he wouldn't,
> >> >> maybe that helped cause the job
> >> >> problem that caused him to not
> >> >> get a second term.
>

> >> >>      The  demand didn't just start

> >> >> during Carter, it was so bad in the
> >> >> mid 1970s that we could not use
> >> >> catalog prices on industrial and
> >> >> commercial electric equipment
> >> >> and supplies, we had to check
> >> >> invoices and estimate what new
> >> >> stock would cost, else we would
> >> >> have been selling for less than
> >> >> what it would cost to replace
> >> >> inventory.
>

> >> >>      The problem is just the opposite
> >> >> now, demand is so low in some areas
> >> >> it is nonexistent, there is only a fraction
> >> >> of the money circulating now locally,
> >> >> and it is getting worse.

[linuxgal]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> In other words Romney drove-off more conservative voters than Obama
> drove-off Socialist voters.

That he got 47% of the popular vote was either karma or evidence there
really is a God.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[emoneyjoe]

There has never been any cuts of
benefits, and there never has been any
that I know of.
I think the president has mentioned
at one time or another that if there is
default there might not be any payouts,
but I think he would/should change his
mind about that and continue payouts
even if they have to create the money
if they can't borrow it.

You seem concerned about something
that will probably never happen.

>>      Unless something is done, the trust
>> fund will run out of money in 10 years
>> or so, there is time to make fixes.
>
>Wrong, You should read. It should be
>solvent until 2034. You are a victim of
>mis-information or maybe you were thinking
>of Medicare.

Things like this should never be allowed
to continue until it has to be done, the fixes
should come 10 or 15 years ahead of time.
Some of the FICA contributions have
been increased by making the earnings
limit higher, or extending the taxes to other
types of income, next year we will see how
that works out.

>> >> Wasn't it the democrats and socialist democrats
>> >> (a nice term for pinkos of the time) that promoted
>> >> the SSA without a rational mechanism to deal
>> >> with inflation?
>> >>       I am a perfect example of the lack of any
>> >> financial planning in the SSA, I probably have
>> >> collected 20 times what I paid in, and I sure
>> >> ain't no baby boomer.
>>
>> >>      The SS trust funds have not helped with
>> >> federal funding except to liberal democrats
>> >> who think money can be spent twice, if
>> >> the money wasn't borrowed from the trust
>> >> funds it would have been borrowed from
>> >> somebody else.
>>
>> >Borrowed?? why? to pay for tax cuts?
>>
>>       No, I call it federal borrowing when
>> any entity buys US Savings Bonds,
>> all others call it investing.
>
>But had there not been the big tax cuts....
>then there would not be the need for
>the borrowing.

Had there been no tax cuts, the
economy might not have rebounded,
the collapse of the housing industry
wasn't because of the tax cuts, the
changes made to SS in 1983 didn't
have anything to do with tax cuts,
the problem was more beneficiaries
and not enough contributors.

You fail to realize the money had to
go some place, for more than one reason,
it wasn't cash, only enough paper currency
exists to supply the demands of the world
wide public.

Anybody that buys treasury paper
either gets it back when it matures, or
whenever they choose to redeem it.

Where did you get the idea they can't
redeem when they wanted or expected?

>> >> >Now to complete the scam the current republicans
>> >> >want to reform (cut) SS just as interest is starting
>> >> >to flow to SSA and just before the principle gets
>> >> >paid back. It is called theft.
>>
>> >>       What principal gets paid back?
>>
>> >$2.7 trillion in bonds.
>>
>>        It gets paid back anytime the trust fund
>> needs payout money.    Whether or not
>> the government has to borrow the money
>> to pay it back with is not an issue at all.
>
>Yes it is an issue because certain politicians make
>the debt and taxes and issue. Congress can make
>decisions on slowing down the payout to SS receipients.

No, that has never been considered,
the debt is an issue, but the SS program
is probably the least affected.

>That is what is happening now. If they slow it down then
>less borrowing from other sources is needed and taxes
>don't have to be raised.

Nonsense, if you know of any proposed
legislation about reducing benefits, please
post a reference.
AFAIK, only increasing the retirement
age and other changes in FICA contributions
have been considered.

While the program was poorly thought
out, and the original funding was horribly
inadequate, it has been improved, and
benefits increased.

When I started working, I think I only
paid about 3 percent FICA taxes.

>> >>       The past 12 months saw the first time
>> >> that payouts exceeded payins,
>>
>> >Correct.
>>
>> >> that means
>> >> at least one of the trust funds is shrinking,
>> >> and something will have to be done some
>> >> time soon to avoid having to use general
>> >> funds to pay the OASDI payouts.
>>
>> >It is the interest on those bonds that is being
>> >paid out. The principle on the bond is not.
>>
>>        Only because the payins are still
>> enough that the principle doesn't have
>> to be gone into, that is a good thing
>> for the future of the trust fund, but
>> a few more people turning 66 and
>> less people with jobs and that could
>> change quickly.
>
>But according to you that should not be a problem
>since " It gets paid back anytime the trust fund
>needs payout money"

Right, and if you understood money,
you would know that the government
can make the payouts and debit an
account if they don't have the money,
it is the government, their job is to pay
the bills, they don't need gold, all they
need to do is press computer keys,
what is the problem???????????????

>> >>      You have a different twist on the
>> >> complaint about SS, most of those
>> >> who don't know the facts think they
>> >> will never get back what they paid in,
>> >> which is wrong if they live to be 72
>> >> or maybe 75 depending on when
>> >> they retire and how much they
>> >> earned.
>>
>> >You make a good case for cutting
>> >current SS receipients.
>>
>>        No, dummy, don't believe the
>> leftist gossip, nobody even thinks
>> of cutting current recipients, all
>> the fund fixes would be in retirement
>> age, increased max FICA earnings,
>> or possibly higher FICA rates.
>
>But by age 75 everyone should at least
>break even. So why not limit the payouts
>that you seem concerned about?

Most will have already received more
back than they paid in.
People retiring now that earned less
than $30,000 average may get about
$1500 a month, but they may not have
paid in more than $100,000.

So in 65 months they get it all back.

In reality, even less than that may
have been paid in, because so few
people averaged $30,000 earnings.

No, the problem isn't solved,
it becomes bigger, but there is a
simple solution, changing how
money is created, allowing the
government to create the money
to pay bills, and change the tax
structure to prevent too much
money from accumulating.

The present system worked as
long as everybody could find a job,
that has changed, and that is the
cause of the problem.

The government must adapt to the
different conditions, because people
should never be forced to do things
they don't want to do.

It may be complicated, but anything
can be done with the proper planning,
just letting the ship of the economy
drift without sails or a rudder is not
very smart.

[Nickname unavailable]

 if employment and wages do not increase, thrift will increase
unemployment.

[Nickname unavailable]

yet social spending created a america that was the envy of the world.
war is wasteful, and its on a chinese credit card. no matter how your
type tried to ignore, or lie it away, its reagans and bushs tax cuts,
coupled with bushs disasters called war, are the reasons for the
deficits.

[Nickname unavailable]

you mean snip the truth. remember, our troops would be met with roses
being tossed into the streets, and iraq itself would pay for the war.
all lies. in fact, the war was built on lies.

the real driver of the deficit: yes it still is bushes fault:: Iraq
has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits
owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6
trillion over the next 4 decades counting interest

http://in.news.yahoo.com/iraq-war-costs-u-more-2-trillion-study-142441219.html


Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion - study
By Daniel Trotta | Reuters – 9 hours ago

By Daniel Trotta
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with
an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses
that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades
counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.
The war has killed at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have
contributed to the deaths of as many as four times that number,
according to the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for
International Studies at Brown University.
When security forces, insurgents, journalists and humanitarian workers
were included, the war's death toll rose to an estimated 176,000 to
189,000, the study said.
The report, the work of about 30 academics and experts, was published
in advance of the 10th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq on
March 19, 2003.
It was also an update of a 2011 report the Watson Institute produced
ahead of the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks that
assessed the cost in dollars and lives from the resulting wars in
Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.
The 2011 study said the combined cost of the wars was at least $3.7
trillion, based on actual expenditures from the U.S. Treasury and
future commitments, such as the medical and disability claims of U.S.
war veterans.
That estimate climbed to nearly $4 trillion in the update.
The estimated death toll from the three wars, previously at 224,000 to
258,000, increased to a range of 272,000 to 329,000 two years later.
Excluded were indirect deaths caused by the mass exodus of doctors and
a devastated infrastructure, for example, while the costs left out
trillions of dollars in interest the United States could pay over the
next 40 years.
The interest on expenses for the Iraq war could amount to about $4
trillion during that period, the report said.
The report also examined the burden on U.S. veterans and their
families, showing a deep social cost as well as an increase in
spending on veterans. The 2011 study found U.S. medical and disability
claims for veterans after a decade of war totaled $33 billion. Two
years later, that number had risen to $134.7 billion.
FEW GAINS
The report concluded the United States gained little from the war
while Iraq was traumatized by it. The war reinvigorated radical
Islamist militants in the region, set back women's rights, and
weakened an already precarious healthcare system, the report said.
Meanwhile, the $212 billion reconstruction effort was largely a
failure with most of that money spent on security or lost to waste and
fraud, it said.
Former President George W. Bush's administration cited its belief that
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's government held weapons of mass
destruction to justify the decision to go to war. U.S. and allied
forces later found that such stockpiles did not exist.
Supporters of the war argued that intelligence available at the time
concluded Iraq held the banned weapons and noted that even some
countries that opposed the invasion agreed with the assessment.
"Action needed to be taken," said Steven Bucci, the military assistant
to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in the run-up to the war
and today a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative
Washington-based think-tank.
Bucci, who was unconnected to the Watson study, agreed with its
observation that the forecasts for the cost and duration of the war
proved to be a tiny fraction of the real costs.
"If we had had the foresight to see how long it would last and even if
it would have cost half the lives, we would not have gone in," Bucci
said. "Just the time alone would have been enough to stop us. Everyone
thought it would be short."
Bucci said the toppling of Saddam and the results of an unforeseen
conflict between U.S.-led forces and al Qaeda militants drawn to Iraq
were positive outcomes of the war.
"It was really in Iraq that 'al Qaeda central' died," Bucci said.
"They got waxed."

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 1, 7:41 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 May 2013 19:07:14 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 01 May 2013 16:35:38 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> >alt.atheism:
>

> >>In article <hlwdjsd2-7EAA1C.15192101052...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
> >>Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> In article
> >>> <edfc886c-da35-402d-a11e-9a1d26a05...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

> >>>  "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> > On May 1, 11:55 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> >>> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >...
> >>> > > And Obama increased the deficits, didn't he?
>
> >>> > No.
>
> >>> Why don't these idiots know that the deficit has gone down every year
> >>> that Obama's been President?
>
> >>What was the national debt when lame duck Obama took office and what is it
> >>as of today.
>
> >Your question shows that you are making excuses for the Republicans and
> >their war on the United States' economy.
>
>       :-)    Can the government afford any more
> free lunches, or free anything, the people sure
> can't afford to pay 3.5 Trillion in taxes with a
> 15 Trillion economy.
>
>      A lot of people forget this economy is
> the biggest in the world, and it can't afford
> all the free stuff, and the rest of the free
> world is in the same boat. the left has
> made the cost so high, it will take a lot
> of work to get back on track.

and you are incoherent as usual.

[emoneyjoe]

No argument there, but how can employment
increase much, what would they do, what would
they manufacture.

Autos are selling better, but even if auto
sales doubled, it would only increase employment
by about 500,000 jobs.

http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iagauto.htm


The problem is huge, the retail sales
dollars may mask just how serious the
problem is, demand is so low, inflation
has kept dollar sales increasing about
normal.

[emoneyjoe]

That's news to me, I thought that freedom
and a chance to have a good life was.

>war is wasteful, and its on a chinese credit card. no matter how your
>type tried to ignore, or lie it away, its reagans and bushs tax cuts,
>coupled with bushs disasters called war, are the reasons for the
>deficits.

I don't know why you focus on the last
two wars, Korea and Viet Nam cost 8 times
as many US military lives, and the debt from
WWII plus interest is about the same as
the current federal debt.

The US has become a sucker, stuck
with the dirty jobs other countries should
be doing, middle east oil is important
to Europe, it means little to the US
which gets most of the imported oil
from the western hemisphere.

Taxes reduce the amount of money
circulating at a low level, the problem
now is, people buying at super stores,
and the money goes some place else.


I think a complete elimination of
income type taxes is the way to go,
let government create the money
to pay bills, and more people would
be able to make more money creating
new things without the burden of
all the social programs, and taxes
on assets over 500,000 would be
a fair way to remove the excess
money from it being created.

That would disconnect the federal
budget from the economy and the
ups and downs of the past.

[emoneyjoe]

No, get the truth out, it is easy to find
references to Clinton saying Saddam has
to be removed from power, the Iraqi exiles
claimed the Shites would be passive and
support Saddam being out.
The US was spending a lot of money
all during the 1990s bombing Iraq and
patrolling the no fly zone, with fears that
Saddam was trying to build up his chemical
and biological weapon stockpile.

>remember, our troops would be met with roses
>being tossed into the streets, and iraq itself would pay for the war.
>all lies. in fact, the war was built on lies.

If that was what the exiles were saying,
it wasn't lies.

>the real driver of the deficit: yes it still is bushes fault:: Iraq
>has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits
>owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6
>trillion over the next 4 decades counting interest
>
>http://in.news.yahoo.com/iraq-war-costs-u-more-2-trillion-study-142441219.html

That seems to be going up every time
you say it.
Who is owed $490 Billion? 490,000
soldiers owed a million each?
Can you do math?

Do the math, don't believe everything
you read,

The war didn't last long, the occupation
problems were unexpected, I think the
US should have made a deal with NATO
and the UN to take over the occupation
the minute Saddam was found.

The cost of the occupation to the US
should never have happened, it is the
fault of other countries not doing their
part in trying to stabilize the region.

[emoneyjoe]

About what, the US GDP is about
twice that of China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

[maxw...@my-deja.com]

On May 1, 11:13 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:

Reform is code for cuts. When they raise
the age or change the COLA.

Let me clue you in to how why the economy
seems to rebound due to tax cuts. In
every instance when there are tax cuts
govt spending continues to increase and
borrowing increases. This results in more
money in the private sector but also in the
govt sector. If govt spending was cut the same
as the amount of the tax cut there would not
be a rebound and more likely a slowdown.
Nearly every politician knows this. It is why
republicans never cut spending during tax cuts
and why they pressure Obama to cut spending.
They know tax cuts alone do nothing.

Where do you get the idea that the special bonds
that SSA owns are the same as any other treasury bond?
They are not and congress by legislation decides
how fast they get redeemed.

>
> >> >> >Now to complete the scam the current republicans
> >> >> >want to reform (cut) SS just as interest is starting
> >> >> >to flow to SSA and just before the principle gets
> >> >> >paid back. It is called theft.
>
> >> >>       What principal gets paid back?
>
> >> >$2.7 trillion in bonds.
>
> >>        It gets paid back anytime the trust fund
> >> needs payout money.    Whether or not
> >> the government has to borrow the money
> >> to pay it back with is not an issue at all.
>
> >Yes it is an issue because certain politicians make
> >the debt and taxes and issue. Congress can make
> >decisions on slowing down the payout to SS receipients.
>
>       No, that has never been considered,
> the debt is an issue, but the SS program
> is probably the least affected.

The trust fund is real, but the debt the US treasury owes
SS is counted as part of the national debt. If they were not
you would see defense spending as over half of all
govt spending.

>
> >That is what is happening now. If they slow it down then
> >less borrowing from other sources is needed and taxes
> >don't have to be raised.
>
>        Nonsense, if you know of any proposed
> legislation about reducing benefits, please
> post a reference.
>       AFAIK, only increasing the retirement
> age and other changes in FICA contributions
> have been considered.

http://www.businessinsider.com/barack-obama-chained-cpi-social-security-2013-4

You should pay more attention to what is going on
in DC. COLA changes are currently on the table.
It is the most immediate change being considered.

Ask McConnell and Boehner. I would say they
love guys like you. Look up debt/GDP and the issue
of whether the debt is domestic or foreign owned.
You don't understand enough about the issue
for me to continue.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Which means that when our GDP is stagnant and inflation is rising we are
losing twice as much of our wealth?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/1/2013 9:44 PM, linuxgal wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>> In other words Romney drove-off more conservative voters than Obama
>> drove-off Socialist voters.
>
> That he got 47% of the popular vote was either karma or evidence there
> really is a God.
>

I don't like Romney, but there was only one outcome that was worse and
that's what we ended up with.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/1/2013 8:02 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On May 1, 6:10 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 15:19:21 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article
>>> <edfc886c-da35-402d-a11e-9a1d26a05...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On May 1, 11:55 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/2013 11:36 AM, Liberal Here wrote:
>> ...
>>>>>> YOU! miss the fact that the Obama *****INHERITED***** the bush 1/2
>>>>>> deficit drivers.
>>
>>>>> And Obama increased the deficits, didn't he?
>>
>>>> No.
>>
>> The Bush Recession did.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Why don't these idiots know that the deficit has gone down every year
>>> that Obama's been President?

Didn't Obama almost double the deficit, so it isn't "going down" until
he gets below what Bush was running as an average deficit, and you have
to average each of their 8 years in office to see what they have done in
total. Even Obama's projected deficit spending over all 8 years shows
that he is twice the BIG spender that Bush was, and Bush thought he had
to create Homeland Security to protect us from terrorists and he fought
2 wars during most of his 8 years to stop Al Qaeda.


*WHAT'S OBAMA GOT TO SHOW FOR ALL HIS SPENDING* ?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/1/2013 6:06 PM, Syd M. wrote:
> On May 1, 11:55 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 5/1/2013 11:36 AM, Liberal Here wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> On May 1, 11:28 am, BeamMeUpScotty

>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2013 10:56 AM, Ken wrote:> On Apr 30, 9:16 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: Nothing worth
>>>>> repeating, BUT
>>
>>>>> What was the national debt when Shrub took office and what is it
>>>>> when he left?
>>
>>>>> How about this::
>>>>> "The Bush administration began with a $5.8 trillion gross federal
>>>>> debt, which grew by $6.1 trillion to reach $11.9 trillion -- an
>>>>> increase of 105 percent, or slightly more than double. The Times
>>>>> ascribed the increase in debt to "tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and
>>>>> Afghanistan, (the) economic downturn in 2001 and recession starting in
>>>>> 2007."
>>
>>>> You miss the FACT that Bush did this over 8 years..... and Obama has
>>>> added $6.0 trillion in *ONLY* 4 years.
>>

>>> YOU! miss the fact that the Obama *****INHERITED***** the bush 1/2
>>> deficit drivers.
>>
>> And Obama increased the deficits, didn't he?
>>
>>
>
> No.
>

> PDW
>
If NOT then who's the doppelganger?


Was it Barry Soetarro that increased the debt?


$6Trillion is a lot of money to let his wife spend on vacations, maybe
we better check to see if Michelle ran up the National Debt.....


*Rumination*
#13.0.1 - Governments are parasites that will grow until they kill their
host.

[jim]

> >
> Which means that when our GDP is stagnant and inflation is rising we are
> losing twice as much of our wealth?

Just wait till Congress tries to balance the budget...

The drop in GDP and the loss of wealth will be staggering.
It will be much worse than 2008-2009 when the US
private sector lost lost 20% of its net worth.
And it will be worse than 1929-1933 when the US
private sector lost 40% of its net worth.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 2, 12:28 am, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 22:06:44 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

perhaps you should go back to school and take a course in civics,
government is a consumer also. and the more its forced into cutting
back, the less production we have. and of course you missed the part
about wages. but with the destruction of unions, wages have collapsed.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 2, 1:00 am, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 22:08:46 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

there is plenty of freedom in somalia, there was plenty of freedom in
america during the robber baron era, but both scenarios are filled
with poverty. it was estimated that before the new deal, americas
middle class was less than 20% of the population, maybe about 15%.
after things such as social security, welfare, unemployment, labor
laws, the middle class exploded. before social security, the life span
was about 65 years. you would be dead right now before social
security, its social spending. its why your type are considered non
cognizant.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

If you're producing widgets to throw in the trash.... you aren't really
part of a working economy.


Dropping money from a helicopter to get people to buy things, isn't the
definition of a working economy either.



You are NOT in a demand economy you're in a *PRETEND economy*


One where Obama is propping up the Markets and the consuming, it's a
transitional economy, it will partially hold up things until Socialism
is fully implemented.










--


*Rumination*
#55 - Abortion is wrong because, the most important thing in life is
showing-up.

[Nickname unavailable]

> >http://in.news.yahoo.com/iraq-war-costs-u-more-2-trillion-study-14244...

a public statement about the leader of another country is hardly a
excuse for a war built on lies. no matter how your type tries to spin
it, no matter how you try to evade self responsibility, it was bushs
lies, it was bushs war, and its bushs deficit.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

>>>>> credit.:There�s no such thing as a free war Stiglitz said. The U.S.

>>>>> and the world will be paying the price for decades to come
>>
>>>>> http://theweek.com/article/index/40617/briefing-the-iraq-money-pit
>>
>>>>> Briefing: The Iraq money pit

>>>>> What has all that money bought for the U.S.�and the Iraqis?

So the Devil or Satan in the Liberals religion of Government Faith is
the evil Prince of Darkness known as The Capitalist..... and he takes
you into that HELL known as *POVERTY* ????


Do you have a name for your Bible that explains all this?


Purgatory is in Somalia, The Devil is Any Capitalist and punishment in
HELL is being eternally damned and cast into there being poor?



But Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty and feeds more
people than any other system on the planet?

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>
> If you're producing widgets to throw in the trash.... you aren't really
> part of a working economy.

You are describing China and the chinese economy
has been growing like gangbusters for many years doing
exactly what you claim doesn't work.

>
> Dropping money from a helicopter to get people to buy things, isn't the
> definition of a working economy either.

Why not? It's only money and presumably people will
spend it or use it to get out of debt. Either way
that fixes what is wrong with the economy (not enough
spending because of too much private debt). If people
produce more when you drop money from helicopters why
is that a bad?

The only problem with the idea is that you will
never get the govt to drop money from helicopters
because their are simply too many morons (like
yourself) who would object rigorously. If it weren't
for
morons things would be fixed in a couple days work.

>
> You are NOT in a demand economy you're in a *PRETEND economy*

You say that because the thing inside your skull
is a pretend brain.

[databasics]

Kenny Kook Kellogg formulated the question :

> What was the national debt when Shrub took office and
> what is it when he left?
>

Back in 1850.

California became a state.
The people had no electricity.
The state had no money.
Almost everyone spoke Spanish.
There were gunfights in the streets.

So basically, nothing has changed except the women had real boobs and
the men didn't hold hands like you do, Kenny, ya san fran sissy!

[emoneyjoe]

Like a typical democrat (small potatoes
socialist), talk of the benefit of federal
spending is exaggerated.
Except for the social programs,
federal spending doesn't reach the
common man, it goes to big entities,
with only a small percentage going
for workers wages.

I agree that reductions in federal
spending will harm the economy,
which is the reason I say the things
I do, it is only bits on a computer disk,
just add more.

They are only special in that the amount
is not nominal for each purchase or redemption,
it can be any amount that is needed.

>They are not and congress by legislation decides
>how fast they get redeemed.

It is automatic, as needed for payouts.

>> >> >> >Now to complete the scam the current republicans
>> >> >> >want to reform (cut) SS just as interest is starting
>> >> >> >to flow to SSA and just before the principle gets
>> >> >> >paid back. It is called theft.
>>
>> >> >>       What principal gets paid back?
>>
>> >> >$2.7 trillion in bonds.
>>
>> >>        It gets paid back anytime the trust fund
>> >> needs payout money.    Whether or not
>> >> the government has to borrow the money
>> >> to pay it back with is not an issue at all.
>>
>> >Yes it is an issue because certain politicians make
>> >the debt and taxes and issue. Congress can make
>> >decisions on slowing down the payout to SS receipients.
>>
>>       No, that has never been considered,
>> the debt is an issue, but the SS program
>> is probably the least affected.
>
>The trust fund is real, but the debt the US treasury owes
>SS is counted as part of the national debt. If they were not
>you would see defense spending as over half of all
>govt spending.

Of course it is part of the debt, the money
was given to the treasury, and they spent it
instead of borrowing someplace else, partly
another of Slick Willies tricks.

>> >That is what is happening now. If they slow it down then
>> >less borrowing from other sources is needed and taxes
>> >don't have to be raised.
>>
>>        Nonsense, if you know of any proposed
>> legislation about reducing benefits, please
>> post a reference.
>>       AFAIK, only increasing the retirement
>> age and other changes in FICA contributions
>> have been considered.
>
>http://www.businessinsider.com/barack-obama-chained-cpi-social-security-2013-4
>
>You should pay more attention to what is going on
>in DC. COLA changes are currently on the table.
>It is the most immediate change being considered.

It is NOT a cut, many pensions do not
have automatic COLA increases.

It appears that when the president is
asked to make reductions in spending, he
picks the things that will get the biggest
political reaction, politics constantly.
I think COLA reductions are wrong,
because they are less than the true
increase in prices anyway.

All this political baloney every step
of the way is getting old.

Your information is totally political
propaganda, one sided, and vain.

Something has to be done, and
I am the one person that thinks the
federal spending should increase,
but not with borrowed money.

Too bad none of you drones see
the possibilities, the shit has hit the
fan, and you don't even know it,
there is a limit on how much money
governments can borrow, it is like
a reverse ponzi scheme or a pyramid
club, there comes a time when the
river stops flowing.

Sovereign governments can create
money as needed, they can now, it was
not possible 80 or 100 years ago,
because supply was restricted to
manual labor created items, that
is no longer the case.

Drones like you are not able to see
the entire picture, things have changed,
money policy needs to be modernized,
the borrowing has reached a limit where
people realize it has to be controlled.

The big change needed is just a
reversal of tax and spend, to spend
and then tax, and not depending on
the economy to shoulder the increasing
burden of all the kind hearted socialist
stupid give away programs.

[jim]

emoneyjoe wrote:

>
> All this political baloney every step
> of the way is getting old.
>

HA HA HA

You must be talking to yourself.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 2, 1:42 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:

i wonder how many gravel pits in america owe their existence to
government. you sound like a liberal who complains that under
"CONSERVATIVE" economic policies, wages have plunged:)))

> ...
>
> read more »

[emoneyjoe]

No, not if the "wealth" was used to purchase
assets, if people rat-hole money, why should
the government or anybody do anything to
protect that money.

The purpose and intent of saving and
investment has changed in the intentions
of the public from the effort to build and
improve technology and physical assets
that have usefulness, TO - a clueless
greed to gain interest or appreciation
just for the money.

The problem with that is the same
as the problem with the present money
system, everybody can't be rich, more
than half the people must be paupers
and borrow from the elite.


There is no reason a system can't
be instituted where everybody can
realize the American dream, where
everybody is rich, as long as they
work and produce "wealth".

Money is not wealth, it is merely
an accounting system, to think of
money as having intrinsic value is
wrong, it is what people produce
that is important, that is what the
old days hyperinflation should have
taught, but it was misinterpreted.

The problem now is that too
much of the economy is activity
without anything being produced,
insurance, health care, capital gains,
pensions, carbon credits, taxes,
legal fees, stock trades, military,
police, legislatures, administrators,
bookies, gambling, prostitution,
drug deals.

Narrow minded greed and
lack of understanding can arise
without the intent, good people
will respond if they are aided in
thinking of what is important.

[emoneyjoe]

:-) "You ain't seen nothin' yet. :-)

[jim]

emoneyjoe wrote:

> >
> >Which means that when our GDP is stagnant and inflation is rising we are
> >losing twice as much of our wealth?
>
> No, not if the "wealth" was used to purchase
> assets, if people rat-hole money, why should
> the government or anybody do anything to
> protect that money.

What is the difference between purchasing assets
and "rat-holing money"?

If someone purchases gold is that good?
If someone purchases Treasury securities is
that bad?

Seems to me if someone wants to fund the
operation of government at negative real
interest, the least the rest of us could do is
be appreciative. To do otherwise makes
about as much sense as jamming a sharp stick
in your eye.

>
> The purpose and intent of saving and
> investment has changed in the intentions
> of the public from the effort to build and
> improve technology and physical assets
> that have usefulness, TO - a clueless
> greed to gain interest or appreciation
> just for the money.

What a stinky pile of BS.

>
> The problem with that is the same
> as the problem with the present money
> system, everybody can't be rich, more
> than half the people must be paupers
> and borrow from the elite.

Your view of the world is like a
perfect negative. You seem to get
everything precisely wrong.

>
>
> There is no reason a system can't
> be instituted where everybody can
> realize the American dream, where
> everybody is rich, as long as they
> work and produce "wealth".

Everybody doesn't have exactly
the same dream.

The US could have full employment in short
order if the federal Govt eliminated
the FICA tax. Wage earners would have
7% more to spend and employers would have
7% more to hire the people to produce the
goods and services that spending would demand.

And don't start with your stupid drivel about
nobody can think of anything to buy. Americans
spend millions on lottery tickets not because
they like throwing away money. All of those
lottery tickets represent people dreaming
of all the things they could buy if only
they had more money to spend.

[emoneyjoe]

Oh, Geez, not only a liberal democrat,
but a union man too?

I haven't said a word about cutting back,
all I say, is quit borrowing.

Why are you too dense to not understand
that the government doesn't need to tax or
borrow, they can spend, and spend, and
then decide how much to tax back.

[emoneyjoe]

You are full of it, the reason people are
living longer is because of nutrition, before
1930 there was no refrigeration, and poor
canning methods, it is only in the last
80 years that good food has been available
12 months out of the year in the entire US.

But people that knew how to preserve
and can food lived long before, both my
grandfather and grandmother lived to be 87.

[emoneyjoe]

It was Bush's fault, get over it,
who will be the next whipping boy?

[emoneyjoe]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 13:46:00 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
wrote:

You assume wrong, I am talking about the
cluelessness of both parties, and the need to
increase federal spending, without borrowing.

But I am against the slavery of Uncle Sam
due to federal borrowing as much as I am
against the imposition of central control
socialism.

The use of the money system solely
to gain more money is the opposite of
what a money system should be.

[Nickname unavailable]

jim said it best about you,

"Your view of the world is like a
perfect negative. You seem to get
everything precisely wrong."

>       I haven't said a word about cutting back,
> all I say, is quit borrowing.
>

why does the government have to? so far not one of you cranks can
explain why we should have to cut.

>       Why are you too dense to not understand
> that the government doesn't need to tax or
> borrow, they can spend, and spend, and
> then decide how much to tax back.

yes, they can decide not to tax all of it back:))))

[Nickname unavailable]

yea, they can live off of canned cat food like they did before social
security. geeesh, the idiocy.

[Nickname unavailable]

yet you have no credible evidence that its not. the next whipping boy
will be the one who does what bush did, get it.

[Nickname unavailable]

then quite cashing your social security check.

[emoneyjoe]

Jim has always condoned the government
going more into debt, taking money out of the
economy by borrowing it, and thinking wrongly
like you do, that federal spending helps.

>>       I haven't said a word about cutting back,
>> all I say, is quit borrowing.
>>
>
> why does the government have to? so far not one of you cranks can
>explain why we should have to cut.

You are back to cut, don't you understand
the difference between not borrowing, and
not spending?

>>       Why are you too dense to not understand
>> that the government doesn't need to tax or
>> borrow, they can spend, and spend, and
>> then decide how much to tax back.
>
>
>
> yes, they can decide not to tax all of it back:))))

That would depend on circumstance,
the object is having the government running
smoothly and paying it's bills.

> "Your view of the world is like a
>perfect negative. You seem to get
>everything precisely wrong."

On the contrary, federal borrowing is
negative, that is what deficit means, the
treasury has a negative balance if they
don't borrow or create the money and
pay the bills.

If they create the money like I think
they could, then there is no negative,
but for some reason they continue
to borrow, and the negative remains.

[emoneyjoe]

There wasn't any canned cat food before
SS stupid, in fact, in the 1930s there was still
sickness and fatalities from eating food not
properly canned.

You make it sound as if SS is something
the government gives, when it was intended to
be a self funded pension.

It is good because it assures some income,
but it is just one of the least objectional thing
about dirty stinking rotten socialist ideas.

If the treasury has a paper auction and
nobody has any money to buy with, what then?

[emoneyjoe]

Do you mean fighting terrorism and the
governments that support terrorism.

Did you support the homicide vest
bombers exploding in restaurants in
Israel?

Did you support Saddam rewarding
the families of the bombers?

Either you were born yesterday, or
you were in some other country during
the time when Saddam was training
terrorists.

The debt may be a serious subject
of debate in a couple of months, I hope
the politics can be taken out of the
discussion and some sense made
of the mess the borrowing has become.

[emoneyjoe]

There isn't any more checks, direct deposit
is required, too many people were not cashing
the checks.

I don't understand the bitterness of the
left against people who want a viable well
run government that doesn't need to borrow,
borrowing without the means to pay it back
is the same as begging if the intent is to
pay it back, I question if some of you think
like Made Off With The Money.

[jim]

emoneyjoe wrote:

> Jim has always condoned the government
> going more into debt,

You are lying. I have said that
if the govt does not go farther in debt
there will be a depression. That is not
condoning anything. It is called
facing reality.

> taking money out of the
> economy by borrowing it,

You are lying again. The govt does
not take any money out of the economy
by borrowing. Borrowing adds money to
the economy. It adds one dollar in spending
for each dollar borrowed. And it creates one
dollar in spendable securities. That means the
economy gets 2 dollars that circulate for every
one dollar borrowed.

> and thinking wrongly
> like you do, that federal spending helps.

That is your third lie in one sentence.

I have never advocated more govt spending.
I said cutting the FICA tax would help.
Federal spending does not help.

>
> That would depend on circumstance,
> the object is having the government running
> smoothly and paying it's bills.

You keep lying. The govt has no problem paying
its bills. It will always be able to pay its
bills. It would take a willful act of Congress
to not pay a bill that is owed.

> federal borrowing is
> negative, that is what deficit means, the
> treasury has a negative balance if they
> don't borrow or create the money and
> pay the bills.

The govt is creating the money and paying
the bills. You can't change that by lying
about it.

What you want instead is to have the govt
create trillions of dollars in bank deposits
instead of creating treasury securities.

You want the govt to create bank deposits out
of nothing and dump them into the banking system
to pay the govt's bills. You have never been able
to give a rational explanation why this would be
a good idea.

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 10:25:46 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

So why do Republicans think that it is terrible to cut back on spending
for war materiel?

>
>Dropping money from a helicopter to get people to buy things, isn't the
>definition of a working economy either.
>

Giving people jobs is something the GOP refuses to do. The government
has many things that need to be done to improve the infrastructure that
has been ignored since Reagan, but Republicans refuse to spend more
money on it.

>
>You are NOT in a demand economy you're in a *PRETEND economy*
>

Compared with what?

>
>One where Obama is propping up the Markets and the consuming, it's a
>transitional economy, it will partially hold up things until Socialism
>is fully implemented.

Do you know anything at all about economics?

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 15:37:39 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:

Spoken like a lazy inheritor of wealth (or a fool who has been conned
into believing the anti-worker lies of the lazy wealthy).

> I haven't said a word about cutting back,
>all I say, is quit borrowing.

So we need to raise taxes on the very rich so we can spend more to get
the economy going faster.

> Why are you too dense to not understand
>that the government doesn't need to tax or
>borrow, they can spend, and spend, and
>then decide how much to tax back.

Friedman said that borrowing was just taxes that hadn't been collected
yet.

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 20:41:27 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:

>On Wed, 01 May 2013 19:07:14 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 May 2013 16:35:38 -0700, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
>>alt.atheism:
>>
>>>In article <hlwdjsd2-7EAA1C...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne
>>>Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <edfc886c-da35-402d...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

>>>> "Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On May 1, 11:55�am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>>...

>>>> > > And Obama increased the deficits, didn't he?
>>>> >
>>>> > No.
>>>>

>>>> Why don't these idiots know that the deficit has gone down every year
>>>> that Obama's been President?
>>>

>>>What was the national debt when lame duck Obama took office and what is it
>>>as of today.
>>>

>>Your question shows that you are making excuses for the Republicans and
>>their war on the United States' economy.
>
> :-) Can the government afford any more
>free lunches, or free anything, the people sure
>can't afford to pay 3.5 Trillion in taxes with a
>15 Trillion economy.

Why not? We've paid a greater share and our country grew faster. We
would have a faster growing economy if our health care system weren't so
expensive -- the rest of the developed world knows that for-profit
health care is destructive to the economy.

> A lot of people forget this economy is
>the biggest in the world, and it can't afford
>all the free stuff, and the rest of the free
>world is in the same boat. the left has
>made the cost so high, it will take a lot
>of work to get back on track.

Ronald Reagan and the lies of Republicans have stopped economic growth
for most people in the US. Only the rich are getting more.

[emoneyjoe]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:34:17 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:

>emoneyjoe wrote:
>
>> Jim has always condoned the government
>> going more into debt,
>
>You are lying. I have said that
>if the govt does not go farther in debt
>there will be a depression. That is not
>condoning anything. It is called
>facing reality.

Like standing between the rails
when the train is coming?

I suppose the status quo and
the old ways are hard to get away
from, but when the deficit is greater
than that of a million millionaires,
then something is wrong.

Only 16 out of 182 countries
have a GDP greater than the
US deficit for the last 5 years.

>> taking money out of the
>> economy by borrowing it,
>
>You are lying again. The govt does
>not take any money out of the economy
>by borrowing. Borrowing adds money to
>the economy. It adds one dollar in spending
>for each dollar borrowed. And it creates one
>dollar in spendable securities. That means the
>economy gets 2 dollars that circulate for every
>one dollar borrowed.

Typical liberal, spend the same dollar
twice. If that were true, the government
should borrow more from itself and pay off
the debt with half of it, and have the other
half left.

>> and thinking wrongly
>> like you do, that federal spending helps.
>
>That is your third lie in one sentence.
>
>I have never advocated more govt spending.
>I said cutting the FICA tax would help.
>Federal spending does not help.

If you condone cutting the FICA taxes,
then you condone borrowing, because
under the present system, another Trillion
a year would have to be borrowed.

>> That would depend on circumstance,
>> the object is having the government running
>> smoothly and paying it's bills.
>
>You keep lying. The govt has no problem paying
>its bills. It will always be able to pay its
>bills. It would take a willful act of Congress
>to not pay a bill that is owed.

I seem to remember a couple of
months in 2011 that the government
couldn't borrow new money, that does
seem to have been a problem, how
did they pay bills then, by creating
emoney?

>> federal borrowing is
>> negative, that is what deficit means, the
>> treasury has a negative balance if they
>> don't borrow or create the money and
>> pay the bills.
>
>The govt is creating the money and paying
>the bills. You can't change that by lying
>about it.

Didn't you say that a person borrowing
to buy a house creates the money?
Why does debt need to be created
in order to create money?
Is somebody getting the interest from
that, is that why you argue against any
changes?

>What you want instead is to have the govt
>create trillions of dollars in bank deposits
>instead of creating treasury securities.
>
>You want the govt to create bank deposits out
>of nothing and dump them into the banking system
>to pay the govt's bills. You have never been able
>to give a rational explanation why this would be
>a good idea.

If it were set up in a rational way,
it would make it possible for everybody
to be rich, under the present system
if nobody borrowed to buy a house,
would all the money vanish?

The FRB can continue to do what
they do best, the banks can continue,
the only thing you can object to about
what I am thinking of, is that some
people would not be inclined to work
if they have money.

So what happens if the federal
borrowing continues, and then people
quit buying treasury paper, then does
the government begin to create emoney?


I would rather see things planned
ahead of time, and nobody get hurt
financially.
The important thing is, the ability
to at least see the way clear to have
a balanced budget before borrowing
more, if that can't be seen, then the
borrowing takes on a different aspect,
something like an individual that goes
on a borrowing spree, and then files
bankruptcy.

So why not take one social program
now, and for a trial run, eliminate the
FICA taxes for that program, create
emoney to fund the program, and
see how the tax structure should
change to avoid too much money
in bank accounts.

I don't suggest taxing any present
assets, but if taxes were needed to
avoid too much money, then the
accounts growing the fastest maybe
should be the ones taxed the most.

There seems to be things that
can be tried, yet the congress has
no vision of anything other than
the same old tax and spend and
borrow and spend, and run up
debt until there is no more money
left to borrow.

[jim]

>
> I suppose the status quo and
> the old ways are hard to get away
> from, but when the deficit is greater
> than that of a million millionaires,
> then something is wrong.

What has that got do with anything?
You think the sum will be any smaller if
the govt can just credit bank accounts?
All you have is stupidity piled
on top of idiocy.

[linuxgal]

Free Lunch wrote:
>
> Ronald Reagan and the lies of Republicans have stopped economic growth
> for most people in the US. Only the rich are getting more.

Pretty neat trick for the ol' Gipper, what with a Donk President and
poor Ronnie pushing up daisies.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[emoneyjoe]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 18:01:11 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>

What makes you think good democrats
don't feel the same way?

Congress people are old enough to
remember what happens when weakness
is allowed to happen.

>>Dropping money from a helicopter to get people to buy things, isn't the
>>definition of a working economy either.
>
>Giving people jobs is something the GOP refuses to do. The government
>has many things that need to be done to improve the infrastructure that
>has been ignored since Reagan, but Republicans refuse to spend more
>money on it.

And how would that work be paid for,
the US is already borrowing the equivalent
of the GDP of the smallest 100 countries
put together.

>>You are NOT in a demand economy you're in a *PRETEND economy*
>
>Compared with what?

To the US 50 years ago.

>>One where Obama is propping up the Markets and the consuming, it's a
>>transitional economy, it will partially hold up things until Socialism
>>is fully implemented.
>
>Do you know anything at all about economics?

The old ideas are outmoded and no
longer even valid, small business has
been made into unpaid slaves to the
IRS, collecting FICA taxes and income
withholding taxes and paying unemployment
taxes, and now are supposed to be
health care insurance brokers.

Manufacturing is still shrinking,
and the cause is being ignored.