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

[edthecynic]

Only an idiot can't figure out that when you grab a few hundred billion from Social Security, that reduces the amount of money you have to borrow.

I could repeat the example with the $5s in my pocket, but you're too dim to understand a simple example.

And when you "grab" you are actually BORROWING money from SS. So you are saying that borrowing money reduces the amount of money you have to borrow. BRILLIANT!

When they spend the money in the "Trust Fund" that in no way changes the amount owed to the recipients.
Would things be better if they put $340 billion in cash in the "Trust Funds" and sold $500 billion in bonds to the public instead of putting no cash in the "Trust Funds" and only selling $160 billion in bonds to the public? Why?

However you slice it the debt increased by 500 billion in 2007 after the trust funds were drained.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I think Obama should stick to his guns. When we default and when interest rates reached 18%, then maybe the 88% of FOX news viewers who think we can default will wake up. What a bunch of losers...

President Obama can't wrap his little pin head around the notion that those nasty Republicans dare to disagree with him.

So, he's flummoxed.

With ANY luck at all, the dope will cave in.

When (and if) he does cave in and the debt "ceiling" does not get raised, you stupid ignorant partisan hack lib drones will finally come to see that there need not be any default as a consequence.

Just because a fundamentally dishonest guy like President Obama has SAID that a refusla to raise the debt ceiling "will" result in a default doesn't mean it's true. And it's not.

The liberal Democratics will lose a baseless talking point and have their lie exposed. Not to worry. The lap dog media will dutifully report the next lie from the Administration, just the same.

Hey, hey now.... I'm (was) the only clown that can make sense using derogatory terminology around here.

Welcome..

 

[Liability]

I think Obama should stick to his guns. When we default and when interest rates reached 18%, then maybe the 88% of FOX news viewers who think we can default will wake up. What a bunch of losers...

President Obama can't wrap his little pin head around the notion that those nasty Republicans dare to disagree with him.

So, he's flummoxed.

With ANY luck at all, the dope will cave in.

When (and if) he does cave in and the debt "ceiling" does not get raised, you stupid ignorant partisan hack lib drones will finally come to see that there need not be any default as a consequence.

Just because a fundamentally dishonest guy like President Obama has SAID that a refusla to raise the debt ceiling "will" result in a default doesn't mean it's true. And it's not.

The liberal Democratics will lose a baseless talking point and have their lie exposed. Not to worry. The lap dog media will dutifully report the next lie from the Administration, just the same.

Hey, hey now.... I'm (was) the only clown that can make sense using derogatory terminology around here.

Welcome..

I am perfectly content to yield the floor!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And when you "grab" you are actually BORROWING money from SS. So you are saying that borrowing money reduces the amount of money you have to borrow. BRILLIANT!

When they spend the money in the "Trust Fund" that in no way changes the amount owed to the recipients.
Would things be better if they put $340 billion in cash in the "Trust Funds" and sold $500 billion in bonds to the public instead of putting no cash in the "Trust Funds" and only selling $160 billion in bonds to the public? Why?

However you slice it the debt increased by 500 billion in 2007 after the trust funds were drained.

The debt increased $161 billion after the trust funds were drained.

 

[edthecynic]

When they spend the money in the "Trust Fund" that in no way changes the amount owed to the recipients.
Would things be better if they put $340 billion in cash in the "Trust Funds" and sold $500 billion in bonds to the public instead of putting no cash in the "Trust Funds" and only selling $160 billion in bonds to the public? Why?

However you slice it the debt increased by 500 billion in 2007 after the trust funds were drained.

The debt increased $161 billion after the trust funds were drained.

It sure looks like $500 billion.

09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

However you slice it the debt increased by 500 billion in 2007 after the trust funds were drained.

The debt increased $161 billion after the trust funds were drained.

It sure looks like $500 billion.

09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

09/28/2007 $5,049,305,502,926.48
09/29/2006 $4,843,120,736,192.43

Looks like $206 billion, based on those dates.

 

[edthecynic]

The debt increased $161 billion after the trust funds were drained.

It sure looks like $500 billion.

09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

09/28/2007 $5,049,305,502,926.48
09/29/2006 $4,843,120,736,192.43

Looks like $206 billion, based on those dates.

Still looks like 500 billion. But at least you came up 45 billion!

09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It sure looks like $500 billion.

09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

09/28/2007 $5,049,305,502,926.48
09/29/2006 $4,843,120,736,192.43

Looks like $206 billion, based on those dates.

Still looks like 500 billion. But at least you came up 45 billion!

09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

Let me know if you ever learn to read a balance sheet.
It'll be more fun to destroy your claims if you knew a little bit more.

 

[edthecynic]

09/28/2007 $5,049,305,502,926.48
09/29/2006 $4,843,120,736,192.43

Looks like $206 billion, based on those dates.

Still looks like 500 billion. But at least you came up 45 billion!

09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

Let me know if you ever learn to read a balance sheet.
It'll be more fun to destroy your claims if you knew a little bit more.

You already shot down your own "balance sheet" with your 206 billion. How do you rationalize the difference from your earlier balance sheet's 161 billion???? How does 206 balance with 161???????

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still looks like 500 billion. But at least you came up 45 billion!

09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

Let me know if you ever learn to read a balance sheet.
It'll be more fun to destroy your claims if you knew a little bit more.

You already shot down your own "balance sheet" with your 206 billion. How do you rationalize the difference from your earlier balance sheet's 161 billion???? How does 206 balance with 161???????

I'm sure the government never borrows money more than a day before they spend it.
Never sells bonds and holds the cash until the bills actually come due.
I've got another question for you.

If the Soc Sec fund needs an extra $100 billion next year, because their receipts drop below their outlays, will it be easier for them to get that $100 billion if they have $2.5 trillion in the "Trust Fund" than if they had $0 in the "Trust Fund"? Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still looks like 500 billion. But at least you came up 45 billion!

09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

Let me know if you ever learn to read a balance sheet.
It'll be more fun to destroy your claims if you knew a little bit more.

You already shot down your own "balance sheet" with your 206 billion. How do you rationalize the difference from your earlier balance sheet's 161 billion???? How does 206 balance with 161???????

By the way, a balance sheet shows assets and liabilities, income and expenses would be on an income statement.
Thanks again for the laughs.

 

[edthecynic]

Let me know if you ever learn to read a balance sheet.
It'll be more fun to destroy your claims if you knew a little bit more.

You already shot down your own "balance sheet" with your 206 billion. How do you rationalize the difference from your earlier balance sheet's 161 billion???? How does 206 balance with 161???????

I'm sure the government never borrows money more than a day before they spend it.
Never sells bonds and holds the cash until the bills actually come due.
I've got another question for you.

If the Soc Sec fund needs an extra $100 billion next year, because their receipts drop below their outlays, will it be easier for them to get that $100 billion if they have $2.5 trillion in the "Trust Fund" than if they had $0 in the "Trust Fund"? Why?

You can't rationalize why your balance sheets don't match, so you desperately try to change the subject.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You already shot down your own "balance sheet" with your 206 billion. How do you rationalize the difference from your earlier balance sheet's 161 billion???? How does 206 balance with 161???????

I'm sure the government never borrows money more than a day before they spend it.
Never sells bonds and holds the cash until the bills actually come due.
I've got another question for you.

If the Soc Sec fund needs an extra $100 billion next year, because their receipts drop below their outlays, will it be easier for them to get that $100 billion if they have $2.5 trillion in the "Trust Fund" than if they had $0 in the "Trust Fund"? Why?

You can't rationalize why your balance sheets don't match, so you desperately try to change the subject.

Thanks for consistently running away.
I don't know what I'd do if you actually answered.
I mean after I got done laughing at your stupid answer.

Tell me what a balance sheet is again.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm sure the government never borrows money more than a day before they spend it.
Never sells bonds and holds the cash until the bills actually come due.
I've got another question for you.

If the Soc Sec fund needs an extra $100 billion next year, because their receipts drop below their outlays, will it be easier for them to get that $100 billion if they have $2.5 trillion in the "Trust Fund" than if they had $0 in the "Trust Fund"? Why?

You can't rationalize why your balance sheets don't match, so you desperately try to change the subject.

Thanks for consistently running away.
I don't know what I'd do if you actually answered.
I mean after I got done laughing at your stupid answer.

Tell me what a balance sheet is again.

First you explain why for fiscal year 2007 you have 2 different debt balances, 161 billion and 206 billion.

 

[taichiliberal]

In all 3 scenarios, the government collects $2,567,985,000,000.
In #1, Soc Sec (and other "Trust Funds") has a $340 billion excess for the year
In #2, no change in the "Trust Funds".
In #3, the "Trust Funds" decrease by $340 billion.
Now think for a change.

I didn't ask for an elaboration of your original supposition and conjecture, Toddy....I asked for an EXACT quote from a gov't source that "pretends" what you proport here.

You couldn't do it, that makes you a liar, Toddy.

And since Ed has several times put your oft repeating question to rest
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3873386-post848.html

You're just in denial, Toddy....and will just run in a circle with your hands over your ears and your eyes closed repeating the same mantra ad nauseum. Good luck with that.

You want a government source for my 3 different revenue scenarios? You're funny.
And stupid.
If you ever take a basic accounting course, be sure to come back.
Maybe we'll be able to have an intelligent conversation.

Just as I thought.....Toddy is all bluff and bluster but no substance. Asked for a simple burden of proof, Toddy can't meet it....yet Toddy insists that his personal supposition and conjecture is a substitute for facts and the logic derived from those facts. But as the chronology of the posts shows, Toddy cannot sustain his voodoo economics under critical analysis. My previous post stands....I leave Toddy to spew his usual repetitive BS and false accusations/assertions.

 

[taichiliberal]

Ummmm....that's Ben's quote, not a link.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...revenue-absolute-bullshit-34.html#post3841132

Moron.

The chronology of the post will always be your undoing Toddy. YOU stated that "Ben Said"... But when one goes to the link and sees what Ben ACTUALLY SAID, it's not what YOU assert Toddy. A matter of fact, of print, of history.

.

Your liar Toddy....and a bad one at that because YOU CANNOT COPY AND PASTE WHAT YOU TYPED AS BENNY BOY'S QUOTE. All one has to do is just click the arrow to the link and READ the ENTIRE POST to see that.

But do continue to bray like an ass, Toddy.....so much more to pity you. I'm done with this Toddling idiot, folks. Let's watch him fuss and fume and lie, as the chronology of the post will be his undoing.
When one goes to the link I provided, Ben says exactly what I claimed, because I cut and pasted it from his post, idiot

 

[taichiliberal]

Fmr. GOP Sen. Alan Simpson Calls Republican Refusal To Raise Revenue ‘Absolute Bullshit’

Former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson blasted his intransigent GOP colleagues on the Hill today for failing to reach a deal on the deficit. The blunt-talking co-chairman of President Obama’s bipartisan fiscal reform commission slammed Republicans for kowtowing to Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist (“Republicans can’t be in thrall to him”) and pushed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to stand fast on the August 2 deadline.

Surveying the lay of the current fiscal land, Simpson said, “We’re at 15 percent revenue, and historically it’s been closer to 20 percent.”

He added, “We’ve never had a war without a tax, and now we’ve got two. … Absolute bullshit.”

More

Let these snot nosed bastards default.

"I aint ya mule"

I don't work for your socialist asses....

Do you have any idea what default would mean to your wallet in then near future? Are the Bush tax cuts (which have failed) and oil company profits with paying taxes REALLY worth that much to you?

 

[BenNatuf]

You already shot down your own "balance sheet" with your 206 billion. How do you rationalize the difference from your earlier balance sheet's 161 billion???? How does 206 balance with 161???????

I'm sure the government never borrows money more than a day before they spend it.
Never sells bonds and holds the cash until the bills actually come due.
I've got another question for you.

If the Soc Sec fund needs an extra $100 billion next year, because their receipts drop below their outlays, will it be easier for them to get that $100 billion if they have $2.5 trillion in the "Trust Fund" than if they had $0 in the "Trust Fund"? Why?

You can't rationalize why your balance sheets don't match, so you desperately try to change the subject.

Why would they match? As has been pointed out to your stupid ass over and over agains the deficit and debt are not measurements of the same thing. Are a gallon oif milk and a foot of rope comparable? You're a complete tool, an idiot who doesn't have a clue what you're looking at and have shown nowhere that any 340B was spent in any supplemental spending on the war in 2007. You're lie is exposed.

Once again dumbass.

Debt is the total amount of OUTSTANDING treasuries (including intragovernmental "debt").

Publicly held debt is the amout of debt the government owes to others.

Deficit is the difference between reciepts and outlays for one year from ALL sources, including those converted into intragovernmental debt (a zero ballance on a spreadsheet moving money from one pocket to the other and replacing it with an asset) and "off budget" supplemental spending.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't ask for an elaboration of your original supposition and conjecture, Toddy....I asked for an EXACT quote from a gov't source that "pretends" what you proport here.

You couldn't do it, that makes you a liar, Toddy.

And since Ed has several times put your oft repeating question to rest
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3873386-post848.html

You're just in denial, Toddy....and will just run in a circle with your hands over your ears and your eyes closed repeating the same mantra ad nauseum. Good luck with that.

You want a government source for my 3 different revenue scenarios? You're funny.
And stupid.
If you ever take a basic accounting course, be sure to come back.
Maybe we'll be able to have an intelligent conversation.

Just as I thought.....Toddy is all bluff and bluster but no substance. Asked for a simple burden of proof, Toddy can't meet it....yet Toddy insists that his personal supposition and conjecture is a substitute for facts and the logic derived from those facts. But as the chronology of the posts shows, Toddy cannot sustain his voodoo economics under critical analysis. My previous post stands....I leave Toddy to spew his usual repetitive BS and false accusations/assertions.

Proof? You want proof for my 3 theoretical situations?
That's funny.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can't rationalize why your balance sheets don't match, so you desperately try to change the subject.

Thanks for consistently running away.
I don't know what I'd do if you actually answered.
I mean after I got done laughing at your stupid answer.

Tell me what a balance sheet is again.

First you explain why for fiscal year 2007 you have 2 different debt balances, 161 billion and 206 billion.

I'll get right on that, as soon as you explain why you only look at debts and ignore assets.