Alan Simpson Calls GOP Refusal To Raise Revenue ‘Absolute Bullshit’

[taichiliberal]

The two of you have half the mental computing ability of Taichi. You are here only for grins and chuckles.

It's a typical response by intellectually bankrupt neocon parrots.....the squawk in maudlin tones when they realize facts and logic deconstruct their myopic beliefs and assertions.

 

[dblack]

I still say if conservatives (or anyone else, for that matter) really want smaller government, they'll crank up taxes (on everyone, across the board) until every last government program is paid for in full. At that point, we'll see just how much 'big government' people really want. My guess is, that when we're actually paying the ferryman, our enthusiasm for big brother will wane considerably.

 

[taichiliberal]

Bush did not put one penny "in the bank." Bush borrowed 340 billion from the trust funds "bank" and spent it!

Isn't it terrible. That's another reason to privatize Social Security.

If you borrow money from a bank and spend it, your bank account does NOT increase by the amount you spent!!!!

You can say that. But then you'd have to say that the deficit was $160 billion.

So, SPENDING an extra 340 billion of BORROWED money reduces the 500 billion debt to 160 billion.
So why are you CON$ complaining about borrowing more money, the more we borrow and spend, according to you, the lower the deficit gets.

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney

This is the sheer insanity and denial of the willfully ignorant neocon parrots! Once you expose their convoluted "logic", they just repeat the same neocon nonsense from the beginning. Toddy and his ilk will NEVER admit they are wrong, and blame everyone and anything else when their policies fail. But fortunately, about 50% of republicans polled are coming around and seeing the oligarchy fetish of the neocon political leadership for what it is, as with the debate about the debt ceiling.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Isn't it terrible. That's another reason to privatize Social Security.
You can say that. But then you'd have to say that the deficit was $160 billion.

So, SPENDING an extra 340 billion of BORROWED money reduces the 500 billion debt to 160 billion.
So why are you CON$ complaining about borrowing more money, the more we borrow and spend, according to you, the lower the deficit gets.

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney

This is the sheer insanity and denial of the willfully ignorant neocon parrots! Once you expose their convoluted "logic", they just repeat the same neocon nonsense from the beginning. Toddy and his ilk will NEVER admit they are wrong, and blame everyone and anything else when their policies fail. But fortunately, about 50% of republicans polled are coming around and seeing the oligarchy fetish of the neocon political leadership for what it is, as with the debate about the debt ceiling.

Are there assets in the "trust funds"?

 

[taichiliberal]

The people OWN the bonds held in TRUST by the government.

LOL! That's funny. You have no legal right to Social Security.
Why doesn't your spouse get your share after you die? It's held in trust for you.
Man, that's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

It is NOT the government's money, that is why when the government borrows from the account they have to put in an IOU. They owe the people who own the money they borrowed from the trust account. That is how a trust account works. The trustee only controls the account, they do not own the account and at some point must return the money in the trust to the true owners.

Your imaginings about how Soc Sec works sounds like private accounts.
Unfortunately, they don't work that way.

Not only do I have a legal right to SS, I'm collecting it right now as a retiree!!!

And a spouse DOES get survivors benefits after their mate dies. Even divorced spouses can get SS benefits

Survivors Benefits
Who can get survivors benefits based on your work?

Your widow or widower may be able to receive full benefits at full retirement age. The full retirement age for survivors is age 66 for people born in 1945-1956 and will gradually increase to age 67 for people born in 1962 or later. Reduced widow or widower benefits can be received as early as age 60.

Benefits for surviving divorced spouses

If you have been divorced, your former wife or husband who is age 60 or older (50-59 if disabled) can get benefits if your marriage lasted at least 10 years.

neocon wonks have been conditioned to believe that social security is an evil socialist/communist/fascist device that has been robbing the holy corporatist from making true profit for their shareholders and thus trickling down properity to the world!

And then when you point out the FACT that various administrations have for DECADES used Social security as a piggy bank to fund other parts of gov't spending (which was NOT the intended purpose of Soc Sec), you have a neocon meltdown similar to what you've been dealing with on this thread.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL! That's funny. You have no legal right to Social Security.
Why doesn't your spouse get your share after you die? It's held in trust for you.
Man, that's the funniest thing I've heard all day.
Your imaginings about how Soc Sec works sounds like private accounts.
Unfortunately, they don't work that way.

Not only do I have a legal right to SS, I'm collecting it right now as a retiree!!!

And a spouse DOES get survivors benefits after their mate dies. Even divorced spouses can get SS benefits

Survivors Benefits
Who can get survivors benefits based on your work?

Your widow or widower may be able to receive full benefits at full retirement age. The full retirement age for survivors is age 66 for people born in 1945-1956 and will gradually increase to age 67 for people born in 1962 or later. Reduced widow or widower benefits can be received as early as age 60.

Benefits for surviving divorced spouses

If you have been divorced, your former wife or husband who is age 60 or older (50-59 if disabled) can get benefits if your marriage lasted at least 10 years.

neocon wonks have been conditioned to believe that social security is an evil socialist/communist/fascist device that has been robbing the holy corporatist from making true profit for their shareholders and thus trickling down properity to the world!

And then when you point out the FACT that various administrations have for DECADES used Social security as a piggy bank to fund other parts of gov't spending (which was NOT the intended purpose of Soc Sec), you have a neocon meltdown similar to what you've been dealing with on this thread.

And then when you point out the FACT that various administrations have for DECADES used Social security as a piggy bank to fund other parts of gov't spending

I've been pointing that out all over this thread.

you have a neocon meltdown similar to what you've been dealing with on this thread

What's a neocon and why would this obvious truth make them meltdown?

 

[edthecynic]

So, SPENDING an extra 340 billion of BORROWED money reduces the 500 billion debt to 160 billion.
So why are you CON$ complaining about borrowing more money, the more we borrow and spend, according to you, the lower the deficit gets.

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney

This is the sheer insanity and denial of the willfully ignorant neocon parrots! Once you expose their convoluted "logic", they just repeat the same neocon nonsense from the beginning. Toddy and his ilk will NEVER admit they are wrong, and blame everyone and anything else when their policies fail. But fortunately, about 50% of republicans polled are coming around and seeing the oligarchy fetish of the neocon political leadership for what it is, as with the debate about the debt ceiling.

Are there assets in the "trust funds"?

If the government took those IOU "assets" to the local bank and deposited them in a savings account, how much interest will the bank pay on those deposited assets?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is the sheer insanity and denial of the willfully ignorant neocon parrots! Once you expose their convoluted "logic", they just repeat the same neocon nonsense from the beginning. Toddy and his ilk will NEVER admit they are wrong, and blame everyone and anything else when their policies fail. But fortunately, about 50% of republicans polled are coming around and seeing the oligarchy fetish of the neocon political leadership for what it is, as with the debate about the debt ceiling.

Are there assets in the "trust funds"?

If the government took those IOU "assets" to the local bank and deposited them in a savings account, how much interest will the bank pay on those deposited assets?

Why would a bank pay interest on a bond?
You don't really understand anything about finance, do you?

 

[taichiliberal]

* * * *
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney

To correct that:

a quote ATTRIBUTED to the former Vice President by Mr. O'Neill.

It appeared in O'Neill's 2004 book and to this day has never been denied by Cheney. The quote was even cited by CON$ervative publications and economists to defend Bush's wild spending sprees!!! During the Bush Regime, deficit spending was billed as THE way to fight off a recession. My how the worm turns once a Dem becomes president!!!

Do Deficits Matter? | The Weekly Standard
Do Deficits Matter?
It depends on where you sit--and on which type of deficit you're talking about.
11:00 PM, FEB 14, 2005 • BY IRWIN M. STELZER

WHEN DICK CHENEY SAID, "Deficits don't matter," economists took that as proof of the economic illiteracy of the Bush administration. But it turns out there is a case to be made that Cheney was onto something.

On the deepest level, the vice president was echoing, in slightly exaggerated form, an idea put forward a few years ago by Irving Kristol, the Godfather of the neoconservatives who have had such a wide-ranging effect on Bush administration policy. Kristol wrote then, and still believes, that "We should figure out what we want before we calculate what we can afford, not the reverse."

On the political level, treating deficits as a non-issue also proved a successful strategy. After all, despite the torrent of red ink that splashed across the national budgets during his first term, George W. Bush was reelected by a substantial margin. Among John Kerry's other failures was his attempt to saddle the president with the label "profligate."

Which brings us to the economic level. The deficits that Bush ran up in the years in which the country was teetering on the verge of a serious recession had the beneficial effect of righting the economy. In that sense, deficits not only didn't matter, but were a force for economic good.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And it also says the money was loaned because the other taxes were not enough to cover the deficit spending. There was 500 billion in deficit spending in 2007 and 340 billion was borrowed from IGHs and 160 billion from the public to cover that deficit.

"And it also says the money was loaned because the other taxes were not enough to cover the deficit spending"

Yes, the government has spent the trust fund excess for decades.
They couldn't do that if we privatized Social Security.

Still desperately trying to change the subject!

Maybe the Wikipedia explanation is simplistic enough for you to understand?

The annual change in debt is not equal to the "total deficit" typically reported in the media. Social Security payroll taxes and benefit payments, along with the net balance of the U.S. Postal Service are considered "off-budget" while most other expenditure and receipt categories are considered "on-budget." The total federal deficit is the sum of the on-budget deficit (or surplus) and the off-budget deficit (or surplus). Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000, and total federal deficits except in FY1969 and FY1998-FY2001.[28]

In large part because of Social Security surpluses, the total deficit is smaller than the on-budget deficit. The surplus of Social Security payroll taxes over benefit payments is spent by the government for other purposes. However, the government credits the Social Security Trust fund for the surplus amount, adding to the "intragovernmental debt." The total federal debt is divided into "intragovernmental debt" and "debt held by the public." In other words, spending the "off budget" Social Security surplus adds to the total national debt (by increasing the intragovernmental debt) while the surplus reduces the "total" deficit reported in the media.

Certain spending called "supplemental appropriations" is outside the budget process entirely but adds to the national debt. Funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was accounted for this way prior to the Obama administration. Certain stimulus measures and earmarks are also outside the budget process.

For example, in FY2008 an off-budget surplus of $183 billion reduced the on-budget deficit of $642 billion, resulting in a total federal deficit of $459 billion. Media often reported the latter figure. The national debt increased by $1,017 billion between the end of FY2007 and the end of FY2008.[29] The federal government publishes the total debt owed (public and intragovernmental holdings) at the end of each fiscal year[30] and since FY1957, the amount of debt held by the federal government has increased each year.

United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[edthecynic]

Are there assets in the "trust funds"?

If the government took those IOU "assets" to the local bank and deposited them in a savings account, how much interest will the bank pay on those deposited assets?

Why would a bank pay interest on a bond?
You don't really understand anything about finance, do you?

You don't really understand anything about sarcasm, do you?

 

[taichiliberal]

The deficit in 2007 was $161 billon.
I could help you with the math, but I doubt you'd understand.

Why don't you try giving honest answers and responses to our initial exchanges on this thread, Toddy? Then when you establish credibility, we can move onto the problem of your economic myopia.

Let me know if I can help you with simple arithmetic, your buddy doesn't seem to get it.

The chronology of the post shows Edthecynic logically and factually disproving your myopic and error ridden economic belief system, Toddy. I just cut to the chase with simple logic. In order for someone to buy your neocon/teabagger bullshit, one has to essentially redefine what a deficit is and how it's paid down...and then ignore specific information in order for your "conclusion" to come about.

As the chronology of the posts shows, whenever Ed puts you in a cornerusing your own convoluted "logic" where you have to admit you're wrong, you just skip back to the beginning and repeat yourself. I discovered LONG ago that trying to get an insipidly stubborn and willfully ignorant neocon parrot they are wrong is like banging your head against a wall....it feels so good when you stop. So you run along and repeat your myopic BS ad nauseum, Toddy. No matter how hard you try, you just can't revise history to your liking.

 

[edthecynic]

"And it also says the money was loaned because the other taxes were not enough to cover the deficit spending"

Yes, the government has spent the trust fund excess for decades.
They couldn't do that if we privatized Social Security.

Still desperately trying to change the subject!

Maybe the Wikipedia explanation is simplistic enough for you to understand?

The annual change in debt is not equal to the "total deficit" typically reported in the media. Social Security payroll taxes and benefit payments, along with the net balance of the U.S. Postal Service are considered "off-budget" while most other expenditure and receipt categories are considered "on-budget." The total federal deficit is the sum of the on-budget deficit (or surplus) and the off-budget deficit (or surplus). Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000, and total federal deficits except in FY1969 and FY1998-FY2001.[28]

In large part because of Social Security surpluses, the total deficit is smaller than the on-budget deficit. The surplus of Social Security payroll taxes over benefit payments is spent by the government for other purposes. However, the government credits the Social Security Trust fund for the surplus amount, adding to the "intragovernmental debt." The total federal debt is divided into "intragovernmental debt" and "debt held by the public." In other words, spending the "off budget" Social Security surplus adds to the total national debt (by increasing the intragovernmental debt) while the surplus reduces the "total" deficit reported in the media.

Certain spending called "supplemental appropriations" is outside the budget process entirely but adds to the national debt. Funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was accounted for this way prior to the Obama administration. Certain stimulus measures and earmarks are also outside the budget process.

For example, in FY2008 an off-budget surplus of $183 billion reduced the on-budget deficit of $642 billion, resulting in a total federal deficit of $459 billion. Media often reported the latter figure. The national debt increased by $1,017 billion between the end of FY2007 and the end of FY2008.[29] The federal government publishes the total debt owed (public and intragovernmental holdings) at the end of each fiscal year[30] and since FY1957, the amount of debt held by the federal government has increased each year.

United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you remember, but you've been spinning so much you are probably too dizzy to remember, claiming that supplemental spending was part of the off budget numbers is what started this merry-go-round.

 

[saveliberty]

Suppose this is how the real talks are going? Arguing over what the "real" number is; who started it; which came first the lack of revenues or over spending.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the government took those IOU "assets" to the local bank and deposited them in a savings account, how much interest will the bank pay on those deposited assets?

Why would a bank pay interest on a bond?
You don't really understand anything about finance, do you?

You don't really understand anything about sarcasm, do you?

Every time you post something that shows your ignorance of finance, you were just being sarcastic?
That's funny.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still desperately trying to change the subject!

Maybe the Wikipedia explanation is simplistic enough for you to understand?

The annual change in debt is not equal to the "total deficit" typically reported in the media. Social Security payroll taxes and benefit payments, along with the net balance of the U.S. Postal Service are considered "off-budget" while most other expenditure and receipt categories are considered "on-budget." The total federal deficit is the sum of the on-budget deficit (or surplus) and the off-budget deficit (or surplus). Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000, and total federal deficits except in FY1969 and FY1998-FY2001.[28]

In large part because of Social Security surpluses, the total deficit is smaller than the on-budget deficit. The surplus of Social Security payroll taxes over benefit payments is spent by the government for other purposes. However, the government credits the Social Security Trust fund for the surplus amount, adding to the "intragovernmental debt." The total federal debt is divided into "intragovernmental debt" and "debt held by the public." In other words, spending the "off budget" Social Security surplus adds to the total national debt (by increasing the intragovernmental debt) while the surplus reduces the "total" deficit reported in the media.

Certain spending called "supplemental appropriations" is outside the budget process entirely but adds to the national debt. Funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was accounted for this way prior to the Obama administration. Certain stimulus measures and earmarks are also outside the budget process.

For example, in FY2008 an off-budget surplus of $183 billion reduced the on-budget deficit of $642 billion, resulting in a total federal deficit of $459 billion. Media often reported the latter figure. The national debt increased by $1,017 billion between the end of FY2007 and the end of FY2008.[29] The federal government publishes the total debt owed (public and intragovernmental holdings) at the end of each fiscal year[30] and since FY1957, the amount of debt held by the federal government has increased each year.

United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you remember, but you've been spinning so much you are probably too dizzy to remember, claiming that supplemental spending was part of the off budget numbers is what started this merry-go-round.

What does that have to do with your poor understanding of government debt?

 

[taichiliberal]

I still say if conservatives (or anyone else, for that matter) really want smaller government, they'll crank up taxes (on everyone, across the board) until every last government program is paid for in full. At that point, we'll see just how much 'big government' people really want. My guess is, that when we're actually paying the ferryman, our enthusiasm for big brother will wane considerably.

You're not making sense....first you have to understand that the GOP is defending a Bush tax cut that was ORIGINALLY SLATED TO SUNSET. It was a TEMPORARY measure aimed at revitalizing the private sector in order to generate jobs.

It failed, but the rich folk don't like giving up money, so their GOP cronies keep generalizing that taxes would be going up for EVERYONE, when in fact the tax rate for those who benefitted under the Bush tax cuts would essentially just be GOING BACK to the tax rates they had under Clinton....where they made a PROFIT and the country banked a surplus. Also, closing the loopholes used by insanely profiting oil companies that PAY NO TAXES.

See "big government" in this case becomes the enemy when it encrouches on fascism.

 

[edthecynic]

Why would a bank pay interest on a bond?
You don't really understand anything about finance, do you?

You don't really understand anything about sarcasm, do you?

Every time you post something that shows your ignorance of finance, you were just being sarcastic?
That's funny.

Keep playing dumb, the point was that the IOUs are not a bankable asset.

 

[taichiliberal]

So, SPENDING an extra 340 billion of BORROWED money reduces the 500 billion debt to 160 billion.
So why are you CON$ complaining about borrowing more money, the more we borrow and spend, according to you, the lower the deficit gets.

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney

This is the sheer insanity and denial of the willfully ignorant neocon parrots! Once you expose their convoluted "logic", they just repeat the same neocon nonsense from the beginning. Toddy and his ilk will NEVER admit they are wrong, and blame everyone and anything else when their policies fail. But fortunately, about 50% of republicans polled are coming around and seeing the oligarchy fetish of the neocon political leadership for what it is, as with the debate about the debt ceiling.

Are there assets in the "trust funds"?

The chronology of the posts already shows Ed taking you task on this, Toddy. Repeating your failed and disproven assertions with me won't change the conclusions. Now, make your baseless and false accusations like a good and predictable little neocon toadie.

 

[dblack]

I still say if conservatives (or anyone else, for that matter) really want smaller government, they'll crank up taxes (on everyone, across the board) until every last government program is paid for in full. At that point, we'll see just how much 'big government' people really want. My guess is, that when we're actually paying the ferryman, our enthusiasm for big brother will wane considerably.

You're not making sense....first you have to understand that the GOP is defending a Bush tax cut that was ORIGINALLY SLATED TO SUNSET. It was a TEMPORARY measure aimed at revitalizing the private sector in order to generate jobs.

It failed, but the rich folk don't like giving up money, so their GOP cronies keep generalizing that taxes would be going up for EVERYONE, when in fact the tax rate for those who benefitted under the Bush tax cuts would essentially just be GOING BACK to the tax rates they had under Clinton....where they made a PROFIT and the country banked a surplus. Also, closing the loopholes used by insanely profiting oil companies that PAY NO TAXES.

See "big government" in this case becomes the enemy when it encrouches on fascism.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I agree that taxes should go up. We're living on credit and it obscures any real feedback on how much government people actually want. We're not actually paying for it (we're pushing that off on our grandchildren), so why not bloat the bloat? But it's important that taxes are raised on everyone. We all need to feel the pain if democracy is going to work. If we just use the tax code to scapegoat a targeted minority, then we're not going to have any really understanding of our priorities as a nation.