"You didn't get there on your own"

[bripat9643]

I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.

If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare. Are you expecting me to defend it?

Backasswards thinking. End medicare because the PROVIDERS are frauding the system thereby leaving the people who it provides FOR without medical care.

Wow. You're a ******* super genius.

Medicare itself is fraud on a colossal scale. It's also theft. That's why it should be ended.

 

[Full-Auto]

Learn to read. There is nearly half a trillion per year in interest on the GOP national debt. You can't hold Obama responsible for the interest on the GOP debt.

Sure we can, since you hold Republicans responsible for all the interest payments incurred while they were in office.

That's because all the debt was run up by 3 Republican presidents. GOP presidents are responsible for GOP interest payments.

Yes we understand why you want to give the crooks in congress a free pass.

Its why your side made sure all the recent green bankrupt company owners didnt lose a cent.

 

[bripat9643]

Learn to read. There is nearly half a trillion per year in interest on the GOP national debt. You can't hold Obama responsible for the interest on the GOP debt.

Sure we can, since you hold Republicans responsible for all the interest payments incurred while they were in office.

That's because all the debt was run up by 3 Republican presidents. GOP presidents are responsible for GOP interest payments.

Every spending bill originates in the House, which has been controlled by Democrats for 40 of the last 50 years. Democrats in congress are responsible for almost every dime of Deficit spending. 3/4 of all the money was spent on Social Programs created by Democrats.

The idea that Republicans are responsible for the deficit is too absurd for words.

 

[bripat9643]

In most programs that involve large numbers of people there are problems. Some that should not be recipients recieve, and some that should be recipients do not. It is that way with most large programs. Perhaps more people checking and stiffer penalties might help, but as most things, there is a cost effective program in play. Is it more cost effective to let some fraud slide by or hire more checkers to catch people that cannot pay the fine. Our income tax program loses how much each year from fraud to simple mistakes?

Any program that involves taking money from one group of people by force and giving it to another is inherently a "problem." It's organized plunder. The idea that such an operation can be performed honestly is a contradiction in terms.

 

[HUGGY]

I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.

If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare. Are you expecting me to defend it?

Obfuscation and deception. So, you don't have a problem with doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies ripping off the taxpayer. They are not parasites, just little old ladies who can no longer compete in the workplace.

No, they aren't parasites. They're criminals. When did you ever see me defending fraud? How does Medicare fraud alter the fact that people who get checks from the government without giving the government anything in return are parasites?

Did you ever consider what would happen to senior citizens if Medicare was ended? Or doesn't your social Darwinism, survival of the richest doctrinaire permit human thought?

I don't have much sympapthy for them since they voted for this Ponzi scheme. Why should I be looted because other people have been suckers?

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson would have spit on any politician who voted for Social Security.

You are the worst kind of suffering moron. In Jefferson's day over 90% of the population lived on small farms. There was no such thing as a manufacturing or service base to speak of. Although there WAS a merchant marine of sorts and one of the first acts of the congress was to pass a health care bill to pay for the medical expenses of U S seaman.

You are so stupid it actually hurts the eyes to read the vile and nonsense you spew.

 

[Bfgrn]

I'll take that to mean you won't support your own granny if you can't force me to do it.

If you don't like Medicare fraud, then put an end to Medicare. Are you expecting me to defend it?

Obfuscation and deception. So, you don't have a problem with doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies ripping off the taxpayer. They are not parasites, just little old ladies who can no longer compete in the workplace.

No, they aren't parasites. They're criminals. When did you ever see me defending fraud? How does Medicare fraud alter the fact that people who get checks from the government without giving the government anything in return are parasites?

Did you ever consider what would happen to senior citizens if Medicare was ended? Or doesn't your social Darwinism, survival of the richest doctrinaire permit human thought?

I don't have much sympapthy for them since they voted for this Ponzi scheme. Why should I be looted because other people have been suckers?

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson would have spit on any politician who voted for Social Security.

Social Security is not a 'Ponzi scheme', it is an insurance program. And people who get checks from the government DO give the government premium payments with every paycheck they get during their working years.

 

[bripat9643]

Thomas Jefferson would have spit on any politician who voted for Social Security.

You are the worst kind of suffering moron. In Jefferson's day over 90% of the population lived on small farms. There was no such thing as a manufacturing or service base to speak of.

So? How does that alter the fact that Jefferson would have despised Social Security?

Although there WAS a merchant marine of sorts and one of the first acts of the congress was to pass a health care bill to pay for the medical expenses of U S seaman. .

The Constitution does give Congress the authority to regulate commerce, and seamen are clearly involved in commerce. My Aunt Gertrude who is just sitting on her porch isn't engaged in commerce.

Furthermore, what does any of that have to do with Jefferson's attitude about social programs?

You are so stupid it actually hurts the eyes to read the vile and nonsense you spew.

I certainly hope so. I intend it to be painful for morons like you. Education always involves pain.

 

[bripat9643]

Obfuscation and deception. So, you don't have a problem with doctors, health care providers, suppliers, and private companies ripping off the taxpayer. They are not parasites, just little old ladies who can no longer compete in the workplace.

No, they aren't parasites. They're criminals. When did you ever see me defending fraud? How does Medicare fraud alter the fact that people who get checks from the government without giving the government anything in return are parasites?



I don't have much sympapthy for them since they voted for this Ponzi scheme. Why should I be looted because other people have been suckers?

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson would have spit on any politician who voted for Social Security.

Social Security is not a 'Ponzi scheme', it is an insurance program.

By no possible amount of stretching does Social Security fit the definition of the term "insurance." It's a Ponzi scheme where the new "investors" provide the cash to make good on the promises to the original "investors."

And people who get checks from the government DO give the government premium payments with every paycheck they get during their working years.

Those payments are spent the minute they are recieved. In a true insurance program, premiums are invested in instruments that can produce a return. The people who pay the SS "premiums" are being defrauded.

 

[Bfgrn]

No, they aren't parasites. They're criminals. When did you ever see me defending fraud? How does Medicare fraud alter the fact that people who get checks from the government without giving the government anything in return are parasites?



I don't have much sympapthy for them since they voted for this Ponzi scheme. Why should I be looted because other people have been suckers?



Thomas Jefferson would have spit on any politician who voted for Social Security.

Social Security is not a 'Ponzi scheme', it is an insurance program.

By no possible amount of stretching does Social Security fit the definition of the term "insurance." It's a Ponzi scheme where the new "investors" provide the cash to make good on the promises to the original "investors."

And people who get checks from the government DO give the government premium payments with every paycheck they get during their working years.

Those payments are spent the minute they are recieved. In a true insurance program, premiums are invested in instruments that can produce a return. The people who pay the SS "premiums" are being defrauded.

Social Security is a social insurance program. It fits every criteria of an insurance program.

A Ponzi scheme is a short-term criminal enterprise. Social Security is a rock-solid social insurance program that protects millions of Americans.

Social Security is insurance. Contributors don’t want to get rich quick; they want coverage when they retire and die, and in case they become disabled. Like other insurance, benefits are paid from premiums and returns on trust funds. By law, Social Security inflows and outflows are always balanced with adjustments to benefits and contributions. Social Security has never missed paying a monthly benefit in 71 years.

The only thing that could transform Social Security into a Ponzi scheme would be a scoundrel president and Congress ending the system.

 

[edthecynic]

Sure we can, since you hold Republicans responsible for all the interest payments incurred while they were in office.

That's because all the debt was run up by 3 Republican presidents. GOP presidents are responsible for GOP interest payments.

Every spending bill originates in the House, which has been controlled by Democrats for 40 of the last 50 years. Democrats in congress are responsible for almost every dime of Deficit spending. 3/4 of all the money was spent on Social Programs created by Democrats.

The idea that Republicans are responsible for the deficit is too absurd for words.

All you have to do is show these POWERLESS Republican presidents vetoing the spending bills and Congress passing them over the veto and you would have a case. Until that time it remains the GOP National Debt.

 

[Bloodline]

No, they aren't parasites. They're criminals. When did you ever see me defending fraud? How does Medicare fraud alter the fact that people who get checks from the government without giving the government anything in return are parasites?



I don't have much sympapthy for them since they voted for this Ponzi scheme. Why should I be looted because other people have been suckers?



Thomas Jefferson would have spit on any politician who voted for Social Security.

Social Security is not a 'Ponzi scheme', it is an insurance program.

By no possible amount of stretching does Social Security fit the definition of the term "insurance." It's a Ponzi scheme where the new "investors" provide the cash to make good on the promises to the original "investors."

And people who get checks from the government DO give the government premium payments with every paycheck they get during their working years.

Those payments are spent the minute they are recieved. In a true insurance program, premiums are invested in instruments that can produce a return. The people who pay the SS "premiums" are being defrauded.

Exactly!

Tell the government that though!!!

It LOVES spending all that money it's suppose to be banking.

Wonder how much of it is tied up in the military budget right now?

 

[Foxfyre]

Social Security is not a 'Ponzi scheme', it is an insurance program.

By no possible amount of stretching does Social Security fit the definition of the term "insurance." It's a Ponzi scheme where the new "investors" provide the cash to make good on the promises to the original "investors."

And people who get checks from the government DO give the government premium payments with every paycheck they get during their working years.

Those payments are spent the minute they are recieved. In a true insurance program, premiums are invested in instruments that can produce a return. The people who pay the SS "premiums" are being defrauded.

Exactly!

Tell the government that though!!!

It LOVES spending all that money it's suppose to be banking.

Wonder how much of it is tied up in the military budget right now?

Not as much as there would be because our Fearless Leader has been raiding the defense budget to offset some of his other schemes. He doesn't have any intention of paying down the debt or even reducing the deficit obviously, but we would probably be amazed at where he is directing various departments to send our money.

But then he doesn't see it as our money does he? He made that perfectly clear with his "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" line. He sees it all as one big pool of money with him annointed our king charged to distribute and spend it. And still his adorers and worshippers reject any notion that his doctrine has strong Marxist leanings with ever bigger and stronger government until the government has it all and can then create utopia.

Unfortunately, in no instance EVER has a government that achieved that kind of power ever voluntarily given it up.

 

[saveliberty]

...unless it was at the point of a gun...

 

[The T]

By no possible amount of stretching does Social Security fit the definition of the term "insurance." It's a Ponzi scheme where the new "investors" provide the cash to make good on the promises to the original "investors."



Those payments are spent the minute they are recieved. In a true insurance program, premiums are invested in instruments that can produce a return. The people who pay the SS "premiums" are being defrauded.

Exactly!

Tell the government that though!!!

It LOVES spending all that money it's suppose to be banking.

Wonder how much of it is tied up in the military budget right now?

Not as much as there would be because our Fearless Leader has been raiding the defense budget to offset some of his other schemes. He doesn't have any intention of paying down the debt or even reducing the deficit obviously, but we would probably be amazed at where he is directing various departments to send our money.

But then he doesn't see it as our money does he? He made that perfectly clear with his "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" line. He sees it all as one big pool of money with him annointed our king charged to distribute and spend it. And still his adorers and worshippers reject any notion that his doctrine has strong Marxist leanings with ever bigger and stronger government until the government has it all and can then create utopia.

Unfortunately, in no instance EVER has a government that achieved that kind of power ever voluntarily given it up.

Theyu never do. Remember? The Income tax was supposed to be temporary as are alot of laws crafted by Government unless it was met as saveliberty noted was met by force.

 

[Bfgrn]

By no possible amount of stretching does Social Security fit the definition of the term "insurance." It's a Ponzi scheme where the new "investors" provide the cash to make good on the promises to the original "investors."



Those payments are spent the minute they are recieved. In a true insurance program, premiums are invested in instruments that can produce a return. The people who pay the SS "premiums" are being defrauded.

Exactly!

Tell the government that though!!!

It LOVES spending all that money it's suppose to be banking.

Wonder how much of it is tied up in the military budget right now?

Not as much as there would be because our Fearless Leader has been raiding the defense budget to offset some of his other schemes. He doesn't have any intention of paying down the debt or even reducing the deficit obviously, but we would probably be amazed at where he is directing various departments to send our money.

But then he doesn't see it as our money does he? He made that perfectly clear with his "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" line. He sees it all as one big pool of money with him annointed our king charged to distribute and spend it. And still his adorers and worshippers reject any notion that his doctrine has strong Marxist leanings with ever bigger and stronger government until the government has it all and can then create utopia.

Unfortunately, in no instance EVER has a government that achieved that kind of power ever voluntarily given it up.

Of course, we can't cut the spending of taxpayers money used to kill and maim men, women and children to save people lives. That would not be 'Christian'.

Obama put the cost of the wars IN the budget, something Bush was too timid or dishonest to do.

Under Obama government outlays are rising at the slowest pace since 1950s. Obama has put a freeze on government salaries and pay.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is how the laws Democrats passed will affect the debt, and what will happen to the debt if Republicans are able to repeal the Affordable Health care Act and repeal the ending of the Bush tax cuts.

Here is the 'rub'...We are on The Extended-Baseline Scenario trajectory Obama and the Democrats put us on. If Congress does nothing the Extended-Baseline Scenario is already in place.

IF the Bush tax cuts don't expire and the AHA is not fully implemented or repealed the The Alternative Fiscal Scenario is the trajectory Teapublicans will take us if they gain enough power.

the CBO lays it out perfectly clear...CRYSTAL.

Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBO’s Long-Term Budget Scenarios
(Percentage of gross domestic product)

The chart shows 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican scenario.


The Extended-Baseline Scenario adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.

The Alternative Fiscal Scenario
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicare’s payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.

 

[bripat9643]

That's because all the debt was run up by 3 Republican presidents. GOP presidents are responsible for GOP interest payments.

Every spending bill originates in the House, which has been controlled by Democrats for 40 of the last 50 years. Democrats in congress are responsible for almost every dime of Deficit spending. 3/4 of all the money was spent on Social Programs created by Democrats.

The idea that Republicans are responsible for the deficit is too absurd for words.

All you have to do is show these POWERLESS Republican presidents vetoing the spending bills and Congress passing them over the veto and you would have a case. Until that time it remains the GOP National Debt.

Nope. It takes a 2/3 vote to override a presidential veto. That means a substantial number of Democrats would have to support it, and we know that you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Democrats who support spending cuts.

No matter how much turds like you lie and obfuscate, the Democrats own almost all the deficit spending.

 

[bripat9643]

Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBO’s Long-Term Budget Scenarios
(Percentage of gross domestic product)

The chart shows 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican scenario.


The Extended-Baseline Scenario adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.

The Alternative Fiscal Scenario
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicare’s payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.

You have just admitted that Democrats plan to take an every larger percentage of our gross pay with taxation. Notice that one assuption neither scenareo makes is that spending on any program will be cut back.

Now we know who the big spenders are.

 

[Pho_King]

Social Security is not a 'Ponzi scheme', it is an insurance program.

By no possible amount of stretching does Social Security fit the definition of the term "insurance." It's a Ponzi scheme where the new "investors" provide the cash to make good on the promises to the original "investors."

And people who get checks from the government DO give the government premium payments with every paycheck they get during their working years.

Those payments are spent the minute they are recieved. In a true insurance program, premiums are invested in instruments that can produce a return. The people who pay the SS "premiums" are being defrauded.

Social Security is a social insurance program. It fits every criteria of an insurance program.

A Ponzi scheme is a short-term criminal enterprise. Social Security is a rock-solid social insurance program that protects millions of Americans.

Social Security is insurance. Contributors don’t want to get rich quick; they want coverage when they retire and die, and in case they become disabled. Like other insurance, benefits are paid from premiums and returns on trust funds. By law, Social Security inflows and outflows are always balanced with adjustments to benefits and contributions. Social Security has never missed paying a monthly benefit in 71 years.

The only thing that could transform Social Security into a Ponzi scheme would be a scoundrel president and Congress ending the system.

The only thing that keeps social security from being a true ponzi is the ability of government to confiscate cash from the citizenry to cover the inevitable losses. Why doesn't fiscal viability ever into lefty heads?

 

[bripat9643]

The only thing that keeps social security from being a true ponzi is the ability of government to confiscate cash from the citizenry to cover the inevitable losses. Why doesn't fiscal viability ever into lefty heads?

If a private "insurance plan" was run the way Social Security is run, all the executives would be in prison for fraud.

 

[flacaltenn]

Social Security is not a 'Ponzi scheme', it is an insurance program.

By no possible amount of stretching does Social Security fit the definition of the term "insurance." It's a Ponzi scheme where the new "investors" provide the cash to make good on the promises to the original "investors."

And people who get checks from the government DO give the government premium payments with every paycheck they get during their working years.

Those payments are spent the minute they are recieved. In a true insurance program, premiums are invested in instruments that can produce a return. The people who pay the SS "premiums" are being defrauded.

Social Security is a social insurance program. It fits every criteria of an insurance program.

A Ponzi scheme is a short-term criminal enterprise. Social Security is a rock-solid social insurance program that protects millions of Americans.

Social Security is insurance. Contributors don’t want to get rich quick; they want coverage when they retire and die, and in case they become disabled. Like other insurance, benefits are paid from premiums and returns on trust funds. By law, Social Security inflows and outflows are always balanced with adjustments to benefits and contributions. Social Security has never missed paying a monthly benefit in 71 years.

The only thing that could transform Social Security into a Ponzi scheme would be a scoundrel president and Congress ending the system.

Oh -- you mean like -----???

I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

— President Obama, July 12, 2011

Both an admission that by BFgrn's standards --- he IS a scoundrel AND that there are no funds of ANY VALUE in the Trust Fund. New debt -- which adds to the debt ceiling must be added to pay current recipients today -- because OBAMA is stealing the FICA premiums to look like Robin Hood handing out $20 bills.. A photo-op completely devoid of economic impact, but DEVASTING to a SS Program hitting crisis 10 years early..

Good move to call him a scoundrel..