Common Sense and Our Dangerous National Debt

[regent]

Until the Republicans finally forced Obama to agree to some spending restraint in 2013, Obama was shattering Bush's spending record. From January 2009 to October 2013, Obama piled up more debt than Bush did in his entire 8 years.

What is galling is to see Obama and the Dems proudly noting that the deficit has fallen over the last year and a half, when the deficit would still be rising if they had had their way in the budget battles. This is like when Obama took credit for the increase in domestic oil production when there would have been no increase if his suit against the North Dakota drilling had succeeded.

Again, until the Republicans finally gathered up some nerve and played hardball to get Obama to agree to some modest spending restraint, Obama and the Dems were spending like drunken sailors.

Finally, I saw someone make the argument that the only time the national debt was paid off was under a Democratic president. Gosh, are you serious? That was Andrew Jackson, and that was in the days when the Democratic Party was the conservative party. Jackson was a fiscal hawk and a strong opponent of federal control of banks, the national bank, fiat currency, etc., etc.

Are you the same poster that argued Truman was a Republican and Jefferson and Madison were conservatives? Jackson was a Democrat, and voted into office by Democrats. If you remember the bank was Hamilton's idea, and Madison and Jefferson, the liberals, were against the bank and Jackson finally killed it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The individual and corporate income tax systems contain many exclusions, deductions, exemptions, and credits. Some of those tax provisions are called "tax expenditures" by many tax analysts because they resemble government spending in that they provide financial assistance to specific activities, entities, or groups of people.

Special interests drop a few thousand dollars in various congressional campaign bank accounts every couple years in order to receive those government gifts.

Special Interests? Ya mean like 'citizens'? Who are rightly entitled to the product of their labor... AND to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But how cool is it that a LEFTIST would be in here weeping and gnashing that tooth, over someone who is perfectly entitled to the unfettered use of the product of their labor, to petition the Government for a redress of grievance that their government is running a protection racket?

For me it doesn't GET any cooler than THAT!

See how THAT MAN is not made of Straw Clayton?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Until the Republicans finally forced Obama to agree to some spending restraint in 2013, Obama was shattering Bush's spending record. From January 2009 to October 2013, Obama piled up more debt than Bush did in his entire 8 years.

What is galling is to see Obama and the Dems proudly noting that the deficit has fallen over the last year and a half, when the deficit would still be rising if they had had their way in the budget battles. This is like when Obama took credit for the increase in domestic oil production when there would have been no increase if his suit against the North Dakota drilling had succeeded.

Again, until the Republicans finally gathered up some nerve and played hardball to get Obama to agree to some modest spending restraint, Obama and the Dems were spending like drunken sailors.

Finally, I saw someone make the argument that the only time the national debt was paid off was under a Democratic president. Gosh, are you serious? That was Andrew Jackson, and that was in the days when the Democratic Party was the conservative party. Jackson was a fiscal hawk and a strong opponent of federal control of banks, the national bank, fiat currency, etc., etc.

Are you the same poster that argued Truman was a Republican and Jefferson and Madison were conservatives? Jackson was a Democrat, and voted into office by Democrats. If you remember the bank was Hamilton's idea, and Madison and Jefferson, the liberals, were against the bank and Jackson finally killed it.

HEY! You're the guy that loves to deflect from valid argument through feckless, irrelevant assertions... right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yet Obama and the Democrats continue to want to increase federal spending.

Tell me something. Has the government deficit been going up or down since Obama took office?

If down, how do you come to the conclusion the Democrats want to increase federal spending?


Also, during the 8 years of the Bush Administration, did Republicans increase or decrease federal spending?

If they increased it, how did you arrive at the conclusion that only Democrats increase federal spending?

Democrats: Tax and spend.

Republicans: Borrow and spend.

Look Moron, When Obama moved into the WHITE House federal revenue was way down and the deficit was way up because we were in a recession. As the private sector slowly drags us out of the recession in spite of the Obama Regime, Federal revenues go back up decreasing the deficit. Without Obama's roadblocks we would have been in a boom since 2010.

If the idiots wouldn't have voted for obie we would be discussing the Romney boom today. As it is they need to keep trying to convince us there is a good economy when nobody is actually living in one.

What was Romney going to do to balance the budget? He wanted to cut taxes even more, and increase defense spending,

the exact formula that Reagan used to put us into this debt spiral in the first place.

 

[gipper]

Yet Obama and the Democrats continue to want to increase federal spending.

Tell me something. Has the government deficit been going up or down since Obama took office?

If down, how do you come to the conclusion the Democrats want to increase federal spending?


Also, during the 8 years of the Bush Administration, did Republicans increase or decrease federal spending?

If they increased it, how did you arrive at the conclusion that only Democrats increase federal spending?

Democrats: Tax and spend.

Republicans: Borrow and spend.

Look Moron, When Obama moved into the WHITE House federal revenue was way down and the deficit was way up because we were in a recession. As the private sector slowly drags us out of the recession in spite of the Obama Regime, Federal revenues go back up decreasing the deficit. Without Obama's roadblocks we would have been in a boom since 2010.

If the idiots wouldn't have voted for obie we would be discussing the Romney boom today. As it is they need to keep trying to convince us there is a good economy when nobody is actually living in one.

What was Romney going to do to balance the budget? He wanted to cut taxes even more, and increase defense spending,

the exact formula that Reagan used to put us into this debt spiral in the first place.

Agreed...yet you think Rs and D's are different... And BO has blown up the debt more than any POTUS, but you still love him.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yet Obama and the Democrats continue to want to increase federal spending.

Tell me something. Has the government deficit been going up or down since Obama took office?

If down, how do you come to the conclusion the Democrats want to increase federal spending?


Also, during the 8 years of the Bush Administration, did Republicans increase or decrease federal spending?

If they increased it, how did you arrive at the conclusion that only Democrats increase federal spending?

Democrats: Tax and spend.

Republicans: Borrow and spend.

Look Moron, When Obama moved into the WHITE House federal revenue was way down and the deficit was way up because we were in a recession. As the private sector slowly drags us out of the recession in spite of the Obama Regime, Federal revenues go back up decreasing the deficit. Without Obama's roadblocks we would have been in a boom since 2010.

If the idiots wouldn't have voted for obie we would be discussing the Romney boom today. As it is they need to keep trying to convince us there is a good economy when nobody is actually living in one.

What was Romney going to do to balance the budget? He wanted to cut taxes even more, and increase defense spending,

the exact formula that Reagan used to put us into this debt spiral in the first place.

Agreed...yet you think Rs and D's are different... And BO has blown up the debt more than any POTUS, but you still love him.

Obama hasn't done that.

 

[regent]

Until the Republicans finally forced Obama to agree to some spending restraint in 2013, Obama was shattering Bush's spending record. From January 2009 to October 2013, Obama piled up more debt than Bush did in his entire 8 years.

What is galling is to see Obama and the Dems proudly noting that the deficit has fallen over the last year and a half, when the deficit would still be rising if they had had their way in the budget battles. This is like when Obama took credit for the increase in domestic oil production when there would have been no increase if his suit against the North Dakota drilling had succeeded.

Again, until the Republicans finally gathered up some nerve and played hardball to get Obama to agree to some modest spending restraint, Obama and the Dems were spending like drunken sailors.

Finally, I saw someone make the argument that the only time the national debt was paid off was under a Democratic president. Gosh, are you serious? That was Andrew Jackson, and that was in the days when the Democratic Party was the conservative party. Jackson was a fiscal hawk and a strong opponent of federal control of banks, the national bank, fiat currency, etc., etc.

Are you the same poster that argued Truman was a Republican and Jefferson and Madison were conservatives? Jackson was a Democrat, and voted into office by Democrats. If you remember the bank was Hamilton's idea, and Madison and Jefferson, the liberals, were against the bank and Jackson finally killed it.

HEY! You're the guy that loves to deflect from valid argument through feckless, irrelevant assertions... right?

The topic is the debt, but not the same debt the nation started with and kept until the Democrats paid it off. Then a new debt started. The new debt Republicans rant and rave about, sign pledges, make speeches condemning and when in power create more debt.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The topic is the debt, but not the same debt the nation started with and kept until the Democrats paid it off. Then a new debt started. The new debt Republicans rant and rave about, sign pledges, make speeches condemning and when in power create more debt.

So the Democrats paid off a debt?

When did that happen?

(LOL! Reader, you might want to bookmark this... it has some potential for some genuine entertainment.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yet Obama and the Democrats continue to want to increase federal spending.

Tell me something. Has the government deficit been going up or down since Obama took office?

If down, how do you come to the conclusion the Democrats want to increase federal spending?


Also, during the 8 years of the Bush Administration, did Republicans increase or decrease federal spending?

If they increased it, how did you arrive at the conclusion that only Democrats increase federal spending?

Democrats: Tax and spend.

Republicans: Borrow and spend.

Look Moron, When Obama moved into the WHITE House federal revenue was way down and the deficit was way up because we were in a recession. As the private sector slowly drags us out of the recession in spite of the Obama Regime, Federal revenues go back up decreasing the deficit. Without Obama's roadblocks we would have been in a boom since 2010.

If the idiots wouldn't have voted for obie we would be discussing the Romney boom today. As it is they need to keep trying to convince us there is a good economy when nobody is actually living in one.

What was Romney going to do to balance the budget? He wanted to cut taxes even more, and increase defense spending,

the exact formula that Reagan used to put us into this debt spiral in the first place.

Agreed...yet you think Rs and D's are different... And BO has blown up the debt more than any POTUS, but you still love him.

Any POTUS? He's blown up more debt than EVERY POTUS... COMBINED! Going back to the original GW.

He has spent more money IN DEFICIT... than the US spent in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam... the Gulf War, and the US GWOT to THE PRESENT! (And that is calculated in 2011 dollars.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yet Obama and the Democrats continue to want to increase federal spending.

Tell me something. Has the government deficit been going up or down since Obama took office?

If down, how do you come to the conclusion the Democrats want to increase federal spending?


Also, during the 8 years of the Bush Administration, did Republicans increase or decrease federal spending?

If they increased it, how did you arrive at the conclusion that only Democrats increase federal spending?

Democrats: Tax and spend.

Republicans: Borrow and spend.

Look Moron, When Obama moved into the WHITE House federal revenue was way down and the deficit was way up because we were in a recession. As the private sector slowly drags us out of the recession in spite of the Obama Regime, Federal revenues go back up decreasing the deficit. Without Obama's roadblocks we would have been in a boom since 2010.

If the idiots wouldn't have voted for obie we would be discussing the Romney boom today. As it is they need to keep trying to convince us there is a good economy when nobody is actually living in one.

What was Romney going to do to balance the budget? He wanted to cut taxes even more, and increase defense spending,

the exact formula that Reagan used to put us into this debt spiral in the first place.

Romney is a Progressive, so he was not going to do ANYTHING to balance the Budget... which is the Americans REJECTED ROMNEY, with four million of them not even showing up to vote, given that Romney is just a cleaner, better spoken version of obama.

I actually DID vote for him, because at least THAT was somethin' in terms of improvement. Plus... Romney is not a Muslim Insurgent and as we will soon come to discover: THAT was HUGE!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When is anyone going to find the 500 billion needed to balance the budget and the one trillion to start paying off the debt?

Oh right, never.

 

[Roadrunner]

At latest count, we are now $18 trillion in debt, which is more than our GDP, and the government continues to run a deficit of around half a trillion dollars each year.

Common sense and basic math tell us that we will never get out of debt unless we first stop going into debt.

Yet Obama and the Democrats continue to want to increase federal spending. They also want to raise taxes--on gas, on investments, on just about everything.

How do Democrats expect the economy to grow if the government keeps taking more and more money out of it? How do the Democrats expect to ever balance the budget, much less to start paying down the debt, when they constantly want to increase federal spending? Have they learned nothing from Greece, Spain, Italy? You can't tax and spend your way to a balanced budget and prosperity.

If you wanna be pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-
card check, pro-amnesty, fine. But why can't you follow basic math when it comes to the budget and the debt? No sensible, rational person would run their personal finances the way the Democrats want to run the federal budget.

When you're $18 trillion in debt and rising, that is not the time for more "investing" (read: more federal spending)--that's the time to cut spending down to revenue, to balance the budget, and start the long process of paying down the debt. When you're $18 trillion in debt, you don't try to get an increase in your line of credit--it's time to bite the bullet and stop charging on the national credit card.

I feel like a voice howling in the wilderness when I say we need more taxation, across a wider base, and a policy of reducing the debt and balancing the budget.

 

[regent]

The topic is the debt, but not the same debt the nation started with and kept until the Democrats paid it off. Then a new debt started. The new debt Republicans rant and rave about, sign pledges, make speeches condemning and when in power create more debt.

So the Democrats paid off a debt?

When did that happen?

(LOL! Reader, you might want to bookmark this... it has some potential for some genuine entertainment.)

1835

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The topic is the debt, but not the same debt the nation started with and kept until the Democrats paid it off. Then a new debt started. The new debt Republicans rant and rave about, sign pledges, make speeches condemning and when in power create more debt.

So the Democrats paid off a debt?

When did that happen?

(LOL! Reader, you might want to bookmark this... it has some potential for some genuine entertainment.)

1835

ROFLMNAO!

Now isn't that PRECIOUS?

There's bad news here... Take all the debt previous to that... ADD it to the current stack and obama has SPENT MORE MONEY, IN DEFICIT, THAN ALL OF THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED!

Here's another fact:

Obama has spent more money ABOVE AND BEYOND THE BUDGETED MONEY HE SPENT... than the US spent fighting EVERY WAR WE HAVE FOUGHT SINCE the END OF THE 19th CENTURY. And by NO SMALL MARGIN.

That is THREE WORLD WARS... (If one considers the US GWOT a world war and I am in the camp that does.)

Of course that doesn't include WW4, that obama is about to help start. And sadly, due entirely to obama, we're going to lose this one... and lose it spectacularly.)

 

[hangover]

At latest count, we are now $18 trillion in debt, which is more than our GDP, and the government continues to run a deficit of around half a trillion dollars each year.

Common sense and basic math tell us that we will never get out of debt unless we first stop going into debt.

Yet Obama and the Democrats continue to want to increase federal spending. They also want to raise taxes--on gas, on investments, on just about everything.

How do Democrats expect the economy to grow if the government keeps taking more and more money out of it? How do the Democrats expect to ever balance the budget, much less to start paying down the debt, when they constantly want to increase federal spending? Have they learned nothing from Greece, Spain, Italy? You can't tax and spend your way to a balanced budget and prosperity.

If you wanna be pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-
card check, pro-amnesty, fine. But why can't you follow basic math when it comes to the budget and the debt? No sensible, rational person would run their personal finances the way the Democrats want to run the federal budget.

When you're $18 trillion in debt and rising, that is not the time for more "investing" (read: more federal spending)--that's the time to cut spending down to revenue, to balance the budget, and start the long process of paying down the debt. When you're $18 trillion in debt, you don't try to get an increase in your line of credit--it's time to bite the bullet and stop charging on the national credit card.

Raygun tripled the national debt, cons said nothing

Shrub daddy doubled it again in only four years, cons said nothing.

Shrub Jr. doubled it again adding more than all POTUS's added together WITH A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS AND SENATE, cons said nothing.

You whine is real cheesy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

At latest count, we are now $18 trillion in debt, which is more than our GDP, and the government continues to run a deficit of around half a trillion dollars each year.

Common sense and basic math tell us that we will never get out of debt unless we first stop going into debt.

Yet Obama and the Democrats continue to want to increase federal spending. They also want to raise taxes--on gas, on investments, on just about everything.

How do Democrats expect the economy to grow if the government keeps taking more and more money out of it? How do the Democrats expect to ever balance the budget, much less to start paying down the debt, when they constantly want to increase federal spending? Have they learned nothing from Greece, Spain, Italy? You can't tax and spend your way to a balanced budget and prosperity.

If you wanna be pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-
card check, pro-amnesty, fine. But why can't you follow basic math when it comes to the budget and the debt? No sensible, rational person would run their personal finances the way the Democrats want to run the federal budget.

When you're $18 trillion in debt and rising, that is not the time for more "investing" (read: more federal spending)--that's the time to cut spending down to revenue, to balance the budget, and start the long process of paying down the debt. When you're $18 trillion in debt, you don't try to get an increase in your line of credit--it's time to bite the bullet and stop charging on the national credit card.

Raygun tripled the national debt, cons said nothing

Shrub daddy doubled it again in only four years, cons said nothing.

Shrub Jr. doubled it again adding more than all POTUS's added together WITH A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS AND SENATE, cons said nothing.

You whine is real cheesy.

ROFLMNAO!

Obama has spent more money in 6 years, than Reagan spent in 1.

Now, with that said... 100% of the US Federal Debt is the direct result of Social Justice Spending and by Social Justice Spending, I am speaking of spending which subsidizes perfectly healthy, perfectly capable individuals... who have merely succumbed to the Left's vacuous notions.... .

Remove Social Justice Spending and the US Federal Government is operating within a balanced budget.

So enough with the "Reagan Spent this and Bush spent that, Clinton paid off the debt', blah, blah, blah nonsense.

The Ideological Left is a cancer, from which the United States will die and it will do so by the end of 2017, from the cancer which metastasized in 1965, with the launch of "The Great Society" and the enormous obama bacteria that exploded in 2009 and from which the US economy could never recover.

Find your charts and track it... . Entitlements now make up more than 60% of the US Federal BUDGET!

You can't balance the budget without stripping entitlements and they're not going to strip the entitlements and there is NO WAY TO TAX YOURSELF OUT OF ENTITLEMENT SPENDING.

The Party is over kids and when it is... we, the Americans, are going to erase the Ideological Left from the soil formerly known as The United States.

It will make Mao's purge look like a fender-bender.

The difference being that YOU IDIOTS are not innocent. You literally ARE: THE PEOPLE THAT MURDERED THE UNITED STATES.

 

[hangover]

At latest count, we are now $18 trillion in debt, which is more than our GDP, and the government continues to run a deficit of around half a trillion dollars each year.

Common sense and basic math tell us that we will never get out of debt unless we first stop going into debt.

Yet Obama and the Democrats continue to want to increase federal spending. They also want to raise taxes--on gas, on investments, on just about everything.

How do Democrats expect the economy to grow if the government keeps taking more and more money out of it? How do the Democrats expect to ever balance the budget, much less to start paying down the debt, when they constantly want to increase federal spending? Have they learned nothing from Greece, Spain, Italy? You can't tax and spend your way to a balanced budget and prosperity.

If you wanna be pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-
card check, pro-amnesty, fine. But why can't you follow basic math when it comes to the budget and the debt? No sensible, rational person would run their personal finances the way the Democrats want to run the federal budget.

When you're $18 trillion in debt and rising, that is not the time for more "investing" (read: more federal spending)--that's the time to cut spending down to revenue, to balance the budget, and start the long process of paying down the debt. When you're $18 trillion in debt, you don't try to get an increase in your line of credit--it's time to bite the bullet and stop charging on the national credit card.

Raygun tripled the national debt, cons said nothing

Shrub daddy doubled it again in only four years, cons said nothing.

Shrub Jr. doubled it again adding more than all POTUS's added together WITH A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS AND SENATE, cons said nothing.

You whine is real cheesy.

ROFLMNAO!

Obama has spent more money in 6 years, than Reagan spent in 1.

Now, with that said... 100% of the US Federal Debt is the direct result of Social Justice Spending and by Social Justice Spending, I am speaking of spending which subsidizes perfectly healthy, perfectly capable individuals... who have merely succumbed to the Left's vacuous notions.... .

Remove Social Justice Spending and the US Federal Government is operating within a balanced budget.

So enough with the "Reagan Spent this and Bush spent that, Clinton paid off the debt', blah, blah, blah nonsense.

The Ideological Left is a cancer, from which the United States will die and it will do so by the end of 2017, from the cancer which metastasized in 1965, with the launch of "The Great Society" and the enormous obama bacteria that exploded in 2009 and from which the US economy could never recover.

Find your charts and track it... . Entitlements now make up more than 60% of the US Federal BUDGET!

You can't balance the budget without stripping entitlements and they're not going to strip the entitlements and there is NO WAY TO TAX YOURSELF OUT OF ENTITLEMENT SPENDING.

The Party is over kids and when it is... we, the Americans, are going to erase the Ideological Left from the soil formerly known as The United States.

It will make Moa's purge look like a fender-bender.

The difference being that YOU IDIOTS are not innocent. You literally ARE: THE PEOPLE THAT MURDERED THE UNITED STATES.

The difference between cons a liberals is, liberals spend money on the health and well being of the elderly, children and the rest of society, and cons waste trillions on welfare for millionaires and the industrial military complex, invading countries and creating terrorists.

If your heart is in the right place, it's on the left.

 

[regent]

At latest count, we are now $18 trillion in debt, which is more than our GDP, and the government continues to run a deficit of around half a trillion dollars each year.

Common sense and basic math tell us that we will never get out of debt unless we first stop going into debt.

Yet Obama and the Democrats continue to want to increase federal spending. They also want to raise taxes--on gas, on investments, on just about everything.

How do Democrats expect the economy to grow if the government keeps taking more and more money out of it? How do the Democrats expect to ever balance the budget, much less to start paying down the debt, when they constantly want to increase federal spending? Have they learned nothing from Greece, Spain, Italy? You can't tax and spend your way to a balanced budget and prosperity.

If you wanna be pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-
card check, pro-amnesty, fine. But why can't you follow basic math when it comes to the budget and the debt? No sensible, rational person would run their personal finances the way the Democrats want to run the federal budget.

When you're $18 trillion in debt and rising, that is not the time for more "investing" (read: more federal spending)--that's the time to cut spending down to revenue, to balance the budget, and start the long process of paying down the debt. When you're $18 trillion in debt, you don't try to get an increase in your line of credit--it's time to bite the bullet and stop charging on the national credit card.

Raygun tripled the national debt, cons said nothing

Shrub daddy doubled it again in only four years, cons said nothing.

Shrub Jr. doubled it again adding more than all POTUS's added together WITH A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS AND SENATE, cons said nothing.

You whine is real cheesy.

ROFLMNAO!

Obama has spent more money in 6 years, than Reagan spent in 1.

Now, with that said... 100% of the US Federal Debt is the direct result of Social Justice Spending and by Social Justice Spending, I am speaking of spending which subsidizes perfectly healthy, perfectly capable individuals... who have merely succumbed to the Left's vacuous notions.... .

Remove Social Justice Spending and the US Federal Government is operating within a balanced budget.

So enough with the "Reagan Spent this and Bush spent that, Clinton paid off the debt', blah, blah, blah nonsense.

The Ideological Left is a cancer, from which the United States will die and it will do so by the end of 2017, from the cancer which metastasized in 1965, with the launch of "The Great Society" and the enormous obama bacteria that exploded in 2009 and from which the US economy could never recover.

Find your charts and track it... . Entitlements now make up more than 60% of the US Federal BUDGET!

You can't balance the budget without stripping entitlements and they're not going to strip the entitlements and there is NO WAY TO TAX YOURSELF OUT OF ENTITLEMENT SPENDING.

The Party is over kids and when it is... we, the Americans, are going to erase the Ideological Left from the soil formerly known as The United States.

It will make Moa's purge look like a fender-bender.

The difference being that YOU IDIOTS are not innocent. You literally ARE: THE PEOPLE THAT MURDERED THE UNITED STATES.

The difference between cons a liberals is, liberals spend money on the health and well being of the elderly, children and the rest of society, and cons waste trillions on welfare for millionaires and the industrial military complex, invading countries and creating terrorists.

If your heart is in the right place, it's on the left.

There are core beliefs to liberalism and conservatism. You have just mentioned one of the most important liberal core beliefs, and that is how people feel about their fellow man. That one core belief explains how a lot of political actions are viewed. re belief. For example, we often see "small government" used as a liberal or conservative belief but the size of government is somewhat unimportant, it is what the government does that is more the key to liberalism or conservatism.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the USMB, I present you:

THE PROBLEM:
OKA:
THE BIG LIE!​

The difference between cons a liberals is, liberals spend money on the health and well being of the elderly, children and the rest of society, and cons waste trillions on welfare for millionaires and the industrial military complex, invading countries and creating terrorists.

If your heart is in the right place, it's on the left.

.

.

.

Now HERE is the TRUTH:

In point of FACT... With the money we are spending to subsidize the otherwise perfectly healthy, but thoroughly lazy to make them dependent upon the Ideological Left, we could set the Elderly and those physically and mentally unable to take care of themselves up in the a massive assisted living center that was a combination of the Mayo-Clinic and The Ritz Carlton and have enough money left over to pave the United States over from border to border and coast to coast, with bridges made of carbon fiber and platinum.

Of course, the biggest problem which is insurmountable... is that since the 1930s, the Socialists, comprising the US Federal government have promised the US worker that the money they were confiscating from them, in the name of Social Security, was being 'invested'... and would be there for them as insurance against poverty in their old age.

Instead, those socialists took those confiscated funds, and spent them in the same year as they were taken.

Year after year...

I recall listening to Bawney Fwank, a sexual deviant; thus we know that he is a person who suffers a serious mental disorder and a long standing member of the US Federal Legislature as a Democrat representative of Massachusetts, he was among the mouthier proponents of the soundness of the US Social Security System.

"There isth abtholutely no weathon to belieth that theruh iths any pwobwem with thosial thecuwity. Those monieths are invethsted in US Federwull Thescurities, where millionths of Americanths investhed in Fedewull bonths that funth the Sotheal Thecuwity Thysthem"

Of course in reality, the money was confiscated from the worker, where it went directly into the general fund and spent as quickly as it arrived on whatever new 'social program' came along and everything else.

They then issued bonds, for the amount of that years confiscated SS monies... (The Investment) which amounts to me taking your $100, telling you that I am investing it... I spend your money on whatever I want... but then I issue a BOND for the same amount. Which you buy for $100 ... You've now invested $200 with me. I owe you the first $100, the Bond's $100 and the $5 that I promised to pay you when you cashed in your bond. So I now owe you $205. So I spend the first $100 and the second $100... on whatever the hell I want and I do this to MILLIONS of PEOPLE... and for as long as it will last I pay people back using the monies I confiscate in the name of SS, and the Bonds that I issued, causing GREATER DEBT, that I sold as INVESTMENTS.

In the MEAN TIME... I am accruing MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF DEBT. And considering that I do not PRODUCE ANYTHING... and I have NO MEANS TO PAY ANYONE ANYTHING except what I confiscate from people, it is only a matter of time before it implodes and the people who I stole from, THE SAME PEOPLE THAT DEPEND UPON ME AND TRUST ME... ARE SCREWED, BLUED AND TATTOOED!

It is a scam developed by a guy named Charles Ponzi... the HIS-STORY of such came and went by the 1920s.

10 years later... in the 1930s Franklin D. Roosevelt used the SAME idea in the creation of Old Age Insurance... which quickly came to be known as Social Security.

Ponsi Schemes are illegal, because they are immoral... Anyone who invested with Bernie Madoff will tell you anything you need to know about Social Security as the US Federal Government has schemed it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ponsi Schemes are illegal, because they are immoral... Anyone who invested with Bernie Madoff will tell you anything you need to know about Social Security as the US Federal Government has schemed it.

Social Security and a Ponzi Scheme have nothing in common, not a fuckin' thing.