Where The Heck Did All These Leftists Come From??

[NYcarbineer]

They don't "skim" the trusts. The trusts are consolidated into the budget.

Puleeeezzz...


The 1983 Greenspan Commission initiated changes in Social Security that generated large surpluses. “As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs.” http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/04/h...ever-perpetrated-against-the-american-people/

a. In 1985, the Social Security Trust Fund surplus was only $7.5 billion, a decade later it was $60.4 billion.

b. In 2000, the surplus was $152 billion. Clinton took the $152 billion, and counted it as income, instead of the debt it actually repesented.

c. “Instead of Social Security subsidizing the rest of the budget, the rest of the budget will have to subsidize Social Security.” Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/31/politics/washingtonpost/main4906936.shtml

Social Security LOANS money to the federal government. Just like anyone who buys a treasury bill or bond loans money to the federal government.

 

[Toro]

They don't "skim" the trusts. The trusts are consolidated into the budget.

Puleeeezzz...


The 1983 Greenspan Commission initiated changes in Social Security that generated large surpluses. “As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs.” http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/04/h...ever-perpetrated-against-the-american-people/

a. In 1985, the Social Security Trust Fund surplus was only $7.5 billion, a decade later it was $60.4 billion.

b. In 2000, the surplus was $152 billion. Clinton took the $152 billion, and counted it as income, instead of the debt it actually repesented.

c. “Instead of Social Security subsidizing the rest of the budget, the rest of the budget will have to subsidize Social Security.” Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/31/politics/washingtonpost/main4906936.shtml

Social Security LOANS money to the federal government. Just like anyone who buys a treasury bill or bond loans money to the federal government.

Yup.

Social Security used to be invested in Treasury bonds. Investing in Treasury bonds is lending to the US government. Today, rather than investing in Treasury bonds, the trusts are credited and debited as if they were buying and selling Treasury bonds. The money is lent to the government and flows to the Treasury through the trusts while cutting out the middleman of Wall Street. The economics of the two are exactly the same.

There are legitimate criticisms of this practice. However, people who say that the government "raided the trust funds" don't seem to understand the economics and mechanics of how the trusts work.

 

[buckeye45_73]

1. Leftism is so pervasive, that if applied to any other way of looking at life, it would be widely recognized as a form of brainwashing!

Image a person who attended only fundamental Christian schools from preschool through graduate school, who never saw a secular, let alone anti-Christian, film, and who only read religious books. Most would say that they had been ‘brainwashed.” Yet, we regularly find individuals who only attended secular liberal schools from preschool through college, watched or listened to only Left-of-center television, movies, music, and had essentially no exposure to religious or conservative ideas.
Brainwashed?

Of course not! Liberals are open-minded!!! The irony here is that the denial itself shows how very effective the brainwashing has been.

Now, Christians or Jews who have rarely been exposed to secular ideas and values would readily acknowledge same. It is only those on the Left who fool themselves into believing that they have been exposed to all points of view.
Prager, “Still The Best Hope,” chapter two.



2. Universities have become to Liberalism what a Christian seminary is to Christianity. The difference is that Christian seminaries acknowledge their purpose, to produce committed Christians.

a. “The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible.” The University's Part in Political Life” (13 March 1909) in PWW (The Papers of Woodrow Wilson) 19:99.




3. Now, while the indoctrination by universities is thorough and complete…it is not permanent. This is the meaning of 'If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not Conservative by 40, you have no brain'.

Therefore, what is required to maintain the miasma, the haze of Liberalism, is the media.

The media is the wall against which most folks bounce their search for “Truth.” In the Golden Days of Liberal control of the media, there was the Cronkite-Chancellor-Reasoner Cartel. In this top-down system for determining the Truth, it was handed out by a very few networks…and a handful of national newspapers. Cronkite went so far as to end any debate, each night with” “And that’s the way it is.”

a. Cronkite was a big believer in the powers of centralization, that the smartest people could get into a room and solve all the world’s problems.

b. Cronkite: “It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order.”
Remarks on Accepting the 1999 Norman Cousins Global Governance Award - World Beyond Borders

c. Frank Zappa saw this top-down journalistic ‘Truth’ for what it was: “They walk in the door seeking a method by which they can reinforce conclusions they've already arrived at. “Zappa Family regains control of Frank's Catalog!! - Furthur Community Forum




4. Why so many in the profession lean Left? “The radicals [of the 60's] were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.”
Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 51



But the spell is wearing off....fewer watch the nightly news, and fewer yet the newspapers.

5. In 1987 a group of conservative news junkies started the ‘Media Research Center.’ The same year, the Reagan administration repealed the Fairness Doctrine. A year later, Rush Limbaugh began his wildly successful radio show. And in 1996, Matt Drudge appeared.



The internet: the final battleground.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xRrUVVKigk"]Baby Crying Sound Effect - YouTube[/ame]

BTW...what's "leftism?"

people for hedonism and no personal morality along with big government and no economic freedom......

 

[PoliticalChic]

They don't "skim" the trusts. The trusts are consolidated into the budget.

Puleeeezzz...


The 1983 Greenspan Commission initiated changes in Social Security that generated large surpluses. “As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs.” http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/04/h...ever-perpetrated-against-the-american-people/

a. In 1985, the Social Security Trust Fund surplus was only $7.5 billion, a decade later it was $60.4 billion.

b. In 2000, the surplus was $152 billion. Clinton took the $152 billion, and counted it as income, instead of the debt it actually repesented.

c. “Instead of Social Security subsidizing the rest of the budget, the rest of the budget will have to subsidize Social Security.” Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/31/politics/washingtonpost/main4906936.shtml

OK PC.

How can money be "diverted" or "raided" when the assets in the trust are non-tradeable assets?

Also, what is the difference in the economics of a trust fund invested solely in Treasury securities, as it was prior to 1985, and to debiting and crediting non-tradeable liabilities, as occurred thereafter. In other words, what is the difference between the government purchasing and selling government bonds in the trust fund and the government debiting and crediting non-tradeable liabilities as if they were buying and selling government bonds? That will help you answer the first question.


BTW, do you want to know why the surplus in the SS trusts exploded? Because Reagan doubled the payroll tax. Interesting, eh?

Toro, your position is weak from the start....as you, correctly, admitted that the debt rose in each and every one of those year.


The only way to support the position that the rapist in office at the time preformed an astounding act of economic legerdemain, you're reduced to more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.


Rather than continuing this dance of the 'Sugerbplum Fairytales,' I thought it might be amusing to consider the techniques, arguments and threats, that you used when the logic failed.



Subconsciously, one retreats to those attacks that would make them surrender, or quake....



1. In post #130, a demand that superior knowledge be respected: "My from my side, it's technical knowledge..."

2. ...while the opponent is relying on a devious motive: "ideological partisanship that tries to score cheap political points..."



3. ...and show disappointment that the opponent doesn't acquiesce to the above while still enjoying your respect: "...some accuse the right of being anti-intellectual."

4. I must admit, that this attempt at child psychology brought a smile to my face: "Conservatives who have an inkling of understanding don't make this argument. You're smarter than this." (I admit to having used this on the children when they were younger...)



5. And then, the pat on the head, and, perhaps a lollypop? "...please stop. It looks so bad from my side."

6. It was based on that post that I knew you realized that your argument was based on ideology rather than truth.



7. Then, in post #133, you indicated how deeply important it was to you to win the debate, and you didn't realize the irony in this: "Denying basic truths does not benefit anyone either, especially those who deny them. Denials discredit the deniers."
(I'd be happy to share my surplus laughter,here.)


8. And then, inadvertently, you admitted one of the real bases of your argument: "If I walked over to our bond desk and argued there was no surplus, people would think I'm crazy and I'd risk my standing in the organization."

9. Intelligent, even at the subconscious level, you probably realized this....so you went back to earlier attempts: "Those who sit on the outside of technical knowledge...highly biased and lack basic knowledge (from technical to basic?)...highly biased and know little...fundamental and critical aspect of their jobs, (that, of course, makes my argument)....independent and conservative ( I'm to be left all alone?)...know little about the subject (I'm just a dummy!!)..."

I understand that that post was supposed to make me ripple with fear and awe.....but, it had the opposite effect.



10. Then, in post #135, "The trick is being able to understand why the crowd is wrong or right. To do that, you first need the knowledge...blah blah blan....again..."

And then you tried to pull back the post where you admitted how difficult it would be for you to take a position contrary to the crowd: "they'll think I'm a loon, just like if I said there was no surplus."
But you chose an absurd example: "...said the sun is going to set at noon,..."

To say that an ever increasing debt shows that there was no surplus is not absurd.



11. Finally, in post #137, "Some people believe the world is flat, that Elvis is still alive, Obama is Satan, and we didn't run surpluses.
The rest of the world just brushes them aside because no matter what you put in front of them, they'll never believe."
(Hey...some folks will never admit the truth, eh?....)

a. I have read a number of pundits and economists who make the same claim that I have...

b. ...and I have your agreement that at no time did the national debt go down.

c. I wonder what you would be saying if it had been a Republican in the White House pounding his chest over an illusory 'surplus.'

Now, notice....I have not used any of these supplementary techniques....merely relied on the standard English usage of the term 'surplus.'
Consider the reason for that. (Rectitude!)


In any case, this was a great deal of fun...I hope you chuckle over this post, as I am.



Now, I'd like to get your signature on the bottom of this summary:

"Well, although Clinton had no salutary effect on the national debt, which continued to rise throughout his administration- even though there were no wars to pay for, and Reagan had defeated the Evil Empire, providing a 'peace dividend,'- he did sort of have a kind of 'surplus' by taking the excess of Social Security funds...which Ronald Reagan's efforts provided....and used same to make it appear as though there was a little bit of a surplus in some areas....."

All of the above is true.

 

[PoliticalChic]

She heard this somewhere and now it's stuck to her head like a tick. You won't dislodge it.

The ineducable are always among us.

Don't you feel "dirty" having made a promise to admit Food Stamps are used in the ways I've suggested....

...and then reneged on the promise?

Since your alleged 'proof' of it was to quote the poster rightwinger making a joke about it,

I'd say no, I don't feel dirty at all. I feel vindicated, like I do 99% of the time.

He made no joke, mere revealed the truth of the thread....which is why he didn't reply when you begged him to say it was a joke....

"I feel vindicated, like I do 99% of the time."

Now...that is probably true....

...and the result of having a prostate larger than one's brain.

 

[Toro]

Puleeeezzz...


The 1983 Greenspan Commission initiated changes in Social Security that generated large surpluses. “As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs.” http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/04/h...ever-perpetrated-against-the-american-people/

a. In 1985, the Social Security Trust Fund surplus was only $7.5 billion, a decade later it was $60.4 billion.

b. In 2000, the surplus was $152 billion. Clinton took the $152 billion, and counted it as income, instead of the debt it actually repesented.

c. “Instead of Social Security subsidizing the rest of the budget, the rest of the budget will have to subsidize Social Security.” Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/31/politics/washingtonpost/main4906936.shtml

OK PC.

How can money be "diverted" or "raided" when the assets in the trust are non-tradeable assets?

Also, what is the difference in the economics of a trust fund invested solely in Treasury securities, as it was prior to 1985, and to debiting and crediting non-tradeable liabilities, as occurred thereafter. In other words, what is the difference between the government purchasing and selling government bonds in the trust fund and the government debiting and crediting non-tradeable liabilities as if they were buying and selling government bonds? That will help you answer the first question.


BTW, do you want to know why the surplus in the SS trusts exploded? Because Reagan doubled the payroll tax. Interesting, eh?

Toro, your position is weak from the start....as you, correctly, admitted that the debt rose in each and every one of those year.


The only way to support the position that the rapist in office at the time preformed an astounding act of economic legerdemain, you're reduced to more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.


Rather than continuing this dance of the 'Sugerbplum Fairytales,' I thought it might be amusing to consider the techniques, arguments and threats, that you used when the logic failed.



Subconsciously, one retreats to those attacks that would make them surrender, or quake....



1. In post #130, a demand that superior knowledge be respected: "My from my side, it's technical knowledge..."

2. ...while the opponent is relying on a devious motive: "ideological partisanship that tries to score cheap political points..."



3. ...and show disappointment that the opponent doesn't acquiesce to the above while still enjoying your respect: "...some accuse the right of being anti-intellectual."

4. I must admit, that this attempt at child psychology brought a smile to my face: "Conservatives who have an inkling of understanding don't make this argument. You're smarter than this." (I admit to having used this on the children when they were younger...)



5. And then, the pat on the head, and, perhaps a lollypop? "...please stop. It looks so bad from my side."

6. It was based on that post that I knew you realized that your argument was based on ideology rather than truth.



7. Then, in post #133, you indicated how deeply important it was to you to win the debate, and you didn't realize the irony in this: "Denying basic truths does not benefit anyone either, especially those who deny them. Denials discredit the deniers."
(I'd be happy to share my surplus laughter,here.)


8. And then, inadvertently, you admitted one of the real bases of your argument: "If I walked over to our bond desk and argued there was no surplus, people would think I'm crazy and I'd risk my standing in the organization."

9. Intelligent, even at the subconscious level, you probably realized this....so you went back to earlier attempts: "Those who sit on the outside of technical knowledge...highly biased and lack basic knowledge (from technical to basic?)...highly biased and know little...fundamental and critical aspect of their jobs, (that, of course, makes my argument)....independent and conservative ( I'm to be left all alone?)...know little about the subject (I'm just a dummy!!)..."

I understand that that post was supposed to make me ripple with fear and awe.....but, it had the opposite effect.



10. Then, in post #135, "The trick is being able to understand why the crowd is wrong or right. To do that, you first need the knowledge...blah blah blan....again..."

And then you tried to pull back the post where you admitted how difficult it would be for you to take a position contrary to the crowd: "they'll think I'm a loon, just like if I said there was no surplus."
But you chose an absurd example: "...said the sun is going to set at noon,..."

To say that an ever increasing debt shows that there was no surplus is not absurd.



11. Finally, in post #137, "Some people believe the world is flat, that Elvis is still alive, Obama is Satan, and we didn't run surpluses.
The rest of the world just brushes them aside because no matter what you put in front of them, they'll never believe."
(Hey...some folks will never admit the truth, eh?....)

a. I have read a number of pundits and economists who make the same claim that I have...

b. ...and I have your agreement that at no time did the national debt go down.

c. I wonder what you would be saying if it had been a Republican in the White House pounding his chest over an illusory 'surplus.'

Now, notice....I have not used any of these supplementary techniques....merely relied on the standard English usage of the term 'surplus.'
Consider the reason for that. (Rectitude!)


In any case, this was a great deal of fun...I hope you chuckle over this post, as I am.



Now, I'd like to get your signature on the bottom of this summary:

"Well, although Clinton had no salutary effect on the national debt, which continued to rise throughout his administration- even though there were no wars to pay for, and Reagan had defeated the Evil Empire, providing a 'peace dividend,'- he did sort of have a kind of 'surplus' by taking the excess of Social Security funds...which Ronald Reagan's efforts provided....and used same to make it appear as though there was a little bit of a surplus in some areas....."

All of the above is true.

You could have written all that, or you could have answered the questions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

OK PC.

How can money be "diverted" or "raided" when the assets in the trust are non-tradeable assets?

Also, what is the difference in the economics of a trust fund invested solely in Treasury securities, as it was prior to 1985, and to debiting and crediting non-tradeable liabilities, as occurred thereafter. In other words, what is the difference between the government purchasing and selling government bonds in the trust fund and the government debiting and crediting non-tradeable liabilities as if they were buying and selling government bonds? That will help you answer the first question.


BTW, do you want to know why the surplus in the SS trusts exploded? Because Reagan doubled the payroll tax. Interesting, eh?

Toro, your position is weak from the start....as you, correctly, admitted that the debt rose in each and every one of those year.


The only way to support the position that the rapist in office at the time preformed an astounding act of economic legerdemain, you're reduced to more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.


Rather than continuing this dance of the 'Sugerbplum Fairytales,' I thought it might be amusing to consider the techniques, arguments and threats, that you used when the logic failed.



Subconsciously, one retreats to those attacks that would make them surrender, or quake....



1. In post #130, a demand that superior knowledge be respected: "My from my side, it's technical knowledge..."

2. ...while the opponent is relying on a devious motive: "ideological partisanship that tries to score cheap political points..."



3. ...and show disappointment that the opponent doesn't acquiesce to the above while still enjoying your respect: "...some accuse the right of being anti-intellectual."

4. I must admit, that this attempt at child psychology brought a smile to my face: "Conservatives who have an inkling of understanding don't make this argument. You're smarter than this." (I admit to having used this on the children when they were younger...)



5. And then, the pat on the head, and, perhaps a lollypop? "...please stop. It looks so bad from my side."

6. It was based on that post that I knew you realized that your argument was based on ideology rather than truth.



7. Then, in post #133, you indicated how deeply important it was to you to win the debate, and you didn't realize the irony in this: "Denying basic truths does not benefit anyone either, especially those who deny them. Denials discredit the deniers."
(I'd be happy to share my surplus laughter,here.)


8. And then, inadvertently, you admitted one of the real bases of your argument: "If I walked over to our bond desk and argued there was no surplus, people would think I'm crazy and I'd risk my standing in the organization."

9. Intelligent, even at the subconscious level, you probably realized this....so you went back to earlier attempts: "Those who sit on the outside of technical knowledge...highly biased and lack basic knowledge (from technical to basic?)...highly biased and know little...fundamental and critical aspect of their jobs, (that, of course, makes my argument)....independent and conservative ( I'm to be left all alone?)...know little about the subject (I'm just a dummy!!)..."

I understand that that post was supposed to make me ripple with fear and awe.....but, it had the opposite effect.



10. Then, in post #135, "The trick is being able to understand why the crowd is wrong or right. To do that, you first need the knowledge...blah blah blan....again..."

And then you tried to pull back the post where you admitted how difficult it would be for you to take a position contrary to the crowd: "they'll think I'm a loon, just like if I said there was no surplus."
But you chose an absurd example: "...said the sun is going to set at noon,..."

To say that an ever increasing debt shows that there was no surplus is not absurd.



11. Finally, in post #137, "Some people believe the world is flat, that Elvis is still alive, Obama is Satan, and we didn't run surpluses.
The rest of the world just brushes them aside because no matter what you put in front of them, they'll never believe."
(Hey...some folks will never admit the truth, eh?....)

a. I have read a number of pundits and economists who make the same claim that I have...

b. ...and I have your agreement that at no time did the national debt go down.

c. I wonder what you would be saying if it had been a Republican in the White House pounding his chest over an illusory 'surplus.'

Now, notice....I have not used any of these supplementary techniques....merely relied on the standard English usage of the term 'surplus.'
Consider the reason for that. (Rectitude!)


In any case, this was a great deal of fun...I hope you chuckle over this post, as I am.



Now, I'd like to get your signature on the bottom of this summary:

"Well, although Clinton had no salutary effect on the national debt, which continued to rise throughout his administration- even though there were no wars to pay for, and Reagan had defeated the Evil Empire, providing a 'peace dividend,'- he did sort of have a kind of 'surplus' by taking the excess of Social Security funds...which Ronald Reagan's efforts provided....and used same to make it appear as though there was a little bit of a surplus in some areas....."

All of the above is true.

You could have written all that, or you could have answered the questions.

Actually, I enjoy writing....

....but you could have admitted the truth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK PC.

How can money be "diverted" or "raided" when the assets in the trust are non-tradeable assets?

Also, what is the difference in the economics of a trust fund invested solely in Treasury securities, as it was prior to 1985, and to debiting and crediting non-tradeable liabilities, as occurred thereafter. In other words, what is the difference between the government purchasing and selling government bonds in the trust fund and the government debiting and crediting non-tradeable liabilities as if they were buying and selling government bonds? That will help you answer the first question.


BTW, do you want to know why the surplus in the SS trusts exploded? Because Reagan doubled the payroll tax. Interesting, eh?

Toro, your position is weak from the start....as you, correctly, admitted that the debt rose in each and every one of those year.


The only way to support the position that the rapist in office at the time preformed an astounding act of economic legerdemain, you're reduced to more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.


Rather than continuing this dance of the 'Sugerbplum Fairytales,' I thought it might be amusing to consider the techniques, arguments and threats, that you used when the logic failed.



Subconsciously, one retreats to those attacks that would make them surrender, or quake....



1. In post #130, a demand that superior knowledge be respected: "My from my side, it's technical knowledge..."

2. ...while the opponent is relying on a devious motive: "ideological partisanship that tries to score cheap political points..."



3. ...and show disappointment that the opponent doesn't acquiesce to the above while still enjoying your respect: "...some accuse the right of being anti-intellectual."

4. I must admit, that this attempt at child psychology brought a smile to my face: "Conservatives who have an inkling of understanding don't make this argument. You're smarter than this." (I admit to having used this on the children when they were younger...)



5. And then, the pat on the head, and, perhaps a lollypop? "...please stop. It looks so bad from my side."

6. It was based on that post that I knew you realized that your argument was based on ideology rather than truth.



7. Then, in post #133, you indicated how deeply important it was to you to win the debate, and you didn't realize the irony in this: "Denying basic truths does not benefit anyone either, especially those who deny them. Denials discredit the deniers."
(I'd be happy to share my surplus laughter,here.)


8. And then, inadvertently, you admitted one of the real bases of your argument: "If I walked over to our bond desk and argued there was no surplus, people would think I'm crazy and I'd risk my standing in the organization."

9. Intelligent, even at the subconscious level, you probably realized this....so you went back to earlier attempts: "Those who sit on the outside of technical knowledge...highly biased and lack basic knowledge (from technical to basic?)...highly biased and know little...fundamental and critical aspect of their jobs, (that, of course, makes my argument)....independent and conservative ( I'm to be left all alone?)...know little about the subject (I'm just a dummy!!)..."

I understand that that post was supposed to make me ripple with fear and awe.....but, it had the opposite effect.



10. Then, in post #135, "The trick is being able to understand why the crowd is wrong or right. To do that, you first need the knowledge...blah blah blan....again..."

And then you tried to pull back the post where you admitted how difficult it would be for you to take a position contrary to the crowd: "they'll think I'm a loon, just like if I said there was no surplus."
But you chose an absurd example: "...said the sun is going to set at noon,..."

To say that an ever increasing debt shows that there was no surplus is not absurd.



11. Finally, in post #137, "Some people believe the world is flat, that Elvis is still alive, Obama is Satan, and we didn't run surpluses.
The rest of the world just brushes them aside because no matter what you put in front of them, they'll never believe."
(Hey...some folks will never admit the truth, eh?....)

a. I have read a number of pundits and economists who make the same claim that I have...

b. ...and I have your agreement that at no time did the national debt go down.

c. I wonder what you would be saying if it had been a Republican in the White House pounding his chest over an illusory 'surplus.'

Now, notice....I have not used any of these supplementary techniques....merely relied on the standard English usage of the term 'surplus.'
Consider the reason for that. (Rectitude!)


In any case, this was a great deal of fun...I hope you chuckle over this post, as I am.



Now, I'd like to get your signature on the bottom of this summary:

"Well, although Clinton had no salutary effect on the national debt, which continued to rise throughout his administration- even though there were no wars to pay for, and Reagan had defeated the Evil Empire, providing a 'peace dividend,'- he did sort of have a kind of 'surplus' by taking the excess of Social Security funds...which Ronald Reagan's efforts provided....and used same to make it appear as though there was a little bit of a surplus in some areas....."

All of the above is true.

You could have written all that, or you could have answered the questions.

Ever been around that type of woman who can't stop talking, and is oblivious to anything you attempt to contribute to the conversation? PC is the internet version.

 

[Toro]

Toro, your position is weak from the start....as you, correctly, admitted that the debt rose in each and every one of those year.


The only way to support the position that the rapist in office at the time preformed an astounding act of economic legerdemain, you're reduced to more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.


Rather than continuing this dance of the 'Sugerbplum Fairytales,' I thought it might be amusing to consider the techniques, arguments and threats, that you used when the logic failed.



Subconsciously, one retreats to those attacks that would make them surrender, or quake....



1. In post #130, a demand that superior knowledge be respected: "My from my side, it's technical knowledge..."

2. ...while the opponent is relying on a devious motive: "ideological partisanship that tries to score cheap political points..."



3. ...and show disappointment that the opponent doesn't acquiesce to the above while still enjoying your respect: "...some accuse the right of being anti-intellectual."

4. I must admit, that this attempt at child psychology brought a smile to my face: "Conservatives who have an inkling of understanding don't make this argument. You're smarter than this." (I admit to having used this on the children when they were younger...)



5. And then, the pat on the head, and, perhaps a lollypop? "...please stop. It looks so bad from my side."

6. It was based on that post that I knew you realized that your argument was based on ideology rather than truth.



7. Then, in post #133, you indicated how deeply important it was to you to win the debate, and you didn't realize the irony in this: "Denying basic truths does not benefit anyone either, especially those who deny them. Denials discredit the deniers."
(I'd be happy to share my surplus laughter,here.)


8. And then, inadvertently, you admitted one of the real bases of your argument: "If I walked over to our bond desk and argued there was no surplus, people would think I'm crazy and I'd risk my standing in the organization."

9. Intelligent, even at the subconscious level, you probably realized this....so you went back to earlier attempts: "Those who sit on the outside of technical knowledge...highly biased and lack basic knowledge (from technical to basic?)...highly biased and know little...fundamental and critical aspect of their jobs, (that, of course, makes my argument)....independent and conservative ( I'm to be left all alone?)...know little about the subject (I'm just a dummy!!)..."

I understand that that post was supposed to make me ripple with fear and awe.....but, it had the opposite effect.



10. Then, in post #135, "The trick is being able to understand why the crowd is wrong or right. To do that, you first need the knowledge...blah blah blan....again..."

And then you tried to pull back the post where you admitted how difficult it would be for you to take a position contrary to the crowd: "they'll think I'm a loon, just like if I said there was no surplus."
But you chose an absurd example: "...said the sun is going to set at noon,..."

To say that an ever increasing debt shows that there was no surplus is not absurd.



11. Finally, in post #137, "Some people believe the world is flat, that Elvis is still alive, Obama is Satan, and we didn't run surpluses.
The rest of the world just brushes them aside because no matter what you put in front of them, they'll never believe."
(Hey...some folks will never admit the truth, eh?....)

a. I have read a number of pundits and economists who make the same claim that I have...

b. ...and I have your agreement that at no time did the national debt go down.

c. I wonder what you would be saying if it had been a Republican in the White House pounding his chest over an illusory 'surplus.'

Now, notice....I have not used any of these supplementary techniques....merely relied on the standard English usage of the term 'surplus.'
Consider the reason for that. (Rectitude!)


In any case, this was a great deal of fun...I hope you chuckle over this post, as I am.



Now, I'd like to get your signature on the bottom of this summary:

"Well, although Clinton had no salutary effect on the national debt, which continued to rise throughout his administration- even though there were no wars to pay for, and Reagan had defeated the Evil Empire, providing a 'peace dividend,'- he did sort of have a kind of 'surplus' by taking the excess of Social Security funds...which Ronald Reagan's efforts provided....and used same to make it appear as though there was a little bit of a surplus in some areas....."

All of the above is true.

You could have written all that, or you could have answered the questions.

Actually, I enjoy writing....

....but you could have admitted the truth.

Well, I'm happy for you.

I ask the question because I know a fair amount about pensions and finance. So when I hear someone make your claim, I ask them to explain - really explain - what they mean. I will happily change my mind if there is something I don't understand.

But unfortunately, the people who make this claim don't appear to understand their claim, or at least are unable to articulate it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Puleeeezzz...


The 1983 Greenspan Commission initiated changes in Social Security that generated large surpluses. “As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs.” http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/04/h...ever-perpetrated-against-the-american-people/

a. In 1985, the Social Security Trust Fund surplus was only $7.5 billion, a decade later it was $60.4 billion.

b. In 2000, the surplus was $152 billion. Clinton took the $152 billion, and counted it as income, instead of the debt it actually repesented.

c. “Instead of Social Security subsidizing the rest of the budget, the rest of the budget will have to subsidize Social Security.” Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/31/politics/washingtonpost/main4906936.shtml

OK PC.

How can money be "diverted" or "raided" when the assets in the trust are non-tradeable assets?

Also, what is the difference in the economics of a trust fund invested solely in Treasury securities, as it was prior to 1985, and to debiting and crediting non-tradeable liabilities, as occurred thereafter. In other words, what is the difference between the government purchasing and selling government bonds in the trust fund and the government debiting and crediting non-tradeable liabilities as if they were buying and selling government bonds? That will help you answer the first question.


BTW, do you want to know why the surplus in the SS trusts exploded? Because Reagan doubled the payroll tax. Interesting, eh?

Toro, your position is weak from the start....as you, correctly, admitted that the debt rose in each and every one of those year.


The only way to support the position that the rapist in office at the time preformed an astounding act of economic legerdemain, you're reduced to more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.


Rather than continuing this dance of the 'Sugerbplum Fairytales,' I thought it might be amusing to consider the techniques, arguments and threats, that you used when the logic failed.



Subconsciously, one retreats to those attacks that would make them surrender, or quake....



1. In post #130, a demand that superior knowledge be respected: "My from my side, it's technical knowledge..."

2. ...while the opponent is relying on a devious motive: "ideological partisanship that tries to score cheap political points..."



3. ...and show disappointment that the opponent doesn't acquiesce to the above while still enjoying your respect: "...some accuse the right of being anti-intellectual."

4. I must admit, that this attempt at child psychology brought a smile to my face: "Conservatives who have an inkling of understanding don't make this argument. You're smarter than this." (I admit to having used this on the children when they were younger...)



5. And then, the pat on the head, and, perhaps a lollypop? "...please stop. It looks so bad from my side."

6. It was based on that post that I knew you realized that your argument was based on ideology rather than truth.



7. Then, in post #133, you indicated how deeply important it was to you to win the debate, and you didn't realize the irony in this: "Denying basic truths does not benefit anyone either, especially those who deny them. Denials discredit the deniers."
(I'd be happy to share my surplus laughter,here.)


8. And then, inadvertently, you admitted one of the real bases of your argument: "If I walked over to our bond desk and argued there was no surplus, people would think I'm crazy and I'd risk my standing in the organization."

9. Intelligent, even at the subconscious level, you probably realized this....so you went back to earlier attempts: "Those who sit on the outside of technical knowledge...highly biased and lack basic knowledge (from technical to basic?)...highly biased and know little...fundamental and critical aspect of their jobs, (that, of course, makes my argument)....independent and conservative ( I'm to be left all alone?)...know little about the subject (I'm just a dummy!!)..."

I understand that that post was supposed to make me ripple with fear and awe.....but, it had the opposite effect.



10. Then, in post #135, "The trick is being able to understand why the crowd is wrong or right. To do that, you first need the knowledge...blah blah blan....again..."

And then you tried to pull back the post where you admitted how difficult it would be for you to take a position contrary to the crowd: "they'll think I'm a loon, just like if I said there was no surplus."
But you chose an absurd example: "...said the sun is going to set at noon,..."

To say that an ever increasing debt shows that there was no surplus is not absurd.



11. Finally, in post #137, "Some people believe the world is flat, that Elvis is still alive, Obama is Satan, and we didn't run surpluses.
The rest of the world just brushes them aside because no matter what you put in front of them, they'll never believe."
(Hey...some folks will never admit the truth, eh?....)

a. I have read a number of pundits and economists who make the same claim that I have...

b. ...and I have your agreement that at no time did the national debt go down.

c. I wonder what you would be saying if it had been a Republican in the White House pounding his chest over an illusory 'surplus.'

Now, notice....I have not used any of these supplementary techniques....merely relied on the standard English usage of the term 'surplus.'
Consider the reason for that. (Rectitude!)


In any case, this was a great deal of fun...I hope you chuckle over this post, as I am.



Now, I'd like to get your signature on the bottom of this summary:

"Well, although Clinton had no salutary effect on the national debt, which continued to rise throughout his administration- even though there were no wars to pay for, and Reagan had defeated the Evil Empire, providing a 'peace dividend,'- he did sort of have a kind of 'surplus' by taking the excess of Social Security funds...which Ronald Reagan's efforts provided....and used same to make it appear as though there was a little bit of a surplus in some areas....."

All of the above is true.

The budget and the national debt are two different things. Will you stipulate to that, for sake of restoring some sanity to this discussion?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Toro, your position is weak from the start....as you, correctly, admitted that the debt rose in each and every one of those year.


The only way to support the position that the rapist in office at the time preformed an astounding act of economic legerdemain, you're reduced to more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.


Rather than continuing this dance of the 'Sugerbplum Fairytales,' I thought it might be amusing to consider the techniques, arguments and threats, that you used when the logic failed.



Subconsciously, one retreats to those attacks that would make them surrender, or quake....



1. In post #130, a demand that superior knowledge be respected: "My from my side, it's technical knowledge..."

2. ...while the opponent is relying on a devious motive: "ideological partisanship that tries to score cheap political points..."



3. ...and show disappointment that the opponent doesn't acquiesce to the above while still enjoying your respect: "...some accuse the right of being anti-intellectual."

4. I must admit, that this attempt at child psychology brought a smile to my face: "Conservatives who have an inkling of understanding don't make this argument. You're smarter than this." (I admit to having used this on the children when they were younger...)



5. And then, the pat on the head, and, perhaps a lollypop? "...please stop. It looks so bad from my side."

6. It was based on that post that I knew you realized that your argument was based on ideology rather than truth.



7. Then, in post #133, you indicated how deeply important it was to you to win the debate, and you didn't realize the irony in this: "Denying basic truths does not benefit anyone either, especially those who deny them. Denials discredit the deniers."
(I'd be happy to share my surplus laughter,here.)


8. And then, inadvertently, you admitted one of the real bases of your argument: "If I walked over to our bond desk and argued there was no surplus, people would think I'm crazy and I'd risk my standing in the organization."

9. Intelligent, even at the subconscious level, you probably realized this....so you went back to earlier attempts: "Those who sit on the outside of technical knowledge...highly biased and lack basic knowledge (from technical to basic?)...highly biased and know little...fundamental and critical aspect of their jobs, (that, of course, makes my argument)....independent and conservative ( I'm to be left all alone?)...know little about the subject (I'm just a dummy!!)..."

I understand that that post was supposed to make me ripple with fear and awe.....but, it had the opposite effect.



10. Then, in post #135, "The trick is being able to understand why the crowd is wrong or right. To do that, you first need the knowledge...blah blah blan....again..."

And then you tried to pull back the post where you admitted how difficult it would be for you to take a position contrary to the crowd: "they'll think I'm a loon, just like if I said there was no surplus."
But you chose an absurd example: "...said the sun is going to set at noon,..."

To say that an ever increasing debt shows that there was no surplus is not absurd.



11. Finally, in post #137, "Some people believe the world is flat, that Elvis is still alive, Obama is Satan, and we didn't run surpluses.
The rest of the world just brushes them aside because no matter what you put in front of them, they'll never believe."
(Hey...some folks will never admit the truth, eh?....)

a. I have read a number of pundits and economists who make the same claim that I have...

b. ...and I have your agreement that at no time did the national debt go down.

c. I wonder what you would be saying if it had been a Republican in the White House pounding his chest over an illusory 'surplus.'

Now, notice....I have not used any of these supplementary techniques....merely relied on the standard English usage of the term 'surplus.'
Consider the reason for that. (Rectitude!)


In any case, this was a great deal of fun...I hope you chuckle over this post, as I am.



Now, I'd like to get your signature on the bottom of this summary:

"Well, although Clinton had no salutary effect on the national debt, which continued to rise throughout his administration- even though there were no wars to pay for, and Reagan had defeated the Evil Empire, providing a 'peace dividend,'- he did sort of have a kind of 'surplus' by taking the excess of Social Security funds...which Ronald Reagan's efforts provided....and used same to make it appear as though there was a little bit of a surplus in some areas....."

All of the above is true.

You could have written all that, or you could have answered the questions.

Ever been around that type of woman who can't stop talking, and is oblivious to anything you attempt to contribute to the conversation? PC is the internet version.

I find it difficult to imagine you around any women, outside of those pressing charges.

 

[PoliticalChic]

OK PC.

How can money be "diverted" or "raided" when the assets in the trust are non-tradeable assets?

Also, what is the difference in the economics of a trust fund invested solely in Treasury securities, as it was prior to 1985, and to debiting and crediting non-tradeable liabilities, as occurred thereafter. In other words, what is the difference between the government purchasing and selling government bonds in the trust fund and the government debiting and crediting non-tradeable liabilities as if they were buying and selling government bonds? That will help you answer the first question.


BTW, do you want to know why the surplus in the SS trusts exploded? Because Reagan doubled the payroll tax. Interesting, eh?

Toro, your position is weak from the start....as you, correctly, admitted that the debt rose in each and every one of those year.


The only way to support the position that the rapist in office at the time preformed an astounding act of economic legerdemain, you're reduced to more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.


Rather than continuing this dance of the 'Sugerbplum Fairytales,' I thought it might be amusing to consider the techniques, arguments and threats, that you used when the logic failed.



Subconsciously, one retreats to those attacks that would make them surrender, or quake....



1. In post #130, a demand that superior knowledge be respected: "My from my side, it's technical knowledge..."

2. ...while the opponent is relying on a devious motive: "ideological partisanship that tries to score cheap political points..."



3. ...and show disappointment that the opponent doesn't acquiesce to the above while still enjoying your respect: "...some accuse the right of being anti-intellectual."

4. I must admit, that this attempt at child psychology brought a smile to my face: "Conservatives who have an inkling of understanding don't make this argument. You're smarter than this." (I admit to having used this on the children when they were younger...)



5. And then, the pat on the head, and, perhaps a lollypop? "...please stop. It looks so bad from my side."

6. It was based on that post that I knew you realized that your argument was based on ideology rather than truth.



7. Then, in post #133, you indicated how deeply important it was to you to win the debate, and you didn't realize the irony in this: "Denying basic truths does not benefit anyone either, especially those who deny them. Denials discredit the deniers."
(I'd be happy to share my surplus laughter,here.)


8. And then, inadvertently, you admitted one of the real bases of your argument: "If I walked over to our bond desk and argued there was no surplus, people would think I'm crazy and I'd risk my standing in the organization."

9. Intelligent, even at the subconscious level, you probably realized this....so you went back to earlier attempts: "Those who sit on the outside of technical knowledge...highly biased and lack basic knowledge (from technical to basic?)...highly biased and know little...fundamental and critical aspect of their jobs, (that, of course, makes my argument)....independent and conservative ( I'm to be left all alone?)...know little about the subject (I'm just a dummy!!)..."

I understand that that post was supposed to make me ripple with fear and awe.....but, it had the opposite effect.



10. Then, in post #135, "The trick is being able to understand why the crowd is wrong or right. To do that, you first need the knowledge...blah blah blan....again..."

And then you tried to pull back the post where you admitted how difficult it would be for you to take a position contrary to the crowd: "they'll think I'm a loon, just like if I said there was no surplus."
But you chose an absurd example: "...said the sun is going to set at noon,..."

To say that an ever increasing debt shows that there was no surplus is not absurd.



11. Finally, in post #137, "Some people believe the world is flat, that Elvis is still alive, Obama is Satan, and we didn't run surpluses.
The rest of the world just brushes them aside because no matter what you put in front of them, they'll never believe."
(Hey...some folks will never admit the truth, eh?....)

a. I have read a number of pundits and economists who make the same claim that I have...

b. ...and I have your agreement that at no time did the national debt go down.

c. I wonder what you would be saying if it had been a Republican in the White House pounding his chest over an illusory 'surplus.'

Now, notice....I have not used any of these supplementary techniques....merely relied on the standard English usage of the term 'surplus.'
Consider the reason for that. (Rectitude!)


In any case, this was a great deal of fun...I hope you chuckle over this post, as I am.



Now, I'd like to get your signature on the bottom of this summary:

"Well, although Clinton had no salutary effect on the national debt, which continued to rise throughout his administration- even though there were no wars to pay for, and Reagan had defeated the Evil Empire, providing a 'peace dividend,'- he did sort of have a kind of 'surplus' by taking the excess of Social Security funds...which Ronald Reagan's efforts provided....and used same to make it appear as though there was a little bit of a surplus in some areas....."

All of the above is true.

The budget and the national debt are two different things. Will you stipulate to that, for sake of restoring some sanity to this discussion?

I will rely on you for expertise in any area with the same alacrity with which I rush off to England for dental care.

 

[there4eyeM]

My definition is more correct than yours.

Why?

Because I say so!

Do you know when you are joking, or are you just a joke?

"Because I say so!"

The signature of a child of the 60's.

Are you that old, because the reference was to you and your reasoning.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My definition is more correct than yours.

Why?

Because I say so!

Do you know when you are joking, or are you just a joke?

"Because I say so!"

The signature of a child of the 60's.

Are you that old, because the reference was to you and your reasoning.

1. You'd be a fool to suggest that "Because I say so!" refers to me...as there are links and sources in the OP.

2. Are you a fool? Be honest...

3. "Are you that old,..."
A lady never reveals here age.

4. Kudos on being named key note speaker at Pest-Control Expo!

 

[there4eyeM]

Does it pester you that others do not accept your dictates?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Does it pester you that others do not accept your dictates?

1. Dictates?

No doubt you mean 'observations.'


And, the answer is no. It’s OK if you disagree with me….I can’t force you to be right.

2. It would be difficult to miss your attempt to ignore this:
"1. You'd be a fool to suggest that "Because I say so!" refers to me...as there are links and sources in the OP.

2. Are you a fool? Be honest..."


That can only mean one thing....you are honest, and the honest response would be devastating.

(I'll respect your secrecy in the matter.)

 

[Uncensored2008]

1. Dictates?

No doubt you mean 'observations.'


And, the answer is no. It’s OK if you disagree with me….I can’t force you to be right.

2. It would be difficult to miss your attempt to ignore this:
"1. You'd be a fool to suggest that "Because I say so!" refers to me...as there are links and sources in the OP.

2. Are you a fool? Be honest..."


That can only mean one thing....you are honest, and the honest response would be devastating.

(I'll respect your secrecy in the matter.)

It’s OK if you disagree with me….I can’t force you to be right.

ROFL

Line of the week - without a doubt!

 

[there4eyeM]

No one can force me to be left, either.

If you are correct, I will not contradict.

It is not because I referred to you and your attitude that I am a fool. I know that I can be a fool. Perhaps that is how I can recognize another so quickly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one can force me to be left, either.

If you are correct, I will not contradict.

It is not because I referred to you and your attitude that I am a fool. I know that I can be a fool. Perhaps that is how I can recognize another so quickly.

There is some logic there.....

...and a bit less hostility than I detected earlier.