SS and Medicare depleted sooner than expected

[Skull Pilot]

How about the government quits over spending?

Why didn't we think of that.

you didn't. you're advocating more spending.

 

[sealybobo]

How about the government quits over spending?

Why didn't we think of that.

you didn't. you're advocating more spending.

Clinton spent less. We didn't complain then.

What's different now? The hole the GOP put us in.

You'll never get it, so why do I bother. I'm just going to neg rep you for being dumb..

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why didn't we think of that.

you didn't. you're advocating more spending.

Clinton spent less. We didn't complain then.

What's different now? The hole the GOP put us in.

You'll never get it, so why do I bother. I'm just going to neg rep you for being dumb..

what's the difference? you fucking retard the difference is multi trillion dollar deficits for years to come

 

[jreeves]

Maybe you weren't. Sorry you got confused.

Liar I could go back and copy and paste if you would like?

Do whatever makes you feel good.

How's your search for the backup for that bullshit you spouted about JFK authorizing waterboarding coming?

So after all the distortions and lies you have told. You are so desperate to bring up something completely off topic. Even though the article specifically states that Jfk did in fact order what you had defined as torture. You are truly a tool....

Post 38....Liar
Ire-liar states....

"Sure, its not free. But overall poverty dropped from 13.9% in 1965 to 9.8% today (2006). That's a 30% decline, which in my book is a pretty good improvement."

 

[jreeves]

It would be nice for our government to go back to the spending of the Clinton era...about 2 trillion a year budget, but we are well over three trillion a year spending...this took 8 years to get to this point, adding $700 billion to our national debt, each and every year the past 8, more or less...since near $6 trillion was added to it in total, that's what it comes to.....

It took 8 years of overspending to get us to where we are, it will take at least 8 years to get us out of this mess with spending cuts....it can NOT be done all at once, cutting 1 trillion all at once is unrealistic and impossible imo, no matter how much I wish it to be feasible....it just isn't....

Do what?
Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures » The Foundry
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008.

: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

 

[jreeves]

Sure, its not free. But overall poverty dropped from 13.9% in 1965 to 9.8% today (2006). That's a 30% decline, which in my book is a pretty good improvement.

Historical Poverty Tables

Liar I could go back and copy and paste if you would like?

I'm done with you, you obviously like to lie. Here is the family poverty rate in 1969 and 2008 from your chart that you posted in bold.....

1969...... 5,008 9.7 1,827 32.7

2006...... 7,668 9.8 4,087 28.3

Now tell me, how that the poverty rate in families dropped by 30%?

Your not worth my time....

What do you call it when you intentionally falisfy what I wrote in order to accuse my of lying?

Here's what I stated ....

The poverty rate is virtually the same as it was in 1969. All that has happened since then is an explosion of social spending on all types of means tested welfare, with no results.

Like I said before, I am done with you. At least be honest....

 

[Care4all]

It would be nice for our government to go back to the spending of the Clinton era...about 2 trillion a year budget, but we are well over three trillion a year spending...this took 8 years to get to this point, adding $700 billion to our national debt, each and every year the past 8, more or less...since near $6 trillion was added to it in total, that's what it comes to.....

It took 8 years of overspending to get us to where we are, it will take at least 8 years to get us out of this mess with spending cuts....it can NOT be done all at once, cutting 1 trillion all at once is unrealistic and impossible imo, no matter how much I wish it to be feasible....it just isn't....

Do what?
Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures » The Foundry
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008.

: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

What is PUBLIC DEBT verses National Debt??????

We added near 6 TRILLION to the NATIONAL DEBT the past 8 years....

Again, what is the definition of this Public Debt that you posted figures for JR?

When clinton left office the national debt was 5.6 trillion, when Bush left office, the national debt was about 11 trillion or so and counting....?

Care

 

[jreeves]

It would be nice for our government to go back to the spending of the Clinton era...about 2 trillion a year budget, but we are well over three trillion a year spending...this took 8 years to get to this point, adding $700 billion to our national debt, each and every year the past 8, more or less...since near $6 trillion was added to it in total, that's what it comes to.....

It took 8 years of overspending to get us to where we are, it will take at least 8 years to get us out of this mess with spending cuts....it can NOT be done all at once, cutting 1 trillion all at once is unrealistic and impossible imo, no matter how much I wish it to be feasible....it just isn't....

Do what?
Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures » The Foundry
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008.

: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

What is PUBLIC DEBT verses National Debt??????

We added near 6 TRILLION to the NATIONAL DEBT the past 8 years....

Again, what is the definition of this Public Debt that you posted figures for JR?

When clinton left office the national debt was 5.6 trillion, when Bush left office, the national debt was about 11 trillion or so and counting....?

Care

Read the link, it states that Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion run up of the deficit. While in FY 2009 the article states, both Obama and Bush presided over a $2.6 trillion runup.

 

[Care4all]

What is PUBLIC DEBT verses National Debt??????

We added near 6 TRILLION to the NATIONAL DEBT the past 8 years....

Again, what is the definition of this Public Debt that you posted figures for JR?

When clinton left office the national debt was 5.6 trillion, when Bush left office, the national debt was about 11 trillion or so and counting....?

Care

Read the link, it states that Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion run up of the deficit. While in FY 2009 the article states, both Obama and Bush presided over a $2.6 trillion runup.

run up of the DEFICIT or DEBT?

I looked at the link, and still don't know what PUBLIC DEBT is verses the national debt of which OVER $5 TRILLION was added to it during the Bush administration...???

The article doesn't make sense and is a mish mosh of ...something, but I am clueless on it....the blog is not a good source for anything JR and still, what is Public Debt, that they speak of verses the National Debt? They are NOT the same obviously, because the public debt is about half of what was added to the national debt, under Bush?

care

 

[jreeves]

Read the link, it states that Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion run up of the deficit. While in FY 2009 the article states, both Obama and Bush presided over a $2.6 trillion runup.

run up of the DEFICIT or DEBT?

I looked at the link, and still don't know what PUBLIC DEBT is verses the national debt of which OVER $5 TRILLION was added to it during the Bush administration...???

The article doesn't make sense and is a mish mosh of ...something, but I am clueless on it....the blog is not a good source for anything JR and still, what is Public Debt, that they speak of verses the National Debt? They are NOT the same obviously, because the public debt is about half of what was added to the national debt, under Bush?

care

Care, if you take the 2.6 and 2.5 and add them together that is 5.1 trillion dollars. Look at my previous post of where these numbers come from.


Also, to address Public debt vs. National debt...
public debt definition | Dictionary.com
public debt
–noun
national debt.

Yes I will say, the Heritage Foundation is slanted right, but all these numbers are accurate.

 

[Iriemon]

Sure, its not free. But overall poverty dropped from 13.9% in 1965 to 9.8% today (2006). That's a 30% decline, which in my book is a pretty good improvement.

Historical Poverty Tables

I'm done with you, you obviously like to lie. Here is the family poverty rate in 1969 and 2008 from your chart that you posted in bold.....

1969...... 5,008 9.7 1,827 32.7

2006...... 7,668 9.8 4,087 28.3

Now tell me, how that the poverty rate in families dropped by 30%?

Your not worth my time....

What do you call it when you intentionally falisfy what I wrote in order to accuse my of lying?

Here's what I stated ....

The poverty rate is virtually the same as it was in 1969. All that has happened since then is an explosion of social spending on all types of means tested welfare, with no results.

Like I said before, I am done with you. At least be honest....

Nice try to backpedal. That is why you called me a liar saying: "Now tell me, how that the poverty rate in families dropped by 30%?"

The record as to who is dishonest is clear.

 

[jreeves]

What do you call it when you intentionally falisfy what I wrote in order to accuse my of lying?

Here's what I stated ....

The poverty rate is virtually the same as it was in 1969. All that has happened since then is an explosion of social spending on all types of means tested welfare, with no results.

Like I said before, I am done with you. At least be honest....

Sure, and that is why you called me a liar saying: "Now tell me, how that the poverty rate in families dropped by 30%?"

The record as to who is dishonest is clear.

It sure is, the overall poverty rate is.....Liar

 

[Iriemon]

Here's what I stated ....

The poverty rate is virtually the same as it was in 1969. All that has happened since then is an explosion of social spending on all types of means tested welfare, with no results.

Like I said before, I am done with you. At least be honest....

Sure, and that is why you called me a liar saying: "Now tell me, how that the poverty rate in families dropped by 30%?"

The record as to who is dishonest is clear.

It sure is, the overall poverty rate is.....Liar

So the fuck what? The poverty rate fell by 30% 1965 to 2006. I cited the census tables for all to see. You have not contested that. All you did was call me a liar, said you could cut and paste to prove it, and then pasted the number from a different freaking year to "prove" I lied.

It's pretty funny. You claim I'm a liar, saying "Now tell me, how that the poverty rate in families dropped by 30%?" and use a different year, 1969 as a starting point to prove that I was "lied", when I used 1965 as a starting point. Deliberating falisfying my position.

And early you make arguments in the torture thread claiming that JFK authorized wateboarding, which is a flat out lie.

And you neg rep me for "lying" when all I've done is exposure yours.

Classic.

The record is clear.

 

[jreeves]

Sure, and that is why you called me a liar saying: "Now tell me, how that the poverty rate in families dropped by 30%?"

The record as to who is dishonest is clear.

It sure is, the overall poverty rate is.....Liar

So the fuck what? The poverty rate fell by 30% 1965 to 2006. I cited the census tables for all to see. You have not contested that. All you did was call me a liar, said you could cut and paste to prove it, and then pasted the number from a different freaking year to "prove" I lied.

It's pretty funny. You claim I'm a liar, saying "Now tell me, how that the poverty rate in families dropped by 30%?" and use a different year, 1969 as a starting point to prove that I was "lied", when I used 1965 as a starting point. Deliberating falisfying my position.

And early you make arguments in the torture thread claiming that JFK authorized wateboarding, which is a flat out lie.

And you neg rep me for "lying" when all I've done is exposure yours.

Classic.

The record is clear.

Lmao....

I referred specifically to 1969, as I have already posted. I stated that the overall poverty rate has not changed even though an explosion of spending....You try to distort the facts by posting 1965's family poverty rate and 2006's poverty rate. What a tool, Liar....

 

[Iriemon]

It sure is, the overall poverty rate is.....Liar

So the fuck what? The poverty rate fell by 30% 1965 to 2006. I cited the census tables for all to see. You have not contested that. All you did was call me a liar, said you could cut and paste to prove it, and then pasted the number from a different freaking year to "prove" I lied.

It's pretty funny. You claim I'm a liar, saying "Now tell me, how that the poverty rate in families dropped by 30%?" and use a different year, 1969 as a starting point to prove that I was "lied", when I used 1965 as a starting point. Deliberating falisfying my position.

And early you make arguments in the torture thread claiming that JFK authorized wateboarding, which is a flat out lie.

And you neg rep me for "lying" when all I've done is exposure yours.

Classic.

The record is clear.

Lmao....

I referred specifically to 1969, as I have already posted. I stated that the overall poverty rate has not changed even though an explosion of spending....You try to distort the facts by posting 1965's family poverty rate and 2006's poverty rate. What a tool, Liar....

If anyone else doesn't understand how me posting the poverty rates between 1965 and 2006 to show they fell by 30% is not "distorting the facts" contrary to JReeve's claim, let me know and I'll explain it.

Of course since JReeves can't defend his position, he gives the ... how did Political Chick call it, the "less honorable" neg reps instead, as he always does when he loses an argument.

 

[jreeves]

So the fuck what? The poverty rate fell by 30% 1965 to 2006. I cited the census tables for all to see. You have not contested that. All you did was call me a liar, said you could cut and paste to prove it, and then pasted the number from a different freaking year to "prove" I lied.

It's pretty funny. You claim I'm a liar, saying "Now tell me, how that the poverty rate in families dropped by 30%?" and use a different year, 1969 as a starting point to prove that I was "lied", when I used 1965 as a starting point. Deliberating falisfying my position.

And early you make arguments in the torture thread claiming that JFK authorized wateboarding, which is a flat out lie.

And you neg rep me for "lying" when all I've done is exposure yours.

Classic.

The record is clear.

Lmao....

I referred specifically to 1969, as I have already posted. I stated that the overall poverty rate has not changed even though an explosion of spending....You try to distort the facts by posting 1965's family poverty rate and 2006's poverty rate. What a tool, Liar....

If anyone else doesn't understand how me posting the poverty rates between 1965 and 2006 to show they fell by 30% is not "distorting the facts" contrary to JReeve's claim, let me know and I'll explain it.

Or how you stating the family poverty rate was the same thing as the overall poverty rate....tool...

 

[Iriemon]

Lmao....

I referred specifically to 1969, as I have already posted. I stated that the overall poverty rate has not changed even though an explosion of spending....You try to distort the facts by posting 1965's family poverty rate and 2006's poverty rate. What a tool, Liar....

If anyone else doesn't understand how me posting the poverty rates between 1965 and 2006 to show they fell by 30% is not "distorting the facts" contrary to JReeve's claim, let me know and I'll explain it.

Or how you stating the family poverty rate was the same thing as the overall poverty rate....tool...

Jesus Christ, I'm stupid as shit for even responding to you. You misrepresent what I write, fabricate shit, neg rep me everytime I prove you're wrong and lying, and sit there and quibble about nonsense in some lame attempt to pretend you've got an argument.

So if the "family" poverty rate isn't a fair measure of the poverty rate overall, please cite what the poverty rate overall changed between 1965 and 2006 so you can show the entire board that the 30% figure I calculated using data I sourced from the Census Bureau was so misleading and wrong and lying.

 

[jreeves]

If anyone else doesn't understand how me posting the poverty rates between 1965 and 2006 to show they fell by 30% is not "distorting the facts" contrary to JReeve's claim, let me know and I'll explain it.

Or how you stating the family poverty rate was the same thing as the overall poverty rate....tool...

Jesus Christ, I'm stupid as shit for even responding to you. You misrepresent what I write, fabricate shit, neg rep me everytime I prove you're wrong and lying, and sit there and quibble about nonsense in some lame attempt to pretend you've got an argument.

So if the "family" poverty rate isn't a fair measure of the poverty rate overall, please cite what the poverty rate overall changed between 1965 and 2006 so you can show the entire board that the 30% figure I calculated using data I sourced from the Census Bureau was so misleading and wrong and lying.

Did I say the fucking poverty rate hadn't decreased since 1965? No, liar.....
I said it hasn't changed since 19....freaking 69 even though there was an explosion of social spending since 1969....

Then you post the fucking family poverty rate of 1965 and 2006...

You have to be the dumbest and most lying member on USMB...

 

[Care4all]

Oh, come on you two....!

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but from what I can see from the last few posts, you BOTH have valid points to be made, and for goodness sakes you can still acknowledge that the other one was right, or at least right in pointing out figures that help your own case, in my opinion!

From what I gathered, Irie correctly stated that the poverty rate had gone down 30% since 1965, when the many great society/war on poverty benefits started to come in to fruition.

You stated that figures also show that we have been fairly consistent with our poverty rates since 1969...correctly noting that additional war on poverty measures had come in to affect after 1969...yet poverty levels didn't seem to be affected by these new programs.

Both can be correct in "the numbers" and in the presumptions made can't they be?

I can see the logic in thinking there was a MAJOR impact in the reduction in poverty rates after 1965 because of the new social programs that were put in to effect...

And I can see how the presumption could be made that perhaps not all social programs to help the poor, help the poor, because the poverty rate hasn't gone down... even with new, additional programs.

However, there are many things that could affect the latter presumption that probably should be taken in to consideration imho, such as...

-the additional war on programs added after 1969 may not have been focused on the 'poor parents', but focused on the 'poor children'...like providing health care for the children in povety... which would benefit them, would not necessarily bring their parents out of poverty...

-the initial programs to help those in poverty, get out of poverty that caused the 30% reduction in poverty levels has consistently worked over the next few decades...taking in to consideration that we had gone through a draft and a war in vietnam and recessions and inflation so high you would choke hearing the numbers and an oil embargo and another recession...and another recession with a stock market crash and a Savings and Loan scandal and housing bubble burst... in the late 80's too...

yet through these crisis, our poverty rate was fairly stable...so logic could say to me, the programs in place worked well, otherwise big fluctuations in poverty levels would have occurred in much greater numbers than they did...no?

care

 

[jreeves]

Oh, come on you two....!

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but from what I can see from the last few posts, you BOTH have valid points to be made, and for goodness sakes you can still acknowledge that the other one was right, or at least right in pointing out figures that help your own case, in my opinion!

From what I gathered, Irie correctly stated that the poverty rate had gone down 30% since 1965, when the many great society/war on poverty benefits started to come in to fruition.

You stated that figures also show that we have been fairly consistent with our poverty rates since 1969...correctly noting that additional war on poverty measures had come in to affect after 1969...yet poverty levels didn't seem to be affected by these new programs.

Both can be correct in "the numbers" and in the presumptions made can't they be?

I can see the logic in thinking there was a MAJOR impact in the reduction in poverty rates after 1965 because of the new social programs that were put in to effect...

And I can see how the presumption could be made that perhaps not all social programs to help the poor, help the poor, because the poverty rate hasn't gone down... even with new, additional programs.

However, there are many things that could affect the latter presumption that probably should be taken in to consideration imho, such as...

-the additional war on programs added after 1969 may not have been focused on the 'poor parents', but focused on the 'poor children'...like providing health care for the children in povety... which would benefit them, would not necessarily bring their parents out of poverty...

-the initial programs to help those in poverty, get out of poverty that caused the 30% reduction in poverty levels has consistently worked over the next few decades...taking in to consideration that we had gone through a draft and a war in vietnam and recessions and inflation so high you would choke hearing the numbers and an oil embargo and another recession...and another recession with a stock market crash and a Savings and Loan scandal and housing bubble burst... in the late 80's too...

yet through these crisis, our poverty rate was fairly stable...so logic could say to me, the programs in place worked well, otherwise big fluctuations in poverty levels would have occurred in much greater numbers than they did...no?

care

There is one problem with your conclusion, look at this chart, the poverty rate was on a steep decline between 1959-1969. Why the decline before the war on poverty if it was these great(costly) programs? I mean the poverty rate in 1950 was 27% in 1964 in was about 17 or 18%. How did we ever reduce these poverty rates by about 10% points without government intervention?