Harry Reid’s Odd Definition of “American”
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
This is a quickie post, but this morning Jim Hoft caught Harry Reid declaring that Tea Partiers are not Americans:
But it is worth remembering that this is the same person who once called illegal immigrants “undocumented Americans.”
I look forward to him clarifying further who does and doesn’t count as an American.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Well, most illegal immigrants are Americans. Mexico and Guatemala are both American countries.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:39 pmmilhouse
lol touche!
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:40 pmSheesh. Reid couldn’t have helped Boehner more if he tried. I doubt many active on right leaning blogs will be impressed, but if the impression out there is Boehner’s deal is a serious gift to Tea Party reforms, that makes it sound pretty awesome. Much more awesome than it is.
I think what’s really going on is an effort to brand the Tea Party as horrible. But that won’t work… it’s the most important political movement in the world today.
Taking Reid at face value, I find it hilarious he would complain that the GOP House is daring to abide by the wishes of the movement that gave the House to the GOP last election. A shame it’s not so.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:44 pmMore tea baggers please. Primary them all and watch the electorate reduce the GOP to a distant memory.
Spartacvs (f65f88) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:56 pmSpartacus likes hairy nuts in his mouf.
JD (318f81) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:57 pmSpartacvs, so far all your attempts to show how much more knowledgable you are have been utter failures.
TEA Party people are the middle class independents. And the Democrats have lost them. When you lost the independents, you lose office.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:57 pmAs per Senator Reid better to spend ourselves and our children into insolvency to the tune of $4.1 billion per day more than we get in daily receipts.Basically we spend roughly the equal of half an aircraft carrier every day, except we get nothing so tangible for Obama’s spendiong orgy. Except, of course, saddling our children with more debt at higher and higher rates of interest.
Bugg (ea1809) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:02 pmSpartacvs is the same asshole that calls critics of Yelverton racists.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:10 pmTeabaggers are about as far from independents as Trotskyists. Same old reactionary right wing nuts we’ve always had, with the addition of some savvy marketing by AstroTurf organizations funded by the monied class and shameless promotion by the Murdoch media.
Spartacvs (22020b) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:13 pmspurtacus
yeah, the tea party is working out so bad for republicans.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:17 pmHi Aaron, I guess we will see in 2012. But from what I’m seeing reflected in the polls, there seems to be a significant amount of buyers remorse as far as the tea baggers are concerned.
Spartacvs (9cb79a) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:24 pmSpartacvs, the claims of TEA Party people being astroturf is the usual Democratic lie. Long ago debunked. Recycling lies is not being “green”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:28 pmCNN polls show 75% support for a balanced budget amendment and Spartacvs/Yelverton claims that he sees buyers remorse?
Someone is seeing schizophrenia symptoms show up later in life than normal.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:29 pm__________________________________________
Jim Hoft caught Harry Reid declaring that Tea Partiers are not Americans
Odd thing that, since Reid and the Democrats are represented by a guy who for almost 20 years sat and schmoozed with an ultra-liberal preacher, a person who proclaimed “Goddamn America! Your chickens are coming home to roost!” A preacher who the guy now in the White House admired so much, that he made him a trusted adviser—at least until controversy forced a change in plans.
Mark (411533) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:30 pmGotta love how spart has been screaming at us all day long. Here he sees extremist rhetoric from the Senate Majority leader, and he’s too worried about the Tea Party.
Here’s more extremism.
Spartacus wants to call people nuts if they say we have a spending problem and shouldn’t raise taxes. But calling for Obama to turn into a despot? Spartacus doesn’t mind that at all.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:36 pmFor all his contempt for the tea party folks–calling them stupid and ineffectual and worse–spurtacvs sure does seem to spend a whole lot of time talking about them and worrying hisself about them. Libs are so transparent in their attacks. You always know who and what is most scaring Dems….
Reid and Boehner are both playing to their bases while behind the scenes they are negotiating. There will be a minor compromise in the Boehner plan, congress will act just in the knick of time and Bumble will sign it while saying he is disappointed.
elissa (38dadd) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:41 pmSpartacus is an america hating mussoliniphile.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:45 pmRegardless of insulting protestations by cleft-chined syncophants, a certain amount of enterprise is necessary to maintain a certain amount of economic well-being.
Depending on the government for that, as evidence certainly reveals, is a loser game for everyone.
It has never worked before and there is no indication it will work again.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:45 pmDustin
Raise the debt ceiling, no strings attached. No need for extortion and no need to invoke the 14th amendment.
Spartacvs (80362b) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:45 pmIt’s not raising through extortion, Spurty. It’s raising with pre-conditions. Kind of like a well crafted pre-nup.
elissa (38dadd) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:50 pm“Same old reactionary right wing nuts we’ve always had…”
Sure, there are always people around opposing tyrants like the British Monarchy or the Slaveowner-o-crats.
Good thing too.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:55 pmObviously, Dems won’t vote for anything that won’t allow them to rob the taxpayers blind.
Don’t know why Reid even bothered saying that.
It’s a given.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:57 pmElissa – when was the last time the debt ceiling was “raised with pre-conditions”?
Surls – same old reactionary right wing nuts we’ve always had who only come out of the woodwork when a Democrat gets elected to the Presidency.
Spartacvs (ef579e) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:01 pmBut, of course, all Democratic Senators voted against raising the debt ceiling when Bush was President. Including the saint.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:04 pm==when was the last time the debt ceiling was “raised with pre-conditions”?==
Thats your argument? Wow.
elissa (38dadd) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:11 pm“Surls – same old reactionary right wing nuts we’ve always had who only come out of the woodwork when a Democrat gets elected to the Presidency.”
Well, I hope so.
There’s no point in opposing tyranny unless you have a George III style Dem wannabe tyrant like FDR or Obambi to oppose.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:12 pmSame old moonbat terrorists who come out of the woodworks to assassinate bush.
Btw SS will go bankrupt eventually.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:13 pmto talk about assassinating bush*
I mean.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:15 pmMiss Crabapple who
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:15 pmmove spurty to first grade that’s
shameless promotion
No.
This is what democracy looks like, and you have no choice but to deal with it.
You are now on record supporting despotism and injustice.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:16 pm==when was the last time the debt ceiling was “raised with pre-conditions”?==
Thats your argument? Wow.
that’s it elissa
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:17 pmand goddam if the nitwit
ain’t stickin’ to it
Some democracy, a bunch of know nothing teatards holding the nations full faith and credit hostage to their minority ideology.
Spartacvs (fa20db) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:20 pmHow about we lower the debt ceiling?
And we pass a balanced budget amendment?
Obama refused to raise the debt ceiling, no strings attached, several times, and passionately explained hwy he refused to raise the debt ceiling, no strings attached. The democrat senate voted unanimously to refuse to do so.
Spartacus doesn’t care about that. It’s OK when democrats do that because Spartacus is a democrat hack.
But the voters have elected Tea Partiers to congress, and Spartacus will just have to deal with it. No number of push polls and skewed samples and Kos diary whining can impact the election results.
The post 2012 GOP will be more conservative, not less. The post 2012 democrat party will be smaller and more extreme, just as it got much smaller and shriller in 2010.
We are out of money, and America woke up to that fact a year ago.
What we’re seeing now from democrats is desperation.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:22 pmColonel–
champion debate
elissa (38dadd) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:27 pmteams not standing in line for
Spurty’s services
Many little stories like these keep piling up.
Wisconsin’s recovering. Michigan is cheering Republicans. Red states are getting redder. Texas took house seats from New York, so we have more Lamar Smiths and fewer Anthony Weiners.
This country is undergoing a fundamental shift, politically. It won’t be long before the democrat party does as it has always done, and completely changed its mind on its fundamental priorities. I wouldn’t be surprised if, in ten years, the democrat party is very fiscally conservative. Sounds insane today, but they stand for winning elections, not core principles.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:28 pmGotta love the idiot spratcus accusing us of being retards.
Can just see the elitism oozing out of his pores.
BTW Social Security needs to be reformed.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:29 pmEvery conservative seems to think that he has some unique insight of how to express the debt problem to finally wake up the American people. Every conservative also seems to think that every other conservative’s idea won’t work. We exist in quarrelsome agreement.
I think that Speaker Boehner is doing a good job. Did anyone really expect President Obama and the Democrats to cave by now? That said, here’s my unique insight:
Americans don’t understand the debt because its size is unfathomable. “Trillions” sound like “billions,” which are still beyond comprehension. However, the debt ceiling debate gives us a fantastic opportunity to put the numbers in real terms.
Obama wants more than a trillion dollar debt ceiling hike. Let’s give him $312 billion instead. Why? According to the Census clock on July 27th, that’s 1,000 times the current population of the United States. So we will raise the debt ceiling $1,000 for every man, woman, and child (including babies) in the United States.
Obama will come back less than three months later, asking for more, because the debt is growing that fast. When he asks us for more, we can ask him whether charging $1,000 on the credit card of every man, woman and child (including babies) was a good way for him to spend three months. Wash, rinse, repeat.
robj (7da1bf) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:29 pmspurty
first, full faith and credit has nothing to do with the debt, you constitutional illiterate.
second, we are in no danger of defaulting. we can afford our debt payments based on current revenue. the only thing endangered by the debt ceiling is the spending on things other than the debt. but we can afford the full defense dept spending and even social security and still pay off our debt payments.
third, since when is living within our means radical. what is radical is the project of turning our country into a socialist democracy, which is what the dems are trying to do.
one third of the jobs created in this recession have been created in texas. if their approach is radical, i say let’s be radicals.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:30 pmOf course, there are a lot of leftards saying that the U.S. should spend money it simply doesn’t have, it is kind of a wash.
But, since you’re convinced that the full-faith of the nation depends on extending the debt limit, what exacly is your plan to fulfill future obligations?
I mean, you have already displayed your hatred of capital and enterprise. How does the government raise capital if the people who produce capital are no longer capable of producing same.
Be very careful with that answer, because it may display your true intent.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:30 pmTrue.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:32 pmAreol – exactly what spending are teabaggers prepared to say should be cut? That’s where the rubber meets the road and where the teabagger movement will be destroyed at the polls. Especially in light of their absolutist demand of no new revenues from those who did in fact benefit from the Bush economic miracle at the expense of most everyone else.
Spartacvs (029dd1) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:45 pmthird, since when is living within our means radical. what is radical is the project of turning our country into a socialist democracy, which is what the dems are trying to do.
Well that’s the point: living within our means is now indeed, radical. We’ve come full circle. It didn’t used to be. At one time, it was expected and voters were unwilling to give in to the pleas of the pols. A practical common sense and understanding of basic economics prevailed no matter how hard the government pushed for more. We did our job, we said no.
What is slowly becoming no longer radical is our slide toward socialism. We idolize Europe and their cool accents while conveniently ignoring the writing on the wall (Spain, Greece, Italy, and so on).
Dana (4eca6e) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:50 pm“Some democracy…”
Spare me. When it comes to the contents of my wallet, we’re not taking a vote about how much degenerate liberals get to steal.
And, as far as I’m concerned you can take democracy and stick it where the sun don’t shine. It means nothing to me.
I couldn’t care less what form of government we have, as long as that government secures my rights (including my right to spend my money on me, not on you).
Rights, all important. Form of government, not one bit important.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:55 pmThe fact is that there is infighting in the Republican party over this.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:59 pmWell, let’s see, the Department of Education and the Department of Energy for starters. Both are ably controlled by other departments.
The Department of Defense has untold millions in waste. A good objective audit would be welcome.
The Department of Agriculture, since we’ve all given up on being the breadbasket of the world to the cult of environmentalism.
The EPA, since it does nothing except stop the expansion of enterprise. Also, ably controlled by other departments.
What do they call Health and Human Services these days? Since they do neither, cut them.
How about Transportation, since they no longer allow such at the behest of EPA?
And how, exactly, do these expansive organizations help anyone, anyway? It’s just money into bureaucratic hell-holes where the only beneficiaries are the ruling bureaucrats.
And, once again, I have to say, revenue is not the problem. It is spending. There is no mechanism to stop it except the diminishing power of the vote.
Which you and your ilk want to erode until you finally achieve your Cuba-like nation where everyone suffers the same.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:00 pmThe fact is Anita only an numb drone would care what your opinion on this.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:03 pm“Well that’s the point: living within our means is now indeed, radical.”
It is for scumbags like our alleged president, who insist that America is doomed unless jerks like him are given carte blanche to borrow as much money as they feel like (every cent of which, plus interest, will later be extorted from guys like me at the point of a government gun…as always).
But, that’s usually the case for pols who ride on the backs of the taxpayers, all expenses paid.
Guys like the Great Black Dope will still be sucking at the U.S. Treasury tit whether the taxpayers are beggared or not, so why should he care?
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:04 pmGee Dave, if everyone voted their own economic interest what leads you to think the Republican party could sustain any kind of national presence ever again?
Spartacvs (ef579e) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:04 pm==The fact is that there is infighting in the Republican party over this==
Indeed there is, and it is healthy debate. Just proves that that old lefty canard of “all repukes think and vote in lockstep” is not true (nor has it ever been).
elissa (38dadd) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:06 pmGee Dave,if I had a functioning brain do you think I would be a useless idiot for the dems?
FIFY dear.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:06 pmAnd by the way Dave, I’m sore disappointed to find your kind of virulent racism being tolerated on this blog. Please consider toning it down a notch or failing that, moving on to Stormfront or some such place more suited to your racist disposition.
Spartacvs (f65f88) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:11 pmThe dirty, little secret, though, is we’re not arguing about an increase in the federal budget or deficit or debt.
We are arguing about how much the government will expand.
Expansion is built into the system.
Nothing will be cut, no matter which budget is eventually approved. All this argument is about is how much more spending will be inhibited.
Spending will still increase.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:12 pm@DohBiden: Still obsessing over my every comment, I see. Do you ever have anything nice to say ever? Or do you just spew dark spittle as you roam through the Earth and going back and forth in it.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:16 pmAg – Sparty told us earlier that the Dems reduced spending in 2006-2007.
JD (318f81) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:17 pm“Gee Dave, if everyone voted their own economic interest…”
I have no interest whatsoever in taking a vote on your economic interests, and the only reason liberal freeloaders, like yourself, have an interest in taking a vote on my economic interests is so you can use the government to steal my money to pay your bills.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:19 pmJD:
He was just funning with us then. The federal budget has never decreased since the time of FDR (yes, I’m sure someone can come along and prove me wrong).
The point is, all this rigamarole is about reducing the rate of expansion, not actually reducing it.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:21 pmNot so JD. I said spending was on it’s way down and linked to a chart showing exactly that. I made no claims as to why spending was trending down or who was responsible or could claim the credit.
Spartacvs (f65f88) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:21 pmRacist Dave – you only get one vote, use it wisely and vote your own economic self interest and allow everyone else the same courtesy and we will see where the chips fall.
Spartacvs (9cb79a) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:25 pm“And by the way Dave, I’m sore disappointed to find your kind of virulent racism being tolerated on this blog.”
Are you now?
Well, I’ve always frankly admitted that I’m biased in favor of the human race and biased against the lefty race.
So, I don’t see why you’re surprised.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:26 pmWe are arguing about how much the government will expand.
In 2010 the Obama administration grew the government to 2.15 million employees – topping 2 million for the first time since Clinton claimed the era of big government was over. It’s a goal.
Dana (4eca6e) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:26 pmNo, sparty, I don’t care what your charts say, federal expenditures are always going up. If they were not, then the deficit would trend downwards and there is no evidence indicating such.
The problem is expenditures, not revenue.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:26 pmNotice how the commie considers opposition racist.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:29 pmYou like proving yourself a drooling moron.
JD (318f81) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:32 pmTrue. Mostly from the Tea Party types against Boehner’s proposals. Which Reid is 100% aware of. Our Senate Majority Leader is lying to this country, and it’s apparently just meant to capitalize on divisions in this political party.
I see no problem with a negotiator exploiting such a division. You’re certainly right there is one. It’s just the way he thinks we’re not Americans, or somehow to be excluded from having a voice (we did just win the House, after all) that bugs us.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:32 pm“Racist Dave – you only get one vote…”
Yes, I’m not a Jim-Crow-o-crat, so I only vote once per election.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:35 pmDid Dave say something racist? I didn’t see it.
He was mocking racists when he said ‘the great black dope’ which evokes the ‘great black hope’ concept. The idea of electing a man because of his race was a very bad idea because Obama wasn’t really qualified. Frankly, even I succumbed a bit to this when I saw an elderly black man at the polls so happy to be voting for a black man we knew would win. It seemed like a nice thing… America has come a long way, and he was happy a black man could lead this nation’s government.
But this man was not qualified, and the bigotry of giving him a pass because of his skin color has caused a lot of problems for this country.
Dave says as much, but in only a couple of words of mockery. I wonder if spart really cares, though.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:35 pmRacist Dave – I didn’t say I was surprised by your racism, I said I was surprised to see it tolerated here, still am. So much for moderation, unfortunately very typical at righty blogs.
Spartacvs (92e3b9) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:36 pmIf you look at this debate simply, America is at a crossroads.
We will have to make a decision, as a voting public, that free enterprise and capitalism are no longer a viable future or we can decide that government has the answers and it is best left to it to decide.
Spartacus has weighed in that a government-controlled future is best. I am sure he has his reasons.
However, I am fairly confident that his chosen future may not work out in the way he expects.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:38 pmAnyone willing to give odds on whether or not sparty would be willing to list all of the names he has commented under?
JD (318f81) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:39 pmYou see people who use the race card to shut people up should be banned like Bleedsblue was at hot air.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:41 pmJD, I’d say 1:infinity.
He doesn’t even remember all the names he’s commented under.
Anyone else notice the moderate democrats are much less likely to have a debate these days?
It’s because moderates have lost faith in the democrat party. They don’t care to defend. So all we’re left with is talking amongst ourselves or engaging the far leftist truther hippies.
Spartacus is all that’s left of Obama’s base. Sure, many dems will still turn out to vote against whoever the GOP nominates, but very few will bother to vote for Obama because of Obama.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:42 pm“…vote your own economic self interest and allow everyone else the same courtesy and we will see where the chips fall.”
Talk about unclear on the concept.
No, I’m not interested in voting my own economic self interest. I can take care of that myself, without the help of your precious little nanny state. What I’m interested in doing is preventing government from stealing from me in order to give you money to pay your personal expenses, which is what this completely out of control government spending is 100% about.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:42 pmThere are 2 simple steps that we could take that would go a long way towards fixing our spending and debt problems. Remove the temporary one time stimulus from the budgetary baseline, and repeal BarckyCare.
JD (318f81) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:42 pm___________________________________________
have an interest in taking a vote on my economic interests is so you can use the government to steal my money to pay your bills.
I can kind of understand people being such dupes and suckers for the public sector and leftism (and the two do go hand-in-hand) if they’re at least employed by the government.
I’ve spoken with a person indirectly connected to my workplace who told me one day that he doesn’t think Hugo Chavez is a radical. No surprise, therefore, that this same guy also happens to be a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. But he does have a job in the government, just as his parents did. So at least he gets something out of the whole arrangement.
But for those of us in the private sector, what the hell do we get out of all this bureaucracy-empire building and idiotic liberalism?
I’ve read that a high percentage of younger people in France say their goal in life is eventually getting hired by and working for the government. The unemployment rate there has been stuck at around 9% or higher for quite awhile now, or pretty much on an indefinite basis.
I know that a large number of people in Mexico favor leftist politicians and policies. Yet that country is notorious for quite a bit of tax evasion, or a variation of the tricky, under-the-table type of transactions seen in urban, or certainly inner-city America. I believe Greece — with all of its greedy, self-entitled government unions and workers — fits a somewhat similar profile.
So are Greece, Mexico and France a window into this country’s future? If so, it won’t be a case of “goddamn America.” It will be more a case of America is…goddamned.
Mark (411533) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:46 pmJust remember, a few months ago Harry Reid’s biggest cause was protecting funding for cowboy poetry. Why should anyone take this man seriously?
Chuck Bartowski (e84e27) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:47 pmJD – how will repealing the ACA affect the budget, show your work.
Spartacvs (9928d8) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:49 pmHow will implementing ACA affect the budget. Show your work.
C’mon, be serious. You don’t know. What a challenging comment.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:54 pmAnyone willing to bet when the economy collapses 6 months after that we will see Spartacus on the street starving and blaming the mossad.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:56 pmhttp://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-would-cost-over-2-trillion
Your show your work schtick is hysterical, since you are obviously either ignorant or dishonest.
JD (318f81) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:57 pmFartcvs trying to convince everyone how the Greece economic model is the best model. That guy is a genius.
MSL (f060a0) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:59 pmThe Weakly Standard, your ‘avin a larf, try the OMB.
Spartacvs (92e3b9) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:59 pmOr the CBO
Spartacvs (92e3b9) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:00 pmYou did not even read, did you?
JD (318f81) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:01 pmDembots are always howling “racist” because of projection.
Happens a thousand times a day.
It’s no big deal.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:01 pmThe CBO can’t score a speech, spart!
Obama’s a miserable failure even by the CBO, who give Obama an incomplete for his debt ceiling proposals. He can’t even vote present.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:01 pmWhy can’t he just convince us the Mugabe model is the best?
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:04 pmI picked that one for exactly that reason. Since the Weekly Standard was writing about it, I knew the troll would dismiss it.
JD (318f81) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:04 pmAnd peole who call it the Affordable Care Act should be fined for aggressive dishonesty, as it has not provided more care, or more affordable care, and it’s effects have already cost people insurance or higher premiums.
JD (318f81) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:06 pmGoodnight, racists.
JD (318f81) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:07 pmTrue. Democrat activist Ron Brynaert started asking if I’m in Al Qaeda as soon as he saw that some of my relatives are Muslims, and that my heritage is middle eastern.
He knows I’m a veteran, served honorably, and have never uttered a word of support for Islamic murderers, but because I dare to be a conservative, I get the special treatment.
You can see what they really think when they come across a gay Republican or a female republican or a black one (they hate those the worst).
I agree it’s not really a big deal. Takes a second to swallow that some punk just trashed your family heritage, but like spartacus, these democrats really just want to provoke people. Obviously he has no intention of persuading us.
Just look at how spartacus spent all this effort… not to influence a thing. Even a democrat would find his arguments pretty irritating. He’s abandoned any hope of winning the debate, and resorts instead to lashing out.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:07 pmJust so we are clear, it is too cowardly and too dishonest to list the variety of names it has commented under.
JD (318f81) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:09 pm“I can kind of understand people being such dupes and suckers for the public sector and leftism (and the two do go hand-in-hand) if they’re at least employed by the government.”
People will do all kinds of crazy crap if you wave a dollar bill under their nose.
One of my ex-girl friends hasn’t worked in 30 years. There’s not a damned thing wrong with her except she’s got a grade A case of lazy.
So, she gets on SSI, with a note from her sympathetic doctor, and now she’s a ward of the state riding for free for the rest of her life.
Sweet deal, no?
And, you better believe every time she votes, it’s going to be for some creep like the Great Black Dope, the guy who’s always waving a dollar bill under her nose.
And, she ain’t alone, there’s millions of people just like her.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:10 pmsparks-out-his-azz is perhaps the most boring troll of all time — quite an accomplishment, actually, given the efforts of numerous competitors over the years.
Icy Texan (d54ac5) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:11 pmI guess you could give him props for how quickly and unabashedly he descended into playing the race card against Surls, just ’cause Dave dared refer to our Chimpanzee-in-Feces as the Great Black Dope.
Then again, it was all too predictable.
If he was being honest he would have slammed Surls for calling Obama “great”.
Icy Texan (d54ac5) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:19 pmSince the government has doubled in the last 10 yrs we get rid of half of it. That takes us back to the Clinton years, you loved those didn’t you Libby?? Well, that’s what we should do and then we have to fix SS b/c this system from day one doesn’t work, look at Europe, Japan, China is collapsing too. The constitution works, free markets works, who has the best job creation record…..guess……Gov Palin! ding ding ding!! Palin 2012
jann (ee21e2) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:27 pmTime to play with lefty halfwits (but I repeat myself)…
“Racist Dave – I didn’t say I was surprised by your racism…”
Since, I don’t engage in racism, unlike Democrats (the party of race-based slavery and Jim Crow), there’s nothing for you to be surprised at, leftdolt.
“I said I was surprised to see it tolerated here…”
Well, that’s because you’re an idiot.
Let’s just say I really did say something racist, like I believe that there are more black basketball players in the NBA then there are white players because members of the black race are just naturally better basketball players (maybe they have a basketball gene that white boys don’t have, or something).
What, in your addled, semi-human brain makes you think that that wouldn’t be tolerated?
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:35 pmDave, he doesn’t mean racism, where you think race determines traits. He means racism, where you don’t say what Barack Obama and Al Sharpton want you to.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:37 pmDon’t you hate being called unpatriotic? What would they call Mark Twain: “What is the difference between a taxidermist and a tax collector? The taxidermist takes only your skin.”
AZ Bob (aa856e) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:40 pm#96
Yeah, I know, Dustin.
I’m just messing with the guy, ’cause I’m a big old meany who likes teasing dumb animals.
Character flaw on my part.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:47 pmAl Sharpton should go suck on Jessie Jackson.
Oh too much?
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:50 pmAnyway, I think it’s pretty obvious that Reid was trying to say that most Americans want the government to keep getting bigger and bigger, and spend more and more, and borrow more and more, and that the people in the Tea Party movement, who want just the opposite, are in the minority. He wasn’t trying to say Tea Partiers aren’t Americans.
Hopefully, people in this country will wake up before November 2012 and vote the Dems out, and then keep them out, because the liberal morons are going to destroy America if they keep doing what they’re doing generation after generation.
Their foreign policies (since Woody Wilson) have been a disaster for this country, and their socialistic domestic policies are GOING to cause an even worse disaster, if we don’t put a stop to them, and then start reversing them soonest.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:06 pmThe only good thing progressives have done was to fight segregation and even then their own progressive friends fought against them.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:08 pmWe need spending cuts now, not in 2020.
We need no new taxes in order for the economy to recover – which means that the existing cuts set to expire must continue.
The radio here has been reporting over and over again that the US WILL default on Aug 2. Yet stocks, etc are relatively stable. It will be interesting when Y2K is repeated and the world doesn’t end, our cars still start as usual.
If we don’t hold the limit here, where will we? Does anyone believe the next limit will hold? I say we stop the debt NOW, right now.
We need to change direction NOW. People talk about defense spending – we can’t afford tha any more, we have squandered our inheritance. I’d rather be defenseless and not in debt to foreigners than have to turn our military over to the Chinese when the debt comes due. This level of debt used to be reserved for wartime. Wake up! We have already shot our bolt – it was wasted.
The Boehner plan is just another crock – they are not serious. Hold the line, this may be the last chance.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:49 amDept. of the unsurprising:
Tea Party rising star is deadbeat dad
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:14 amSparty – what names have you commented under?
JD (6e25b4) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:18 amSparty… when will Big Zer0 unveil his plan?… hit the road…
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:23 amHey, spartacvs, you ran like a scalded cat from the other threads when I challenged you with facts. You’re not interested in debate, you just spout off talking points, try to pass lies off as truth, and take up bandwidth. You’re a coward.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:29 amChucky, why is the House wasting time on trying to pass the Boner bill? will the teabaggers support it?
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:33 amTroll clean up on Aisle 107, Stashiu3.
Simon Jester (250c60) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:34 amSpartacvs, why is Obama spending 25% of GDP when the most the federal government can reasonably take in is 18%?
Why are you talking about fiddling with tax rates when tax rates have almost no effect upon dollars taken in?
Why do you refuse to answer questions?
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:47 amGotta love the jew haters on the left trying to slander the tea party.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:50 amWhen is the last time gov’t cut back?
No tax change – change spending, I mean really change it so much taht it is noticed – close some departments, stop some of Obama’s precious programs, sell some assets before they get another dime.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:07 amWhy increase taxes when the Democrats don’t even bother to pass a budget?
They don’t want prosperity. They want control.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:12 amHell, Texas is cutting another $400 plus million. Sounds tiny, but it’s about 2.5% of our government, and cuts every single agency.
Ohhhh you meant the federal government? ohh. Yeah. Well, you know Texas has a balanced budget amendment. That should be priority one. Many other reforms can be made, but that one must happen for this catastrophe to ever end.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:12 amChuck, what makes you think full on austerity will power an economic recovery?
We got in this hole because the GOP squandered a surplus to reward its base with taxes they didn’t pay for and with off budget spending they simply added to the debt. Time to pay the piper, this whole kabuki dance centered around reducing the deficit & refusing to raise the debt ceiling is just the GOP trying to protect its ill gotten gains at the expense of everyone not in on the heist. Y’all did very well under Bush. But the party’s over and it’s time to fix the mess and as usual it falls on Democrats to do the heavy lifting and restore sanity to the nations fiscal situation after the binge years of GW Bush and the 109th.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:15 amWhat good is a balanced budget when there is no budget?
If we can’t stop spending now, we never will – regardless of the Constitution. All Federal spending on the environment, energy, welfare, healthcare, & education is already blatantly unconstitutional.
We stop spending now.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:24 amYou keep asking questions, but you never answer mine.
What makes you think raising tax rates won’t tank the economy?
Here’s my take: spending cuts and tax raises will both hurt the economy. But neither will hurt nearly as much as constantly amassing debt. And since it’s impossible to tax our way into a balanced budget, spending must be cut.
You keep blaming Bush and the GOP, but Democrats controlled Congress when the country dipped into recession, and the Democrats haven’t done jack in terms of getting us out of it.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:37 amtouche’
I can’t say I’ll be sad if the debt ceiling stays where it is.
It really should be reduced back to the Bush era level.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:40 amTo put a finer point on things: if the current spending level of 25% GDP were only temporary, and we quickly cut spending down to 18% GDP once the economy was growing steadily again, you’d have a point about spending cuts and economic recovery.
But that’s not what’s happening. Obama wants to spend at least 25% of GDP every year for the next 10 years and beyond. We can’t sustain that. Total debt is already over 100% of GDP, and we’re looking at deficits of up to 10% of GDP every year for the foreseeable future.
Cutting spending is the only way we can restore sanity to the debt problem.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:43 amIn other words, you want to escape paying for the consequences of your votes for Bush & the 109th, thanks for confirming the obvious.
Depends on what gets cut and who gets taxed.
Entitlements pretty much pay for themselves with only minor tweaks needed, the military budget is bloated and ripe for some serious trimming, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be on the block so his base can start paying their way again and a whole host of tax breaks need to go. The economic downturn will eventually rebound so the only insurmountable budget problem going forward is the runaway cost of healthcare. Single payer would go a long way toward getting health care costs under control.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:58 amThat might be the stupidest thing you’ve posted here.
Since you’re so fond of the Clinton era, chew on this for a while: Clinton’s last budget spent 18% of GDP….exactly the figure I have been calling for. And somehow, the Republic withstood that horribly austere budget.
Cut all spending down to 18% GDP, and do it now.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:01 amChuck –
Explain your work.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:10 amHe just did.
I think you’ve demanded people explain things to you 100 times by now, often when you’re the one making the assertion. Chuck notes you’re wrong to say entitlements pay for themselves, and you don’t think you need to show your work?
Of course you do. This is the best you can do.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:17 amIt’s a lot like Obama. He whines that a deal is not acceptable to him, and when asked to show in writing what is acceptable to him he just ignores that completely, and whines about the adults who actually have produced.
It’s amusing that spart is unable to get beyond the same childish game yet, but barack is supposedly our President.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:19 amGee, the fact that Social Security will very soon be paying out more than it takes in is just one example of an entitlement not paying for itself.
Medicare paying so little that doctors are abandoning the program is another.
Welfare doesn’t pay for itself. Neither does WIC, AFDC, Medicaid, or a host of other programs.
So, to say that entitlements “pretty much pay for themselves” is sheer idiocy.
Now, go back and answer all my questions from other threads.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:27 amVery soon, how soon?
What do the Trustees say?
Medicaid is THE problem that single payer would go a long way to fixing, the Ryan budget – not so much.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:30 amActually, Today’s Journal Editorial explains how the problem developed:
Social Security’s fiscal trouble began in earnest in 1972 with bills that increased benefits immediately by 20%, added an annual cost of living adjustment, and created a benefit escalator requiring payments to rise with wages, not inflation. This and other tweaks by Democrat Wilbur Mills added trillions of dollars to the program’s unfunded liabilities. Believe it or not, these 1972 amendments were added to a debt-ceiling bill.
ian cormac (886e1a) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:32 amWhat do the Trustees say Ian?
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:33 amDemocrats treat debt as if it is free money to pay for all of their goodies. Republicans have often done the same.
Our nation is run by children. The credit card is maxed, so they apply for another one. And always they assume someone else (the evil RICH) will pay.
The fantasy is over. The US does not have an endowment like Harvard or Yale. The US is not God. The US will have to pay – the Democrats will never stop until we are all slaves to our debtors. They have never stopped, they have no plan, they do not intend to ever have a plan other than more and more debt and taxes.
Stop now, this is THE issue of our time.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:34 amSorry, none of your questions will be answered until you go answer the ones I asked. Show that you are capable of good-faith debate.
I notice you didn’t dispute my points about Medicaid, AFDC, WIC, and welfare. None of them pay for themselves.
BTW, Social Security will pay out more than it takes in in 2010.
That’s from the NY Times, so you know it’s got the best leftist slant possible.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:38 amAmphipolis, what was the national debt and the status of the deficit at the start of Bush the Lessers presidency and what did the Obama presidency inherit?
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:38 amWhat about all that money in the SS Trust Fund? did Bush and the 109th spend that too? Silly question, of course they did. Time to pay it back.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:40 amAre you really a college professor, as others have claimed? Becuase your spelling and punctuation is atrocious for someone who is supposedly educated. First, you spelled it “Bush the lessor”; I guess he was renting property somewhere. Now it’s “Bush the Lessers presidency”; possessives use appostrophes, don’t you know that?
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:40 amGo back and answer my questions from other threads, asswipe.
And there is no trust fund; there never has been one.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:41 amYes, Bush spent all the money in the trust fund. He drove to the vault and took out all the money in there and spent it. Now it’s time to ‘pay it back’ somehow. Like … 70 trillion in taxes or something. That’s only what, 400% taxation of the entire country?
Great plan, democrat. You don’t sound like an obsessed idiot.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:41 amHas Spartacvs said anything that wasn’t a lie or an inane question? Too tired to check, but watch and see.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:42 amI seem to recall democrats screaming that Bush was wrong when he warned this would happen. Now they blame Bush because it happened. It’s so funny, but Bush still owns these little ankle biters.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:42 amThe unfunded liabilities are the big deal, totaling
ian cormac (886e1a) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:43 am100 trillion dollars +, ‘game over,man’
This guy definitively is not Yelverton. Yelverton is crazy, but he’s lazy and gives up. This is someone else. someone with the stamina to ramble on and on with no intention of impressing a soul, and actually trying to look crazy.
Gee, I wonder who that is.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:44 amThat’s not on the cards. If it ever comes to that, we can always say “no”. That’s better than being defenseless, and therefore having no option when the Chinese demand we give them our lunch money.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/28/2011 @ 10:02 amWhat about Obama’s five baby mamas? How much does he owe them?
Oh, how do I know about them? Easy, I read it in my tea leaves this morning. And I confirmed it with a ouija board. That’s about as good as the evidence as you’ve got for your claim.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/28/2011 @ 10:15 amIf “spartacvs” is our old friend “truthandjustice”, IIRC, he was claiming he was a HS teacher who taught social-studies.
AD-RtR/OS! (7ab0c4) — 7/28/2011 @ 10:52 amAnyway, regardless of what his occupation/trade is, he is economically illiterate, and disregards all data that does not confirm or buttress his “world” view.
His ignorance on what he advocates must be truly painful.
Actually it does. The USA has far more assets than Harvard and Yale put together, and those assets do generate income; but we spend all of it and more.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/28/2011 @ 10:54 amAh, so with the Tea Parties, the Democrats now have new scapegoats.
First G.W.Bush, now the Tea Parties.
Democrats never accept any responsibility for the consequences of their own screw-ups. They always blame others, conjuring up screwy rationales (aka, excuses) which reinforce their delusions.
It’s been that way for a hundred years. They are immoral. Liberalism is, indeed, a mental illness.
Summit, N.J. (75c9eb) — 7/28/2011 @ 10:54 amWhat money? There has never been a penny in this “trust fund” from the moment it was established.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/28/2011 @ 10:55 amThere you go again, Milhouse, confusing it with facts.
AD-RtR/OS! (7ab0c4) — 7/28/2011 @ 10:57 amAD nailed this one.
Sparty – list all of the names you have commented under.
JD (d56362) — 7/28/2011 @ 11:27 amAD nailed this one.
Sparty – list all of the names you have commented under.
JD (6e25b4) — 7/28/2011 @ 11:27 amI’m still waiting for spartacvs to explain to all of us how a program that spends more money than it takes in pays for itself.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/28/2011 @ 11:33 amThey work by the underpants gnome theory of economics, Chuck.
JD (318f81) — 7/28/2011 @ 11:47 am1) spend way more than you bring in
2) ???????
3) Profit
By spartacvs’s definition, I had a wife that paid for herself.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/28/2011 @ 11:48 am“What about all that money in the SS Trust Fund? did Bush and the 109th spend that too? Silly question, of course they did. Time to pay it back.
Comment by spartacvs — 7/28/2011 @ 9:40 am”
My god, yet more ignorance. Bush and the 109th did not spend the SS trust fund. The surplus that used to be created by over taxing workers was always spent. And has been for years. Not any longer as there is no surplus any longer, thanks to the Democrats demagoging reform of the Social Security system early in George W. Bush’s admin when he attempted to confront this.
The “fund” is nothing but a stack of government IOU’s where the government promises to pay itself in the future the trillions spent in the past.
Only someone as fundamentally ignorant as “spartacvs” would believe that this represents a true fund of wealth to be drawn upon. Only someone stupid enough to believe Al Gore’s “lockbox” rhetoric would think that there was a tin box with piles of currency in it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/28/2011 @ 11:49 amdamn, I forgot to close my tags.
[fixed. –Stashiu]
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/28/2011 @ 11:49 amThe SS trust fund exists, ask the SS trustees, ask any elected politician. I’d sure love to hear any elected Republican office holder step up and announce to the public that the SS trust fund has been spent and is unrecoverable. Can you conceive political Armageddon?
Spartacvs (532274) — 7/28/2011 @ 12:03 pmSpartacvs, you are a clown. The average American knows more than you that the “trust fund” is nothing but a stack of valueless IOU’s.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/28/2011 @ 12:04 pmThat is twoofnjustice, SPQR. A frekin teacher.
JD (318f81) — 7/28/2011 @ 12:06 pmYou haven’t answered my questions on any of the other threads, spartacvs. I’ve engaged you with logic and facts, and I’ve answered all of yours. It’s time for you to man up and answer mine. Or will you run away like a coward?
As SPQR pointed out, any excess in Social Security receipts has been used to purchase US Treasury instruments. Which means that Congress has used that money for its spending, giving Social Security a bunch of IOUs in return. In order to make good on those instruments, Congress must find the funds somewhere. But it’s not like a wad of cash has been sitting in some safe under the guard of the Social Security Administration.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/28/2011 @ 12:07 pmThe left are using SS to spend on their reelection chances.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/28/2011 @ 12:56 pm“We got in this hole because the GOP squandered a surplus…”
The usual thing you hear from lefties…namely, a lie.
There was never a surplus, though after the Republicans took control of the House in the 90’s they stopped the borrowing spree Democrats had been engaged in for decades. They ALMOST had one year (2000) where they actually took in more than they spent, but they were never able to stop borrowing entirely.
When the Dems regained control of the House the borrowing really took off again, and now the debt stands at a colossal 92.3% of GDP (for fiscal year 2010).
In 1980 federal debt was “only” 32.6% of GDP. When the GOP (finally) took control of the House 1n the 1994 elections (for the first time since the 1950s) it stood at 65.5% of GDP. When the Dem-thieves retook the House in 2006, the debt was at 63.1% of GDP, and now with the Dems holding the purse strings and the presidency (a sure recipe for disaster), the debt has risen in just four short years from 63.1% of GDP to 92.3% of GDP, which is an incredible, almost unbelievable amount. We’re now carrying a level of debt roughly equal to the debt ran up in WWII.
This is insane.
Who’s fault is it that the feds are so far in debt? It’s almost entirely the Dem-thieves fault and there ain’t no ifs, ands or buts about it.
And, if we don’t put an end to their insane spending, and their never-ending quest to put more and more power into the hands of government, we’re eventually going to wind up like the folks in the PRC, broke and oppressed.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/28/2011 @ 1:03 pm“The SS trust fund exists.”
Yeah, and as other people have pointed out, there’s nothing in it except promises to pay.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/28/2011 @ 1:20 pmHey, maybe the SocSec Trustees can sell their paper to the Fed, though there’s so much of it, they would have to call the program Quantitative Easing – though there is certainly more quality there than what passed for QE-one and two.
AD-RtR/OS! (7ab0c4) — 7/28/2011 @ 1:30 pmThe social security “trust fund” is like Homer Simpson’s “emergency doughnut”
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/28/2011 @ 1:37 pmExactly Dave ever since it was enacted our congressmen have looted it to pay for their own nefarious agendas.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/28/2011 @ 4:46 pmHowever, it counts towards the debt ceiling, so the real debt isn’t as high as it appears.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/28/2011 @ 4:59 pmEasy enough for you to say on some backwater righty blog. But when will a R candidate for office step up to the microphone and declare that the R party does not intend to stand by the obligations contained in the SS trust fund?
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 5:15 pmSpartacvs,
Do you you have any education… the “R party” does not have to do a thing:
Case Name: FLEMMING V. NESTOR 363 U.S. 603
I though everyone knew that Congress could change the terms anytime they like (and they do). It is not a contract/right to payment.
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/28/2011 @ 5:25 pmBy the way, it has been “settled law” for 60+ years:
NO. 54. ARGUED FEBRUARY 24, 1960. – DECIDED JUNE 20, 1960. – 169 F. SUPP. 922, REVERSED.
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/28/2011 @ 5:27 pmOpps… 51 years.
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/28/2011 @ 5:28 pmSure they can repudiate SS obligations, but only if they get permission from the voters 1st.
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 5:32 pmYrah but you dems don’t get permission from the voters when you ram your teabags down their throat.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/28/2011 @ 5:37 pmVoters be dammed… (yes we are). I have yet to see a Federal Referendum.
SSI has been changed multiple times over the decades–did you ever vote on the changes? I missed that election. There is nothing to repudiate. It is not a contractual obligation or right.
You do know that this is a Representative Republic and not a Democracy–right?
You can vote the folks out of office over the next 2/4/6 years–but that is the limit of “your power” and their obligations.
There is no “money” in a trust fund… The SSI taxes were simply rolled into the general fund via “Treasury Bonds” and spent.
I doubt that anyone in Washington DC trembles at the thought of Spartacvs’ scorn.
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/28/2011 @ 5:38 pmYeah*
Yeah but they tremble in fear as he lunges at them with his tiny manhood.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/28/2011 @ 5:47 pmSpartacvs, why are you still making up stuff? You’ve been utterly discredited, even just under this sockpuppet, for posting links you don’t understand. Now you are making legal pronouncements that are completely false.
You are a clown.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/28/2011 @ 5:57 pmThe SS trust fund contains obligations, ‘calls’ on revenue which the government is obligated to honor whenever SS taxes coming in fall below a level sufficient to fund SS benefits being paid out.
Any politician attempting to repudiate that obligation absent a mandate from the electorate, is in for some serious hurt. Remember W’s attempt to privatize SS?
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:10 pmOkay, I take back what I wrote before: THIS is the stupidest thing you’ve ever posted. Congress doesn’t need permission from the voters to amend anything about Social Security; they need only pass a law and have it signed by the President.
Chuck Bartowski (e84e27) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:10 pmSpartacvs, you still need to explain to everyone how a program that spends more money than it takes in “pretty much pays for itself”. And you need to answer a whole bunch of questions I asked you yesterday. If you need me to refresh your memory, I’ll be glad to. But start answering questions on point, or else stop complaining that the readers of this site aren’t interested in facts.
Chuck Bartowski (e84e27) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:15 pmChucky, Assuming they want to stay in office and assuming they want their party to remain a viable national entity they would do better to secure a mandate before attempting to repudiate the obligations in the SS trust fund.
If you are too dense to understand even that much, then have at it. Prove me wrong.
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:19 pmWhat is this ‘calls’ on revenue you speak of?
The US government has a constitutional obligation to pay off the bonds that it purchased from itself… Big whoop.
There is no obligation to pay anyone SSI checks other than the laws they write and the president signs.
Go for a constitutional amendment to redefine SSI as a “right” (of course, it starts out with zero real assets)–and perhaps you will have something (something like the right to free speech and the wright to bear arms–oops–there is always that “living constitution” exemption that statist’s like)
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:20 pmspurtacus ain’t made
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:21 pmsense for so long he should quit
trying, laugh it off
Twoofnjustice never fails to be a douchebag. This clown shapes young minds as a teacher. See a pattern?
JD (318f81) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:21 pmright =! wright
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:21 pmSure Chuck, it pays for itself because it draws revenue from two streams. Its own dedicated taxes AND obligations held by the SS trust fund which the government is obligated to pay back from the general fund.
Simple.
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:22 pmThe idea that any of the programs he was referring to pretty much pay for themselves was the as I’ll of the week. It was Big Lie territory. If you are going to make up some BS, go big.
JD (318f81) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:23 pmThere is no “obligation” to pay off the SS trust fund bonds, since the govt just owes itself the money. Its not a real obligation in any legal sense. This is even more manifestly obvious from the fact that the “bonds” cannot be transferred outside of the govt.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:40 pmSpartacvs,
Then you must remember the recent mandate from the voters that both “R’s” and “D’s” have received… Looking to scale back SSI beni’s back in the 2008 Hope and Change election… From TPM July 2010:
Don’t get me wrong–SSI as current funded is not sustainable with present benefits.
When SSI was created back in 1935, the average age of death was less than 62 years old.
For somebody born in 2007, their average life is around 75 years…
Isn’t just like a “D” to promise something that most people would die before they could collect on (age 62 in 1935). And still is racist today given that among African American men, … have a life expectancy of only 66.1 years. The MAN is making black men pay into an “insurance plan” that, on aveage, they will barely collect on and will leave no assets for their children. Racists.
The congress/president should change SSI age to 78 instantly so that they would be just as compassionate as FDR and the congress was in 1935.
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:42 pmYour point is pointless.
and the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell into GOP Senate nominees
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:48 pmSpartacvs quoting INSTAPUTZ… Will the universe implode?
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:50 pmThe House passed a bill to raise the debt ceiling. A bill with overwhelming popular support according to CNN. Something that Spartacvs still lies about.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:50 pmFacts are pointless?!
C’mon, sparty. Tell us all the names you have commented under. Or do you not possess enough integrity to do something that simple?
You are your putz buddy heart balls in your mouf?
JD (318f81) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:52 pmBfc, do you read INSTAPUTZ too?
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:57 pmA pointless bill that is going nowhere and will never reach the Presidents desk.
Compromise bitches, revenue increases, balanced approach! You know it makes sense.
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:59 pm“Easy enough for you to say on some backwater righty blog. But when will a R candidate for office step up to the microphone and declare that the R party does not intend to stand by the obligations contained in the SS trust fund?”
That’s a nice bunch of irrelevant gibberish, and there is still not one single cent in the so-called Social Security Trust Fund.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:04 pmDave, for gods sakes educate yourself:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:08 pmThis is a school teacher. How sad is that?
JD (318f81) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:11 pmPost with links removed (not accepting?):
Spartacvs,
Then you must remember the recent mandate from the voters that both “R’s” and “D’s” have received… Looking to scale back SSI beni’s back in the 2008 Hope and Change election… From TPM July 2010:
Don’t get me wrong–SSI as current funded is not sustainable with present benefits.
When SSI was created back in 1935, the average age of death was less than 62 years old.
For somebody born in 2007, their average life is around 75 years…
Isn’t just like a “D” to promise something that most people would die before they could collect on (age 62 in 1935). And still is racist today given that “among African American men, … have a life expectancy of only 66.1 years“. The MAN is making black men pay into an “insurance plan” that, on average, they will barely collect on and will leave no assets for their children.
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:15 pmSpurty–
Out of curiosity which of your pronouncements do you actually believe, in contrast with crazee stuff you just spurt out for the general purpose of annoying people and stinking up the place?
elissa (f66496) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:24 pmBfc, I suggest you send a letter to the Congressional Black Caucus, be sure to let me know what they say in reply.
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:27 pmSo what are the two streams for AFDC, WIC, Welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare?
Chuck Bartowski (e84e27) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:27 pmThat’s not the same thing as “permission”, spartacvs. “Permission” is not the same thing as “risking getting voted out of office”, no matter how you slice it.
Q.E.D.
Chuck Bartowski (e84e27) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:29 pmelissa – the place was pretty stinky before I got here.
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:29 pmToo cowardly to tell everyone all of the names you have commented under?
JD (318f81) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:30 pmChucky, threatening to privatize SS is bad enough, but going after the blue hairs ? you gotta death wish or something?
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:33 pmIf SS pays for itself, why does it have an insolvency date?
JD (318f81) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:35 pmNo vote tonight!
The baggers are revolting… but we already knew that didn’t we.
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:35 pmI gave Racist Dave a link in #191, you need to spend some time there too.
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:37 pmThe House already passed a debt ceiling increase. The Senate Dems, and Barcky, flipped the bird to 60+% of the American public who support CC&B.
JD (318f81) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:37 pmJust remember folks, “truth” or “spartacvs”, is a school teacher, and is imprining his vast store of knowledge on the youth of today, the voters of tomorrow.
AD-RtR/OS! (7ab0c4) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:39 pmHe “knows” a lot; unfortunately, most of it just isn’t so.
And we wonder why our kids do so poorly in school?
Your question makes no sense. I’m not going after anyone. I am just pointing out that Congress doesn’t need anyone’s permission to change a law. That’s not to say there wouldn’t be consequences, just that permission is not required.
Now, go back and answer my questions about revenues as a percentage of GDP and how over-spent this current administration is.
Chuck Bartowski (e84e27) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:41 pmChucky, this administration is not over-spent.
Here’s how we got in this mess
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:52 pmhttp://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/07/28/how-barack-obama-is-destroying-the-american-economy-in-two-nauseating-charts/
Maybe our teacher could explain those 2 charts ….
JD (318f81) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:53 pmThis admin has not overspent?
This clown keeps ramping up the stupid.
JD (318f81) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:54 pmEasily done JD, the Bush tax cuts account for about half of those projected deficits.
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:03 pmYou are pathetic. I pity your students.
JD (318f81) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:05 pmHow is that possible when revenues today are higher than they were in 2001?
There is no denying that if spending per capita was $8000 (higher than it was in 2004), there would be a projected surplus.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:06 pm“Dave, for gods sakes educate yourself:”
Oh, I did that a long time ago, that’s why I can easily demolish your absurd claims.
SS is basically a Ponzi scheme, and it will collapse the minute there aren’t any new suckers paying into it.
That’s because…there’s nothing in the Social Security Trust Fund.
Only, since the suckers aren’t being conned, but rather forced to pay into it at the point of a government held gun, it isn’t realy fair to call the suckers suckers.
Slaves would be more like it.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:06 pm“Here’s how we got in this mess.”
I already briefly explained how we got into this mess in post #158. Of course, if you need a classic NYT lie-fest to read for comedy relief purposes, I highly recommend Sparta-doofus’ link.
If you can get through that and keep a straight face…you basically don’t have a sense of humor.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:12 pmEasily done JD, the Bush tax cuts account for about half of those projected deficits.
Lie. A rather brazen one actually. Both in terms of money, the tax rate cuts are at best one-third of the deficits. And a lie in labeling. The Bush tax rate cuts are gone. They expired in December 2010. Today, the tax rates are those that Obama negotiated seven months ago.
Spartacvs is a serial liar.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:12 pmChuck Don’t mind Spartacvs he is busy getting teabagged by Barack and Michelle.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:12 pmBoth in terms of money, the tax rate cuts are at best one-third of the deficits.
I will quibble with this too. Keeping our money does not increase the deficit, unless you do a static tax analysis.
JD (318f81) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:16 pmJD, I was refering to rough magnitudes. However, the Democrats insisted on continuing at least three-quarters of the tax rates cuts in their most favored scenario. So that just further illustrates what liars Democrats in general, and Spartacvs/Yelverton in specific, are.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:18 pmJust for context, scientists say the universe began about 13.7 billion years ago.
How many billions are in a trillion? How will the light-giver solve this problem by taxing the rich? Show your work.
Ag80 (d290b2) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:30 pmMichael, you can be for preserving intact the Bush era tax cuts, or you can be for cutting the deficit. But because the tax cuts have played such a major role in creating the deficit, if you have any regard for math or logic you really can’t be for both. But most House Republicans are.
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:34 pmA year and a half ago, the Tax Foundation showed that you can’t close the deficit by simply raising taxes, as the Democrats dishonestly claim.
Look at the tax rates required to do that. Plainly impossible to collect taxes at those rates. We must cut spending for real – not fake cuts like the Democrats try to fool us with like in the ACA legislation.
It simply is not practical to assume that the Federal govt can collect more than about 18 to 19% of GDP in revenue. I made this point before, and Spartacvs/Yelverton claimed to refute by linking to a piece that in fact said exactly what I had. That historically, the Federal government has not collected more than 18% plus or minus of GDP regardless of tax rates. That was hilarious of course, seeing Yelverton show what an illiterate moron he is.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:35 pmMichael, you can be for preserving intact the Bush era tax cuts, or you can be for cutting the deficit. But because the tax cuts have played such a major role in creating the deficit, if you have any regard for math or logic you really can’t be for both.
Liar. You’ve been proven a liar thousands of times but you continue.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:36 pmThankyou.
Now see if you can’t get a few teahadis from the House to admit that on camera, pretty please.
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:39 pmSpartacvs, it would actually be a crime for a private company to offer pensions or annuities based on the same scheme as Social Security. A system so actuarily unsound would be a criminal Ponzi scheme under state and Federal laws. That you ridicule the observation only reinforces your ignorance.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:41 pmYou can’t look at the Tax Foundation’s figures and rationally claim that the deficit results from under taxation.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:50 pmThere is a Debt article at IBD linked to at Instapundit, that explains that if SocSec “contributions” were actually purchases of govt securities,
the debt obligation of the United States would be in the range of 113-Trillion-Dollars.
Only the Federal Government is allowed to sell an “annuity” on a hope and a prayer, everyone else requires hard cash.
AD-RtR/OS! (7ab0c4) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:51 pmEnding the Bush tax cuts would reduce the deficit by how much?
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:59 pmSpartacvs, zero.
The Bush tax cuts expired in December 2010. These are the Obama tax rates, voted into existance by a Democratic controlled House and Senate and signed by Obama.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:00 pmSPQR, tell it to the beneficiaries, err voters.
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:01 pmSpartacvs, you are the one lying here about it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:06 pmSporty – afraid of a little honesty?
JD (318f81) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:07 pmEven if the tax rates returned to the pre-Bush era rates, something that Democrats did not want to have happen only six months ago, we would still have deficits of about a trillion dollars.
Spartacvs continues to just lie.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:07 pmMcardle math, oh dear….
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:11 pmSorry, that Debt article I mentioned was linked at HotAir (see below) and was at Business Week – it’s been a very long day.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/why-the-debt-crisis-is-even-worse-than-you-think-07272011.html
AD-RtR/OS! (7ab0c4) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:11 pmSpartacvs, you didn’t read. It was CBO math.
But I’m not surprised. Because you are just that dishonest.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:12 pmlies&tyranny never could read, and was always linking to things that actually disproved whatever point it was trying to make – the mark of a troll.
AD-RtR/OS! (7ab0c4) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:14 pmThat’s the bottom line. The Democrats’ claim that raising taxes on the “rich” solves the problem is a brazen lie. And they know it.
Their goal is to get away with this lie until about November 2012. That’s how little they care about our nation’s financial health.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:14 pmBill Whittle’s “eat the Rich” speaks to this topic as well.
JD (318f81) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:18 pmDoes the caloric content of a “rich” person vary with their net-worth?
AD-RtR/OS! (7ab0c4) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:23 pmRaising taxes on the wealthy won’t solve the whole problem of reducing the deficit or eliminating the debt, but it would be a big step in the right direction. But beyond that, quite frankly its about time they paid their fair share.
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:32 pmI heard they decided your fair share is 100% of past and future assets. Can’t find a link just now, but I’m certain you can’t prove me wrong. Please remit to the IRS within 10 working days. Thanks.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:34 pmWhat is their fair share? How much should people be allowed to keep of the money they earned?
It is not even a good first step. The school teacher should not be allowed near a checkbook.
Stimulus in baseline of budget and BarckyCare repeal would be a good first step.
JD (318f81) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:35 pmSporty – let’s try out a little baseline of honesty. What names have you commented under here?
JD (318f81) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:37 pmFair share, probably back to Clinton era tax rates. Though we could try Reagan rates if you prefer.
Spartacvs (dc4d4a) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:38 pmNo, your fair share is 100%, I already told you it’s decided. Don’t be selfish.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:39 pmthe fair share thing presumes that “the wealthy” have been sitting there ensconced in wealthyness their whole lives
but in America a huge percent are newly arrived every year … cause of they worked hard and/or were terribly clever adding value to this or that
used to be anyway
before Obama
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:40 pmSpartacvs,
Why would you object to that? You’re too wealthy compared to some others. They have needs. It’s your responsibility to provide for them. You are capable, they are not. Why are you always so selfish?
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:45 pmFair share? What percentage of taxes do the top 2% pay? The top 5%? The top 10%?
I know why you hate them, why your envy drips from your every comment. But it is so unseemly for you to lash out at those that you wish to be. Hint. Being a lying douchebag grade school teacher is not your ticket to riches.
JD (318f81) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:48 pmAD–
elissa (f66496) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:52 pmThat Business week article you linked upthread is very informative. I read it earlier. Too bad it is unlikely Spurty will bother to read it, because if he did he might learn some stuff that he’s currently misinformed about.
Once he has remitted payment, we can be sure the government will take care of him. They will provide all his needs, making sure of course that he doesn’t selfishly hoard any undeserved assets. I certainly don’t want to stand in the way of his utopia.
He wants the government to decide how much he gets to keep. I say we should let him. Once he’s done so, we can all remark how unselfish he is and how much he cares for those less capable than himself.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:54 pmActually it doesn’t.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:55 pmClearly the definition of fair is up for grabs.
Dana (4eca6e) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:57 pmSpartacvs,
You are “enlightened”, aren’t you? You’re not one of those selfish people who want more than their share? Please tell me it isn’t so. I couldn’t bear to think you were… selfish.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:59 pmI’ve never tasted fair trade coffee and by God I never will
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/28/2011 @ 10:01 pmnever say never I guess
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/28/2011 @ 10:07 pmHey, San Franciso! a judge has ordered your nutty circumcision ban proposal to be removed from the Nov. ballot.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/07/28/circumcision.ban.voting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
elissa (f66496) — 7/28/2011 @ 10:14 pmOh, heck, let’s go all the way back to the Eisenhower era rates. It won’t change the % of GDP taken in as revenue. Changing the rates to increase revenue is a fool’s errand…which could explain why you like the idea so much.
I say, let’s go back to the Clinton era of spending as a % of GDP.
Chuck Bartowski (e84e27) — 7/28/2011 @ 11:00 pm$3.6 trillion is not overspent? 25% of GDP is not overspent?
You’re a fucking moron.
Chuck Bartowski (e84e27) — 7/28/2011 @ 11:01 pmChucky, this administration is not over-spent.
Spartacvs (9f16b0) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:49 amSpartacvs,
Of course it’s not, perish the thought. With hard-working, patriotic, able-bodied people like yourself unselfishly giving their all to the government, they will of course only spend what is necessary to help the less-capable you are so concerned about. Your abilities are only there to support the less fortunate. You are enlightened. Right?
You will of course provide all your assets immediately to help those who have needs. You’re not a hypocrite, no matter what some malcontents are saying behind your back. This administration will build your utopia because you’re going to do your part. 100% is only fair, the debate is over, prove me wrong and show your work. Thanks.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/29/2011 @ 8:57 amSpartacvs, yes this administration has overspent.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/29/2011 @ 9:02 am“Fair share, probably back to Clinton era tax rates. Though we could try Reagan rates if you prefer.”
Lets go back to Clinton administration spending level too.
And Spartacvs, your claim that the Federal govt is obligated to pay back the SS “trust fund” bonds is utterly false.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/29/2011 @ 9:03 amTell it to the voters SPQR. Tell the voters all their SS and Medicare benefits have already been spent on tax cuts for the job creators. Double dog dare ya.
Spartacvs (9f16b0) — 7/29/2011 @ 9:11 amRaising taxes on the wealthy won’t solve the whole problem of reducing the deficit or eliminating the debt, but it would be a big step in the right direction. But beyond that, quite frankly its about time they paid their fair share.
Nope, not even a “big step”, it won’t even cover a fifth of the deficit. Spartacvs once again demonstrates his ignorance of basic facts.
And the “rich” already pay more than their “fair share” as they pay income taxes in excess of their proportion of income. They also pay in greater proportion than during the Clinton admin. IRS data shows this and Spartacvs/Yelverton is ignorant of it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/29/2011 @ 9:12 amSpartacvs, I’m telling it to you because you keep writing false claims.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/29/2011 @ 9:12 amWell, that wouldn’t be true. And the fact that you think it’s true tells us all that you have no idea what government spending means, how it is done, or what tax cuts mean.
Some simple facts for you:
1. For over 30 years, any funds that Social Security collected in excess of payouts was used to buy government bonds. So, that money was actually given to the US Treasury and distributed with the rest of federal spending. Sure, the bonds are held by the Social Security Administration, but those are essentially IOUs, not cash assets.
2. Government spends what it takes in and then some. What it spends in excess of revenues, it borrows. That’s why you see the Treasury selling various instruments; these are essentially loans from the bond or T-bill holder to the government at an agreed-upon interest rate.
3. Taxes are taken in from people and put into the Treasury accounts. When taxes are cut, less money is taken from the people. Money doesn’t actually flow back from the Treasury accounts to the taxpayers, just less money comes in.
Therefore, to say that Social Security benefits have been spent on tax cuts is completely ignorant. That’s just not how the money flow works.
But, why am I explaining this to you? You’re a fucking moron, and you won’t understand a word I’ve typed.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/29/2011 @ 11:18 amHow about if we return to Roosevelt-era tax rates?
Teddy Roosevelt!
AD-RtR/OS! (dd399a) — 7/29/2011 @ 12:20 pmO/- but I’m sure spurty will appreciate this…
Non-existant Voter Fraud…
http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/29/mississippi-naacp-leader-sent-to-prison-for-10-counts-of-voter-fraud/
…and why are Dem prosecutors being so hard on poor people who just want to participate in the American system?
AD-RtR/OS! (dd399a) — 7/29/2011 @ 12:23 pmThat’s the job of the GOP!
“Chucky, this administration is not over-spent.”
Sure, from the point of view of a commie.
As Chuck pointed out, federal spending now accounts for 25% of GDP, and all govt. spending is now over 40%, the highest in U.S. history, except for WWII (those years were a lefty’s dream come true, with nationwide rationing of damn near everything) thanks to Obambi and his merry band of socialists.
Leftards, of course, won’t be happy ’til it’s 100%…and, then we’ll all be poverty stricken slaves of the all-powerful state, kinda like the lucky citizens of North Korea.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/29/2011 @ 11:28 pm