Discussion:
"Alan Greenspan says economy will start to fade ‘very dramatically’ because of entitlement burden"
(too old to reply)
David Hartung
2019-04-12 16:24:11 UTC
Permalink
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html

This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
M. A. G. A.
2019-04-12 16:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
He always says that and is always wrong
e***@post.com
2019-04-12 16:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
Military vets are loaded with all sorts of entitlements that they don't think twice about rejecting. Have you rejected any of your vet entitlements, hypocrite? And what about Medicare? You started collecting on that yet? If not, you think you intend to or will you pay full price out of pocket yourself? Social Security is around the corner for you, if not already there. Collecting on that entitlement? Fuck, you're the quintessential hypocrite.
Josh Rosenbluth
2019-04-12 17:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
Yes, the economy would be better if we just let seniors wallow in
poverty. Or perhaps, GDP isn't everything.
j***@gmail.com
2019-04-12 18:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
Yes, the economy would be better if we just let seniors wallow in
poverty. Or perhaps, GDP isn't everything.
.

It is not proper to renege on what was "promise"[1][2] to those in retirement, so what do you suggest we do to honor those benefits?

In about 14 or 15 short years (the mid 2030s), there will be only 2 worker-bees for every retiree. Think about that; two kids, who are 10 years old today, will in 15 short years be getting married, paying rent, saving to buy their first house, starting a family, trying to start a retirement savings of their own, trying to make ends meet, AND paying all of the retirement benefits and medical bills of *their very own* retiree.

end notes:
1. there never was a "promise", the Social Security Administration does not call the benefits "promised benefits", they call them "SCHEDULED benefits".
2. The government ALREADY reneged on the "promise" by delaying benefits to 67 rather than the "promised" age of 65.
Josh Rosenbluth
2019-04-12 19:09:41 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 1:25:56 PM UTC-4, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
Yes, the economy would be better if we just let seniors wallow in
poverty. Or perhaps, GDP isn't everything.
.
It is not proper to renege on what was "promise"[1][2] to those in
retirement, so what do you suggest we do to honor those benefits?
Raise payroll taxes after the Trust Fund is drawn down, perhaps combined
with some benefit cuts (e.g., increased retirement age for the well-to-do).
In about 14 or 15 short years (the mid 2030s), there will be only 2
worker-bees for every retiree. Think about that; two kids, who are
10 years old today, will in 15 short years be getting married, paying
rent, saving to buy their first house, starting a family, trying to
start a retirement savings of their own, trying to make ends meet,
AND paying all of the retirement benefits and medical bills of *their
very own* retiree.
end notes: 1. there never was a "promise", the Social Security
Administration does not call the benefits "promised benefits", they
call them "SCHEDULED benefits". 2. The government ALREADY reneged on
the "promise" by delaying benefits to 67 rather than the "promised"
age of 65.
j***@gmail.com
2019-04-12 19:26:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
Yes, the economy would be better if we just let seniors wallow in
poverty. Or perhaps, GDP isn't everything.
.
It is not proper to renege on what was "promise"[1][2] to those in
retirement, so what do you suggest we do to honor those benefits?
Raise payroll taxes after the Trust Fund is drawn down, perhaps combined
.

I am sure that that will have to happen. And THAT is what Greenspan is warning us about ... the drain of SS on the economy. BTW: Those payroll taxes will be paid by those two kids who are 10 years old today.
Post by David Hartung
with some benefit cuts (e.g., increased retirement age for the well-to-do).
.

As I said, "It is not proper to renege on what was promised". That is reneging on "promised" benefits.

As I said, we have already reneged by raising the "promised" age from 65 to 67.
ADDITIONALLY, we have already reneged on the "well-to-do" by taking away a portion of the "promised" benefits through taxation[1].

citations:
1. The well-to-do have to payback a portion of "promises" benefits through an income tax on 85% of their SS benefits.
Post by David Hartung
Post by j***@gmail.com
In about 14 or 15 short years (the mid 2030s), there will be only 2
worker-bees for every retiree. Think about that; two kids, who are
10 years old today, will in 15 short years be getting married, paying
rent, saving to buy their first house, starting a family, trying to
start a retirement savings of their own, trying to make ends meet,
AND paying all of the retirement benefits and medical bills of *their
very own* retiree.
end notes: 1. there never was a "promise", the Social Security
Administration does not call the benefits "promised benefits", they
call them "SCHEDULED benefits". 2. The government ALREADY reneged on
the "promise" by delaying benefits to 67 rather than the "promised"
age of 65.
Josh Rosenbluth
2019-04-12 19:32:19 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 3:09:44 PM UTC-4, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
this lies with both major parties, and with the American
people themselves.
Yes, the economy would be better if we just let seniors wallow
in poverty. Or perhaps, GDP isn't everything.
.
It is not proper to renege on what was "promise"[1][2] to those
in retirement, so what do you suggest we do to honor those
benefits?
Raise payroll taxes after the Trust Fund is drawn down, perhaps combined
.
I am sure that that will have to happen. And THAT is what Greenspan
is warning us about ... the drain of SS on the economy. BTW: Those
payroll taxes will be paid by those two kids who are 10 years old
today.
As I said, I agree with Greenspan that it will be a drain on the economy
if we don't seniors wallow in poverty.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
with some benefit cuts (e.g., increased retirement age for the well-to-do).
As I said, "It is not proper to renege on what was promised". That
is reneging on "promised" benefits.
OK. So, whats your plan?
j***@gmail.com
2019-04-12 19:50:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
this lies with both major parties, and with the American
people themselves.
Yes, the economy would be better if we just let seniors wallow
in poverty. Or perhaps, GDP isn't everything.
.
It is not proper to renege on what was "promise"[1][2] to those
in retirement, so what do you suggest we do to honor those
benefits?
Raise payroll taxes after the Trust Fund is drawn down, perhaps combined
.
I am sure that that will have to happen. And THAT is what Greenspan
is warning us about ... the drain of SS on the economy. BTW: Those
payroll taxes will be paid by those two kids who are 10 years old
today.
As I said, I agree with Greenspan that it will be a drain on the economy
if we don't seniors wallow in poverty.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
with some benefit cuts (e.g., increased retirement age for the well-to-do).
As I said, "It is not proper to renege on what was promised". That
is reneging on "promised" benefits.
OK. So, whats your plan?
.

I don't have one... the younger generation is doomed.
Josh Rosenbluth
2019-04-12 21:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
this lies with both major parties, and with the American
people themselves.
Yes, the economy would be better if we just let seniors wallow
in poverty. Or perhaps, GDP isn't everything.
.
It is not proper to renege on what was "promise"[1][2] to those
in retirement, so what do you suggest we do to honor those
benefits?
Raise payroll taxes after the Trust Fund is drawn down, perhaps combined
.
I am sure that that will have to happen. And THAT is what Greenspan
is warning us about ... the drain of SS on the economy. BTW: Those
payroll taxes will be paid by those two kids who are 10 years old
today.
As I said, I agree with Greenspan that it will be a drain on the economy
if we don't seniors wallow in poverty.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
with some benefit cuts (e.g., increased retirement age for the well-to-do).
As I said, "It is not proper to renege on what was promised". That
is reneging on "promised" benefits.
OK. So, whats your plan?
.
I don't have one... the younger generation is doomed.
I have no sympathy for those who complain about SS solutions, but offer
no alternatives.
j***@gmail.com
2019-04-13 12:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
Yes, the economy would be better if we just let seniors wallow
in poverty. Or perhaps, GDP isn't everything.
.
It is not proper to renege on what was "promise"[1][2] to those
in retirement, so what do you suggest we do to honor those
benefits?
Raise payroll taxes after the Trust Fund is drawn down, perhaps combined
.
I am sure that that will have to happen. And THAT is what Greenspan
is warning us about ... the drain of SS on the economy. BTW: Those
payroll taxes will be paid by those two kids who are 10 years old
today.
As I said, I agree with Greenspan that it will be a drain on the economy
if we don't seniors wallow in poverty.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
with some benefit cuts (e.g., increased retirement age for the well-to-do).
As I said, "It is not proper to renege on what was promised". That
is reneging on "promised" benefits.
OK. So, whats your plan?
.
I don't have one... the younger generation is doomed.
I have no sympathy for those who complain about SS solutions, but offer
no alternatives.
.

I have a solution: The government run insurance program should be REQUIRED to follow the exact same rules that the government imposes on private sector insurance programs. That means that there is a CONTRACT and PROMISED obligations, not "scheduled benefits".

That means that there can not be any changes to the rules once a participant starts paying into the insurance program; if a participant entered the program prior to 1983, then that participant is entitled to full benefits at age 65 ... NOT 65 1/2, or 66, or 67.

This means that the *government* is going to have to change. It might mean that it stops being the world's police; it might mean that it pulls military bases out of foreign countries; it might be that it stops being a charity organization that FORCES participation by tax payers. Salvation Army, Red Cross and ALL OTHER charities figure out how to operate on *charitable* giving; the federal government will need to do the same.

In 2035 (or thereabouts) there will be only two worker-bees supporting each retiree; to meet the "promised" needs of the Social Security Insurance program, the government needs to change back to be an agency that does nothing but governing.
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-13 14:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
this lies with both major parties, and with the American
people themselves.
Yes, the economy would be better if we just let seniors wallow
in poverty. Or perhaps, GDP isn't everything.
.
It is not proper to renege on what was "promise"[1][2] to those
in retirement, so what do you suggest we do to honor those
benefits?
Raise payroll taxes after the Trust Fund is drawn down, perhaps combined
.
I am sure that that will have to happen. And THAT is what Greenspan
is warning us about ... the drain of SS on the economy. BTW: Those
payroll taxes will be paid by those two kids who are 10 years old
today.
As I said, I agree with Greenspan that it will be a drain on the economy
if we don't seniors wallow in poverty.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
with some benefit cuts (e.g., increased retirement age for the well-to-do).
As I said, "It is not proper to renege on what was promised". That
is reneging on "promised" benefits.
OK. So, whats your plan?
.
I don't have one... the younger generation is doomed.
I have no sympathy for those who complain about SS solutions, but offer
no alternatives.
.
I have a solution: The government run insurance program should be REQUIRED to follow the exact same rules that the government imposes on private sector insurance programs. That means that there is a CONTRACT and PROMISED obligations, not "scheduled benefits".
What? You mean there are no scheduled benefits to private insurance? The actuaries sure will appreciate that development.
Post by j***@gmail.com
That means that there can not be any changes to the rules once a participant starts paying into the insurance program; if a participant entered the program prior to 1983, then that participant is entitled to full benefits at age 65 ... NOT 65 1/2, or 66, or 67.
That's impossible, dumbass. The reason the Social Security age has to be raised in the 1980s was because of the hyperinflation of the 1970s, which no one could have ever predicted before then. you can't sign an insurance contract in 2019 that will take effect in 2065 and know exactly how much you will have to pay out in 2065. NO ONE can do that.
Post by j***@gmail.com
This means that the *government* is going to have to change. It might mean that it stops being the world's police; it might mean that it pulls military bases out of foreign countries; it might be that it stops being a charity organization that FORCES participation by tax payers. Salvation Army, Red Cross and ALL OTHER charities figure out how to operate on *charitable* giving; the federal government will need to do the same.
In 2035 (or thereabouts) there will be only two worker-bees supporting each retiree; to meet the "promised" needs of the Social Security Insurance program, the government needs to change back to be an agency that does nothing but governing.
Not gonna happen.

Like it or not, you live in a democratic system, which means the government does what a majority want it to do. And most people in this country like that the government does more than "just govern," whatever the fuck that means.
David Hartung
2019-04-13 14:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
this lies with both major parties, and with the American
people themselves.
Yes, the economy would be better if we just let seniors wallow
in poverty. Or perhaps, GDP isn't everything.
.
It is not proper to renege on what was "promise"[1][2] to those
in retirement, so what do you suggest we do to honor those
benefits?
Raise payroll taxes after the Trust Fund is drawn down, perhaps combined
.
I am sure that that will have to happen. And THAT is what Greenspan
is warning us about ... the drain of SS on the economy. BTW: Those
payroll taxes will be paid by those two kids who are 10 years old
today.
As I said, I agree with Greenspan that it will be a drain on the economy
if we don't seniors wallow in poverty.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
with some benefit cuts (e.g., increased retirement age for the well-to-do).
As I said, "It is not proper to renege on what was promised". That
is reneging on "promised" benefits.
OK. So, whats your plan?
.
I don't have one... the younger generation is doomed.
I have no sympathy for those who complain about SS solutions, but offer
no alternatives.
.
I have a solution: The government run insurance program should be REQUIRED to follow the exact same rules that the government imposes on private sector insurance programs. That means that there is a CONTRACT and PROMISED obligations, not "scheduled benefits".
What? You mean there are no scheduled benefits to private insurance? The actuaries sure will appreciate that development.
Post by j***@gmail.com
That means that there can not be any changes to the rules once a participant starts paying into the insurance program; if a participant entered the program prior to 1983, then that participant is entitled to full benefits at age 65 ... NOT 65 1/2, or 66, or 67.
That's impossible, dumbass. The reason the Social Security age has to be raised in the 1980s was because of the hyperinflation of the 1970s, which no one could have ever predicted before then. you can't sign an insurance contract in 2019 that will take effect in 2065 and know exactly how much you will have to pay out in 2065. NO ONE can do that.
Post by j***@gmail.com
This means that the *government* is going to have to change. It might mean that it stops being the world's police; it might mean that it pulls military bases out of foreign countries; it might be that it stops being a charity organization that FORCES participation by tax payers. Salvation Army, Red Cross and ALL OTHER charities figure out how to operate on *charitable* giving; the federal government will need to do the same.
In 2035 (or thereabouts) there will be only two worker-bees supporting each retiree; to meet the "promised" needs of the Social Security Insurance program, the government needs to change back to be an agency that does nothing but governing.
Not gonna happen.
Like it or not, you live in a democratic system, which means the government does what a majority want it to do. And most people in this country like that the government does more than "just govern," whatever the fuck that means.
Which is actually a very good example of what is wrong with democracy.
Rudy Canoza
2019-04-13 17:20:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
this lies with both major parties, and with the American
people themselves.
Yes, the economy would be better if we just let seniors wallow
in poverty.  Or perhaps, GDP isn't everything.
.
It is not proper to renege on what was "promise"[1][2] to those
in retirement, so what do you suggest we do to honor those
benefits?
Raise payroll taxes after the Trust Fund is drawn down, perhaps combined
.
I am sure that that will have to happen.  And THAT is what Greenspan
is warning us about ... the drain of SS on the economy.  BTW: Those
payroll taxes will be paid by those two kids who are 10 years old
today.
As I said, I agree with Greenspan that it will be a drain on the economy
if we don't seniors wallow in poverty.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
with some benefit cuts (e.g., increased retirement age for the well-to-do).
As I said, "It is not proper to renege on what was promised".  That
is reneging on "promised" benefits.
OK.  So, whats your plan?
.
I don't have one... the younger generation is doomed.
I have no sympathy for those who complain about SS solutions, but offer
no alternatives.
.
I have a solution: The government run insurance program should be
REQUIRED to follow the exact same rules that the government imposes on
private sector insurance programs.  That means that there is a CONTRACT
and PROMISED obligations, not "scheduled benefits".
What? You mean there are no scheduled benefits to private insurance? The
actuaries sure will appreciate that development.
Post by j***@gmail.com
That means that there can not be any changes to the rules once a
participant starts paying into the insurance program; if a participant
entered the program prior to 1983, then that participant is entitled to
full benefits at age 65 ... NOT 65 1/2, or 66, or 67.
That's impossible, dumbass. The reason the Social Security age has to be
raised in the 1980s was because of the hyperinflation of the 1970s, which
no one could have ever predicted before then. you can't sign an insurance
contract in 2019 that will take effect in 2065 and know exactly how much
you will have to pay out in 2065. NO ONE can do that.
Post by j***@gmail.com
This means that the *government* is going to have to change.  It might
mean that it stops being the world's police; it might mean that it pulls
military bases out of foreign countries; it might be that it stops being
a charity organization that FORCES participation by tax payers.
Salvation Army, Red Cross and ALL OTHER charities figure out how to
operate on *charitable* giving; the federal government will need to do
the same.
In 2035 (or thereabouts) there will be only two worker-bees supporting
each retiree; to meet the "promised" needs of the Social Security
Insurance program, the government needs to change back to be an agency
that does nothing but governing.
Not gonna happen.
Like it or not, you live in a democratic system, which means the
government does what a majority want it to do. And most people in this
country like that the government does more than "just govern," whatever
the fuck that means.
Which is actually a very good example of what is wrong with democracy.
No.
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-13 20:10:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
this lies with both major parties, and with the American
people themselves.
Yes, the economy would be better if we just let seniors wallow
in poverty. Or perhaps, GDP isn't everything.
.
It is not proper to renege on what was "promise"[1][2] to those
in retirement, so what do you suggest we do to honor those
benefits?
Raise payroll taxes after the Trust Fund is drawn down, perhaps combined
.
I am sure that that will have to happen. And THAT is what Greenspan
is warning us about ... the drain of SS on the economy. BTW: Those
payroll taxes will be paid by those two kids who are 10 years old
today.
As I said, I agree with Greenspan that it will be a drain on the economy
if we don't seniors wallow in poverty.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
with some benefit cuts (e.g., increased retirement age for the well-to-do).
As I said, "It is not proper to renege on what was promised". That
is reneging on "promised" benefits.
OK. So, whats your plan?
.
I don't have one... the younger generation is doomed.
I have no sympathy for those who complain about SS solutions, but offer
no alternatives.
.
I have a solution: The government run insurance program should be REQUIRED to follow the exact same rules that the government imposes on private sector insurance programs. That means that there is a CONTRACT and PROMISED obligations, not "scheduled benefits".
What? You mean there are no scheduled benefits to private insurance? The actuaries sure will appreciate that development.
Post by j***@gmail.com
That means that there can not be any changes to the rules once a participant starts paying into the insurance program; if a participant entered the program prior to 1983, then that participant is entitled to full benefits at age 65 ... NOT 65 1/2, or 66, or 67.
That's impossible, dumbass. The reason the Social Security age has to be raised in the 1980s was because of the hyperinflation of the 1970s, which no one could have ever predicted before then. you can't sign an insurance contract in 2019 that will take effect in 2065 and know exactly how much you will have to pay out in 2065. NO ONE can do that.
Post by j***@gmail.com
This means that the *government* is going to have to change. It might mean that it stops being the world's police; it might mean that it pulls military bases out of foreign countries; it might be that it stops being a charity organization that FORCES participation by tax payers. Salvation Army, Red Cross and ALL OTHER charities figure out how to operate on *charitable* giving; the federal government will need to do the same.
In 2035 (or thereabouts) there will be only two worker-bees supporting each retiree; to meet the "promised" needs of the Social Security Insurance program, the government needs to change back to be an agency that does nothing but governing.
Not gonna happen.
Like it or not, you live in a democratic system, which means the government does what a majority want it to do. And most people in this country like that the government does more than "just govern," whatever the fuck that means.
Which is actually a very good example of what is wrong with democracy.
Well, you're not a big fan of freedom, anyway. Your political positions have alwaysa had more in common with the old Soviet system than anything having to do with the USA, anyway.
Steve is offline now
2019-04-13 21:14:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
this lies with both major parties, and with the American
people themselves.
Yes, the economy would be better if we just let seniors wallow
in poverty. Or perhaps, GDP isn't everything.
.
It is not proper to renege on what was "promise"[1][2] to those
in retirement, so what do you suggest we do to honor those
benefits?
Raise payroll taxes after the Trust Fund is drawn down, perhaps combined
.
I am sure that that will have to happen. And THAT is what Greenspan
is warning us about ... the drain of SS on the economy. BTW: Those
payroll taxes will be paid by those two kids who are 10 years old
today.
As I said, I agree with Greenspan that it will be a drain on the economy
if we don't seniors wallow in poverty.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
with some benefit cuts (e.g., increased retirement age for the
well-to-do).
As I said, "It is not proper to renege on what was promised". That
is reneging on "promised" benefits.
OK. So, whats your plan?
.
I don't have one... the younger generation is doomed.
I have no sympathy for those who complain about SS solutions, but offer
no alternatives.
.
I have a solution: The government run insurance program should be REQUIRED to follow the exact same rules that the government imposes on private sector insurance programs. That means that there is a CONTRACT and PROMISED obligations, not "scheduled benefits".
What? You mean there are no scheduled benefits to private insurance? The actuaries sure will appreciate that development.
Post by j***@gmail.com
That means that there can not be any changes to the rules once a participant starts paying into the insurance program; if a participant entered the program prior to 1983, then that participant is entitled to full benefits at age 65 ... NOT 65 1/2, or 66, or 67.
That's impossible, dumbass. The reason the Social Security age has to be raised in the 1980s was because of the hyperinflation of the 1970s, which no one could have ever predicted before then. you can't sign an insurance contract in 2019 that will take effect in 2065 and know exactly how much you will have to pay out in 2065. NO ONE can do that.
Post by j***@gmail.com
This means that the *government* is going to have to change. It might mean that it stops being the world's police; it might mean that it pulls military bases out of foreign countries; it might be that it stops being a charity organization that FORCES participation by tax payers. Salvation Army, Red Cross and ALL OTHER charities figure out how to operate on *charitable* giving; the federal government will need to do the same.
In 2035 (or thereabouts) there will be only two worker-bees supporting each retiree; to meet the "promised" needs of the Social Security Insurance program, the government needs to change back to be an agency that does nothing but governing.
Not gonna happen.
Like it or not, you live in a democratic system, which means the government does what a majority want it to do. And most people in this country like that the government does more than "just govern," whatever the fuck that means.
Which is actually a very good example of what is wrong with democracy.
Well, you're not a big fan of freedom, anyway. Your political positions have alwaysa had more in common with the old Soviet system than anything having to do with the USA, anyway.
Actual socialism requires ownership by "THE PEOPLE," not necessarily "the government." The people could certainly place the administration of socialism in the hands of the government, but it could also be placed in private hands, just as easily.

-Milt Shook
, equating Capitalist characteristics with Socialism.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/1IvBLxggZ_M/gA1ZMDoDAwAJ
Mitchell Holman
2019-04-14 02:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-w
ill-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burde
n.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
this lies with both major parties, and with the American
people themselves.
Yes, the economy would be better if we just let seniors
wallow in poverty. Or perhaps, GDP isn't everything.
.
It is not proper to renege on what was "promise"[1][2] to
those in retirement, so what do you suggest we do to honor
those benefits?
Raise payroll taxes after the Trust Fund is drawn down, perhaps combined
.
I am sure that that will have to happen. And THAT is what
Greenspan is warning us about ... the drain of SS on the
economy. BTW: Those payroll taxes will be paid by those two
kids who are 10 years old today.
As I said, I agree with Greenspan that it will be a drain on the
economy if we don't seniors wallow in poverty.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
with some benefit cuts (e.g., increased retirement age for the well-to-do).
As I said, "It is not proper to renege on what was promised".
That is reneging on "promised" benefits.
OK. So, whats your plan?
.
I don't have one... the younger generation is doomed.
I have no sympathy for those who complain about SS solutions, but
offer no alternatives.
.
I have a solution: The government run insurance program should be
REQUIRED to follow the exact same rules that the government imposes
on private sector insurance programs. That means that there is a
CONTRACT and PROMISED obligations, not "scheduled benefits".
What? You mean there are no scheduled benefits to private insurance?
The actuaries sure will appreciate that development.
Post by j***@gmail.com
That means that there can not be any changes to the rules once a
participant starts paying into the insurance program; if a
participant entered the program prior to 1983, then that participant
is entitled to full benefits at age 65 ... NOT 65 1/2, or 66, or 67.
That's impossible, dumbass. The reason the Social Security age has to
be raised in the 1980s was because of the hyperinflation of the
1970s, which no one could have ever predicted before then. you can't
sign an insurance contract in 2019 that will take effect in 2065 and
know exactly how much you will have to pay out in 2065. NO ONE can do
that.
Post by j***@gmail.com
This means that the *government* is going to have to change. It
might mean that it stops being the world's police; it might mean
that it pulls military bases out of foreign countries; it might be
that it stops being a charity organization that FORCES participation
by tax payers. Salvation Army, Red Cross and ALL OTHER charities
figure out how to operate on *charitable* giving; the federal
government will need to do the same.
In 2035 (or thereabouts) there will be only two worker-bees
supporting each retiree; to meet the "promised" needs of the Social
Security Insurance program, the government needs to change back to
be an agency that does nothing but governing.
Not gonna happen.
Like it or not, you live in a democratic system, which means the
government does what a majority want it to do. And most people in
this country like that the government does more than "just govern,"
whatever the fuck that means.
Which is actually a very good example of what is wrong with democracy.
What is your preferred system?
Steve is offline now
2019-04-13 16:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Like it or not, you live in a democratic system, which means the government does what a majority want it to do. And most people in this country like that the government does more than "just govern," whatever the fuck that means.
Shook never did understand government issues. The USA is a
Constitutional Republic which means there are rules that even a
majority must follow...
Siri Cruise
2019-04-13 19:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve is offline now
Post by m***@gmail.com
Like it or not, you live in a democratic system, which means the government
does what a majority want it to do. And most people in this country like
that the government does more than "just govern," whatever the fuck that
means.
Shook never did understand government issues. The USA is a
Constitutional Republic which means there are rules that even a
majority must follow...
More accurately the US makes some rules very difficult change, but they can
still be changed. It's possible to legalise slavery (or sharia or total gun ban
or ...), but very very improbable.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Josh Rosenbluth
2019-04-13 15:23:56 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:20:45 PM UTC-4, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I have no sympathy for those who complain about SS solutions, but
offer no alternatives.
.
I have a solution: The government run insurance program should be
REQUIRED to follow the exact same rules that the government imposes
on private sector insurance programs. That means that there is a
CONTRACT and PROMISED obligations, not "scheduled benefits".
That means that there can not be any changes to the rules once a
participant starts paying into the insurance program; if a
participant entered the program prior to 1983, then that participant
is entitled to full benefits at age 65 ... NOT 65 1/2, or 66, or 67.
This means that the *government* is going to have to change. It
might mean that it stops being the world's police; it might mean that
it pulls military bases out of foreign countries; it might be that it
stops being a charity organization that FORCES participation by tax
payers. Salvation Army, Red Cross and ALL OTHER charities figure out
how to operate on *charitable* giving; the federal government will
need to do the same.
In 2035 (or thereabouts) there will be only two worker-bees
supporting each retiree; to meet the "promised" needs of the Social
Security Insurance program, the government needs to change back to be
an agency that does nothing but governing.
I don't have the numbers for 2035, but I'm guessing your plan would
result in almost all federal spending being on retirees.
e***@post.com
2019-04-12 19:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
Yes, the economy would be better if we just let seniors wallow in
poverty. Or perhaps, GDP isn't everything.
.
It is not proper to renege on what was "promise"[1][2] to those in retirement, so what do you suggest we do to honor those benefits?
In about 14 or 15 short years (the mid 2030s), there will be only 2 worker-bees for every retiree. Think about that; two kids, who are 10 years old today, will in 15 short years be getting married, paying rent, saving to buy their first house, starting a family, trying to start a retirement savings of their own, trying to make ends meet, AND paying all of the retirement benefits and medical bills of *their very own* retiree.
Not unless you import MORE immigrants and scrap fat Tubby's insane tax cuts to the rich and corporations that don't need them. Fuck, you're insistently stupid.
Post by j***@gmail.com
1. there never was a "promise", the Social Security Administration does not call the benefits "promised benefits", they call them "SCHEDULED benefits".
2. The government ALREADY reneged on the "promise" by delaying benefits to 67 rather than the "promised" age of 65.
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-12 18:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.

There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for weapons systems we don't need and will never use.

The blame is not with BOTH major parties. it's ONE. they need to go away.
David Hartung
2019-04-12 18:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
Mitchell Holman
2019-04-12 18:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-star
t-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame
for this lies with both major parties, and with the American people
themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create
massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for
weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
"Massive deficits" only happened when Bush
destroyed the budget SURPLUSES that Clinton
created.



Bush 41


Federal deficit in 1989 = 152 Billion
Federal deficit in 1990 = 221 Billion
Federal deficit in 1991 = 269 Billion
Federal deficit in 1992 = 290 Billion


Clinton


Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)


Bush 43

Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion
Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion
Federal deficit in 2007 = 177 Billion
Federal deficit in 2008 = 407 Billion



http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
j***@gmail.com
2019-04-12 19:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-star
t-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame
for this lies with both major parties, and with the American people
themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create
massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for
weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
"Massive deficits" only happened when Bush
destroyed the budget SURPLUSES that Clinton
created.
Bush 41
Federal deficit in 1989 = 152 Billion
Federal deficit in 1990 = 221 Billion
Federal deficit in 1991 = 269 Billion
Federal deficit in 1992 = 290 Billion
Clinton
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)
Bush 43
Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion
Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion
Federal deficit in 2007 = 177 Billion
Federal deficit in 2008 = 407 Billion
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
You cherry picked your years. Greenspan "fixed" the Trust Fund in 1983. Since then, every president usurped money from the fund.[1]

IRRESPECTIVE of WHO ususrped the money, the Trust Fund IS BEING PAID BACK ... And the money owed to the Trust Fund will be ZERO... AND the Trust Fund will be EMPTY in 2034



Citations:
1.


https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

Numbers are in Billions.
Year, Deficit, Debt Increase (by FY), Deficit /GDP

1984 $185 $195 4.5% Increased defense spending
1985 $212 $256 4.8% Increased defense spending
1986 $221 $297 4.8% Tax cut
1987 $150 $225 3.1% Market crash
1988 $155 $252 2.9% Fed raised rates
1989 $153 $255 2.7% S&L Crisis. Bush 41 budget.
1990 $221 $376 3.7% Desert Storm
1991 $269 $432 4.3% Recession
1992 $290 $399 4.4% Expansion
1993 $255 $347 3.7% Clinton signed Budget Act
1994 $203 $281 2.8% Clinton budget
1995 $164 $281 2.1% Expansion
1996 $107 $251 1.3% Welfare reform
1997 $22 $188 0.3% Expansion
1998 ($69) $113 (0.8%) LTCM crisis. Recession.
1999 ($126) $130 (1.3%) Glass-Steagall repealed
2000 ($236) $18 (2.3%) Surplus
2001 ($128) $133 (1.2%) 9/11 attacks / EGTRRA
2002 $158 $421 1.4% War on Terror
2003 $378 $555 3.3% JGTRRA
2004 $413 $596 3.4% Iraq War
2005 $318 $554 2.4% Katrina / Bankruptcy Act
2006 $248 $574 1.8% Bernanke chairs Fed
2007 $161 $501 1.1% Bank crisis
2008 $459 $1,017 3.1% Bank bailout / QE
2009 $1,413 $1,632 9.8% Stimulus Act. Bank bailout cost $250 b. ARRA added $241.9 b.
2010 $1,294 $1,905 8.6% Obama tax cuts / ACA / Simpson-Bowles
2011 $1,300 $1,229 8.3% Debt crisis. Recession and tax cuts reduced revenue.
2012 $1,087 $1,276 6.7% Fiscal cliff
2013 $679 $672 4.0% Sequester / Government shutdown
2014 $485 $1,086 2.7% Debt ceiling
2015 $438 $327 2.4% Defense = $736.4 b
2016 $585 $1,423 3.1% Defense = $767.6 b
2017 $665 $672 3.4% Defense = $817.9 b
2018 (est) $779 $1,217 4.0% Defense = $890.8 b. Trump tax cuts.
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-12 22:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-star
t-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame
for this lies with both major parties, and with the American people
themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create
massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for
weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
"Massive deficits" only happened when Bush
destroyed the budget SURPLUSES that Clinton
created.
Bush 41
Federal deficit in 1989 = 152 Billion
Federal deficit in 1990 = 221 Billion
Federal deficit in 1991 = 269 Billion
Federal deficit in 1992 = 290 Billion
Clinton
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)
Bush 43
Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion
Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion
Federal deficit in 2007 = 177 Billion
Federal deficit in 2008 = 407 Billion
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
You cherry picked your years. Greenspan "fixed" the Trust Fund in 1983. Since then, every president usurped money from the fund.[1]
IRRESPECTIVE of WHO ususrped the money, the Trust Fund IS BEING PAID BACK ... And the money owed to the Trust Fund will be ZERO... AND the Trust Fund will be EMPTY in 2034
1.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306
Numbers are in Billions.
Year, Deficit, Debt Increase (by FY), Deficit /GDP
1984 $185 $195 4.5% Increased defense spending
1985 $212 $256 4.8% Increased defense spending
1986 $221 $297 4.8% Tax cut
1987 $150 $225 3.1% Market crash
1988 $155 $252 2.9% Fed raised rates
1989 $153 $255 2.7% S&L Crisis. Bush 41 budget.
1990 $221 $376 3.7% Desert Storm
1991 $269 $432 4.3% Recession
1992 $290 $399 4.4% Expansion
1993 $255 $347 3.7% Clinton signed Budget Act
1994 $203 $281 2.8% Clinton budget
1995 $164 $281 2.1% Expansion
1996 $107 $251 1.3% Welfare reform
1997 $22 $188 0.3% Expansion
1998 ($69) $113 (0.8%) LTCM crisis. Recession.
1999 ($126) $130 (1.3%) Glass-Steagall repealed
2000 ($236) $18 (2.3%) Surplus
2001 ($128) $133 (1.2%) 9/11 attacks / EGTRRA
2002 $158 $421 1.4% War on Terror
2003 $378 $555 3.3% JGTRRA
2004 $413 $596 3.4% Iraq War
2005 $318 $554 2.4% Katrina / Bankruptcy Act
2006 $248 $574 1.8% Bernanke chairs Fed
2007 $161 $501 1.1% Bank crisis
2008 $459 $1,017 3.1% Bank bailout / QE
2009 $1,413 $1,632 9.8% Stimulus Act. Bank bailout cost $250 b. ARRA added $241.9 b.
2010 $1,294 $1,905 8.6% Obama tax cuts / ACA / Simpson-Bowles
2011 $1,300 $1,229 8.3% Debt crisis. Recession and tax cuts reduced revenue.
2012 $1,087 $1,276 6.7% Fiscal cliff
2013 $679 $672 4.0% Sequester / Government shutdown
2014 $485 $1,086 2.7% Debt ceiling
2015 $438 $327 2.4% Defense = $736.4 b
2016 $585 $1,423 3.1% Defense = $767.6 b
2017 $665 $672 3.4% Defense = $817.9 b
2018 (est) $779 $1,217 4.0% Defense = $890.8 b. Trump tax cuts.
Cherry-picked? In the last 24 years, Democrats have controlled the House for SIX and they have controlled the House AND Senate for TWO.
David Hartung
2019-04-12 22:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-star
t-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame
for this lies with both major parties, and with the American people
themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create
massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for
weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
"Massive deficits" only happened when Bush
destroyed the budget SURPLUSES that Clinton
created.
Bush 41
Federal deficit in 1989 = 152 Billion
Federal deficit in 1990 = 221 Billion
Federal deficit in 1991 = 269 Billion
Federal deficit in 1992 = 290 Billion
Clinton
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)
Bush 43
Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion
Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion
Federal deficit in 2007 = 177 Billion
Federal deficit in 2008 = 407 Billion
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
You cherry picked your years. Greenspan "fixed" the Trust Fund in 1983. Since then, every president usurped money from the fund.[1]
IRRESPECTIVE of WHO ususrped the money, the Trust Fund IS BEING PAID BACK ... And the money owed to the Trust Fund will be ZERO... AND the Trust Fund will be EMPTY in 2034
1.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306
Numbers are in Billions.
Year, Deficit, Debt Increase (by FY), Deficit /GDP
1984 $185 $195 4.5% Increased defense spending
1985 $212 $256 4.8% Increased defense spending
1986 $221 $297 4.8% Tax cut
1987 $150 $225 3.1% Market crash
1988 $155 $252 2.9% Fed raised rates
1989 $153 $255 2.7% S&L Crisis. Bush 41 budget.
1990 $221 $376 3.7% Desert Storm
1991 $269 $432 4.3% Recession
1992 $290 $399 4.4% Expansion
1993 $255 $347 3.7% Clinton signed Budget Act
1994 $203 $281 2.8% Clinton budget
1995 $164 $281 2.1% Expansion
1996 $107 $251 1.3% Welfare reform
1997 $22 $188 0.3% Expansion
1998 ($69) $113 (0.8%) LTCM crisis. Recession.
1999 ($126) $130 (1.3%) Glass-Steagall repealed
2000 ($236) $18 (2.3%) Surplus
2001 ($128) $133 (1.2%) 9/11 attacks / EGTRRA
2002 $158 $421 1.4% War on Terror
2003 $378 $555 3.3% JGTRRA
2004 $413 $596 3.4% Iraq War
2005 $318 $554 2.4% Katrina / Bankruptcy Act
2006 $248 $574 1.8% Bernanke chairs Fed
2007 $161 $501 1.1% Bank crisis
2008 $459 $1,017 3.1% Bank bailout / QE
2009 $1,413 $1,632 9.8% Stimulus Act. Bank bailout cost $250 b. ARRA added $241.9 b.
2010 $1,294 $1,905 8.6% Obama tax cuts / ACA / Simpson-Bowles
2011 $1,300 $1,229 8.3% Debt crisis. Recession and tax cuts reduced revenue.
2012 $1,087 $1,276 6.7% Fiscal cliff
2013 $679 $672 4.0% Sequester / Government shutdown
2014 $485 $1,086 2.7% Debt ceiling
2015 $438 $327 2.4% Defense = $736.4 b
2016 $585 $1,423 3.1% Defense = $767.6 b
2017 $665 $672 3.4% Defense = $817.9 b
2018 (est) $779 $1,217 4.0% Defense = $890.8 b. Trump tax cuts.
Cherry-picked? In the last 24 years, Democrats have controlled the House for SIX and they have controlled the House AND Senate for TWO.
You believe that this problem began in 1994?
Steve is offline now
2019-04-12 23:17:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-star
t-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame
for this lies with both major parties, and with the American people
themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create
massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for
weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
"Massive deficits" only happened when Bush
destroyed the budget SURPLUSES that Clinton
created.
Bush 41
Federal deficit in 1989 = 152 Billion
Federal deficit in 1990 = 221 Billion
Federal deficit in 1991 = 269 Billion
Federal deficit in 1992 = 290 Billion
Clinton
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)
Bush 43
Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion
Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion
Federal deficit in 2007 = 177 Billion
Federal deficit in 2008 = 407 Billion
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
You cherry picked your years. Greenspan "fixed" the Trust Fund in 1983. Since then, every president usurped money from the fund.[1]
IRRESPECTIVE of WHO ususrped the money, the Trust Fund IS BEING PAID BACK ... And the money owed to the Trust Fund will be ZERO... AND the Trust Fund will be EMPTY in 2034
1.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306
Numbers are in Billions.
Year, Deficit, Debt Increase (by FY), Deficit /GDP
1984 $185 $195 4.5% Increased defense spending
1985 $212 $256 4.8% Increased defense spending
1986 $221 $297 4.8% Tax cut
1987 $150 $225 3.1% Market crash
1988 $155 $252 2.9% Fed raised rates
1989 $153 $255 2.7% S&L Crisis. Bush 41 budget.
1990 $221 $376 3.7% Desert Storm
1991 $269 $432 4.3% Recession
1992 $290 $399 4.4% Expansion
1993 $255 $347 3.7% Clinton signed Budget Act
1994 $203 $281 2.8% Clinton budget
1995 $164 $281 2.1% Expansion
1996 $107 $251 1.3% Welfare reform
1997 $22 $188 0.3% Expansion
1998 ($69) $113 (0.8%) LTCM crisis. Recession.
1999 ($126) $130 (1.3%) Glass-Steagall repealed
2000 ($236) $18 (2.3%) Surplus
2001 ($128) $133 (1.2%) 9/11 attacks / EGTRRA
2002 $158 $421 1.4% War on Terror
2003 $378 $555 3.3% JGTRRA
2004 $413 $596 3.4% Iraq War
2005 $318 $554 2.4% Katrina / Bankruptcy Act
2006 $248 $574 1.8% Bernanke chairs Fed
2007 $161 $501 1.1% Bank crisis
2008 $459 $1,017 3.1% Bank bailout / QE
2009 $1,413 $1,632 9.8% Stimulus Act. Bank bailout cost $250 b. ARRA added $241.9 b.
2010 $1,294 $1,905 8.6% Obama tax cuts / ACA / Simpson-Bowles
2011 $1,300 $1,229 8.3% Debt crisis. Recession and tax cuts reduced revenue.
2012 $1,087 $1,276 6.7% Fiscal cliff
2013 $679 $672 4.0% Sequester / Government shutdown
2014 $485 $1,086 2.7% Debt ceiling
2015 $438 $327 2.4% Defense = $736.4 b
2016 $585 $1,423 3.1% Defense = $767.6 b
2017 $665 $672 3.4% Defense = $817.9 b
2018 (est) $779 $1,217 4.0% Defense = $890.8 b. Trump tax cuts.
Cherry-picked? In the last 24 years, Democrats have controlled the House for SIX and they have controlled the House AND Senate for TWO.
"There are actually a number of factors that would have an effect on
how fast I would have to pedal, you simpering moron. Among them how
big the chainring and the flywheel were and the tension between them,
the types of tires I was using and how fast they were already going at
the time I decided to accelerate.

"
Milt Shook on how fast must he must pedal in his top gear to go 62 MPH
...<LOL> and he'd just claimed to know enough to build his own bicycle

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/ra3puCOTZ7o/8plu5pSCzF0J
Mitchell Holman
2019-04-13 02:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-s
tar t-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The
blame for this lies with both major parties, and with the
American people themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create
massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for
weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
"Massive deficits" only happened when Bush
destroyed the budget SURPLUSES that Clinton
created.
Bush 41
Federal deficit in 1989 = 152 Billion
Federal deficit in 1990 = 221 Billion
Federal deficit in 1991 = 269 Billion
Federal deficit in 1992 = 290 Billion
Clinton
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)
Bush 43
Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion
Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion
Federal deficit in 2007 = 177 Billion
Federal deficit in 2008 = 407 Billion
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
You cherry picked your years.
1989 - 2008 = 23 years. I can add
more if you like, the result will be
the same.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Greenspan "fixed" the Trust Fund in
1983. Since then, every president usurped money from the fund.[1]
Only one president submitted yearly
budget bills that reduced the deficit
EIGHT YEARS IN A ROW. And regardless of
which party controlled Congress.
Post by j***@gmail.com
IRRESPECTIVE of WHO ususrped the money, the Trust Fund IS BEING PAID
BACK ... And the money owed to the Trust Fund will be ZERO... AND the
Trust Fund will be EMPTY in 2034
1.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306
Numbers are in Billions.
Year, Deficit, Debt Increase (by FY), Deficit /GDP
1984 $185 $195 4.5% Increased defense spending
1985 $212 $256 4.8% Increased defense spending
1986 $221 $297 4.8% Tax cut
1987 $150 $225 3.1% Market crash
1988 $155 $252 2.9% Fed raised rates
1989 $153 $255 2.7% S&L Crisis. Bush 41 budget.
1990 $221 $376 3.7% Desert Storm
1991 $269 $432 4.3% Recession
1992 $290 $399 4.4% Expansion
1993 $255 $347 3.7% Clinton signed Budget Act
1994 $203 $281 2.8% Clinton budget
1995 $164 $281 2.1% Expansion
1996 $107 $251 1.3% Welfare reform
1997 $22 $188 0.3% Expansion
1998 ($69) $113 (0.8%) LTCM crisis. Recession.
1999 ($126) $130 (1.3%) Glass-Steagall repealed
2000 ($236) $18 (2.3%) Surplus
2001 ($128) $133 (1.2%) 9/11 attacks / EGTRRA
2002 $158 $421 1.4% War on Terror
2003 $378 $555 3.3% JGTRRA
2004 $413 $596 3.4% Iraq War
2005 $318 $554 2.4% Katrina / Bankruptcy Act
2006 $248 $574 1.8% Bernanke chairs Fed
2007 $161 $501 1.1% Bank crisis
2008 $459 $1,017 3.1% Bank bailout / QE
2009 $1,413 $1,632 9.8% Stimulus Act. Bank bailout
cost $250 b. ARRA added $241.9 b. 2010 $1,294 $1,905
8.6% Obama tax cuts / ACA / Simpson-Bowles 2011 $1,300
$1,229 8.3% Debt crisis. Recession and tax cuts reduced
revenue. 2012 $1,087 $1,276 6.7% Fiscal cliff
2013 $679 $672 4.0% Sequester / Government shutdown
2014 $485 $1,086 2.7% Debt ceiling
2015 $438 $327 2.4% Defense = $736.4 b
2016 $585 $1,423 3.1% Defense = $767.6 b
2017 $665 $672 3.4% Defense = $817.9 b
2018 (est) $779 $1,217 4.0% Defense = $890.8 b.
Trump tax cuts.
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-12 19:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-star
t-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame
for this lies with both major parties, and with the American people
themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create
massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for
weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
"Massive deficits" only happened when Bush
destroyed the budget SURPLUSES that Clinton
created.
Bush 41
Federal deficit in 1989 = 152 Billion
Federal deficit in 1990 = 221 Billion
Federal deficit in 1991 = 269 Billion
Federal deficit in 1992 = 290 Billion
Clinton
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)
Bush 43
Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion
Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion
Federal deficit in 2007 = 177 Billion
Federal deficit in 2008 = 407 Billion
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
I'm really getting sick of the whole "both parties" thing. The GOP is absolutely irresponsible. The only two presidents who have overseen deficit reduction have been Clinton and Obama, and they continue to sell "trickle down," even though it's proven not to work.
j***@gmail.com
2019-04-12 19:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-star
t-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame
for this lies with both major parties, and with the American people
themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create
massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for
weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
"Massive deficits" only happened when Bush
destroyed the budget SURPLUSES that Clinton
created.
Bush 41
Federal deficit in 1989 = 152 Billion
Federal deficit in 1990 = 221 Billion
Federal deficit in 1991 = 269 Billion
Federal deficit in 1992 = 290 Billion
Clinton
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)
Bush 43
Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion
Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion
Federal deficit in 2007 = 177 Billion
Federal deficit in 2008 = 407 Billion
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
I'm really getting sick of the whole "both parties" thing. The GOP is absolutely irresponsible.
.

I never said otherwise.

The Republicans spent like crazy until 2007 when the democrats took control. THEN the democrats won congress and rather than reduce spending, they took the republican level of spending as a new baseline upon which to EXPAND for 2008 ... $459 billion.

BTW: who was in charge of the House from 1983 to 1995???
Post by m***@gmail.com
The only two presidents who have overseen deficit reduction have been Clinton and Obama,
... NOW you are switching horses and saying that the deficit reduction is due to the PRESIDENT, not the republican house. WHO was in control of the House when we had a surplus???

BOTH parties are at fault for the spending of the Trust Fund.
David Hartung
2019-04-12 19:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-star
t-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame
for this lies with both major parties, and with the American people
themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create
massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for
weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
"Massive deficits" only happened when Bush
destroyed the budget SURPLUSES that Clinton
created.
Bush 41
Federal deficit in 1989 = 152 Billion
Federal deficit in 1990 = 221 Billion
Federal deficit in 1991 = 269 Billion
Federal deficit in 1992 = 290 Billion
Clinton
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)
Bush 43
Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion
Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion
Federal deficit in 2007 = 177 Billion
Federal deficit in 2008 = 407 Billion
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
I'm really getting sick of the whole "both parties" thing. The GOP is absolutely irresponsible.
.
I never said otherwise.
The Republicans spent like crazy until 2007 when the democrats took control. THEN the democrats won congress and rather than reduce spending, they took the republican level of spending as a new baseline upon which to EXPAND for 2008 ... $459 billion.
BTW: who was in charge of the House from 1983 to 1995???
Reminder to Milt, all spending bills must originate in the House.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
The only two presidents who have overseen deficit reduction have been Clinton and Obama,
... NOW you are switching horses and saying that the deficit reduction is due to the PRESIDENT, not the republican house. WHO was in control of the House when we had a surplus???
BOTH parties are at fault for the spending of the Trust Fund.
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-12 22:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-star
t-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame
for this lies with both major parties, and with the American people
themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create
massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for
weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
"Massive deficits" only happened when Bush
destroyed the budget SURPLUSES that Clinton
created.
Bush 41
Federal deficit in 1989 = 152 Billion
Federal deficit in 1990 = 221 Billion
Federal deficit in 1991 = 269 Billion
Federal deficit in 1992 = 290 Billion
Clinton
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)
Bush 43
Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion
Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion
Federal deficit in 2007 = 177 Billion
Federal deficit in 2008 = 407 Billion
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
I'm really getting sick of the whole "both parties" thing. The GOP is absolutely irresponsible.
.
I never said otherwise.
The Republicans spent like crazy until 2007 when the democrats took control. THEN the democrats won congress and rather than reduce spending, they took the republican level of spending as a new baseline upon which to EXPAND for 2008 ... $459 billion.
BTW: who was in charge of the House from 1983 to 1995???
Reminder to Milt, all spending bills must originate in the House.
Since 1995, Democrats have controlled the House for six years and for four of those six years, the GOP controlled the Senate. The House can't turn a spending bill into law, genius.
Post by David Hartung
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
The only two presidents who have overseen deficit reduction have been Clinton and Obama,
... NOW you are switching horses and saying that the deficit reduction is due to the PRESIDENT, not the republican house. WHO was in control of the House when we had a surplus???
BOTH parties are at fault for the spending of the Trust Fund.
David Hartung
2019-04-12 22:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-star
t-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame
for this lies with both major parties, and with the American people
themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create
massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for
weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
"Massive deficits" only happened when Bush
destroyed the budget SURPLUSES that Clinton
created.
Bush 41
Federal deficit in 1989 = 152 Billion
Federal deficit in 1990 = 221 Billion
Federal deficit in 1991 = 269 Billion
Federal deficit in 1992 = 290 Billion
Clinton
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)
Bush 43
Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion
Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion
Federal deficit in 2007 = 177 Billion
Federal deficit in 2008 = 407 Billion
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
I'm really getting sick of the whole "both parties" thing. The GOP is absolutely irresponsible.
.
I never said otherwise.
The Republicans spent like crazy until 2007 when the democrats took control. THEN the democrats won congress and rather than reduce spending, they took the republican level of spending as a new baseline upon which to EXPAND for 2008 ... $459 billion.
BTW: who was in charge of the House from 1983 to 1995???
Reminder to Milt, all spending bills must originate in the House.
Since 1995, Democrats have controlled the House for six years and for four of those six years, the GOP controlled the Senate. The House can't turn a spending bill into law, genius.
Do you actually believe that this problem began in 1994?
Josh Rosenbluth
2019-04-12 19:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-star
t-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
This entitlement crisis has been building through years.
The blame for this lies with both major parties, and with
the American people themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans
create massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds
to pay for weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
"Massive deficits" only happened when Bush destroyed the budget
SURPLUSES that Clinton created.
Bush 41
Federal deficit in 1989 = 152 Billion Federal deficit in 1990 =
221 Billion Federal deficit in 1991 = 269 Billion Federal deficit
in 1992 = 290 Billion
Clinton
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion Federal deficit in 1994 =
259 Billion Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion Federal deficit
in 1996 = 174 Billion Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion Federal deficit in 1999 = 0
(1.9 billion SURPLUS) Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion
SURPLUS)
Bush 43
Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion Federal deficit in 2002 =
154 Billion Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion Federal deficit
in 2004 = 412 Billion Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion Federal deficit in 2007 =
177 Billion Federal deficit in 2008 = 407 Billion
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
I'm really getting sick of the whole "both parties" thing. The GOP
is absolutely irresponsible.
.
I never said otherwise.
The Republicans spent like crazy until 2007 when the democrats took
control. THEN the democrats won congress and rather than reduce
spending, they took the republican level of spending as a new
baseline upon which to EXPAND for 2008 ... $459 billion.
BTW: who was in charge of the House from 1983 to 1995???
Post by m***@gmail.com
The only two presidents who have overseen deficit reduction have been Clinton and Obama,
... NOW you are switching horses and saying that the deficit
reduction is due to the PRESIDENT, not the republican house. WHO was
in control of the House when we had a surplus???
BOTH parties are at fault for the spending of the Trust Fund.
Both parties spend. But the Democrats are more likely to tax while
Republicans are more likely to borrow. Only the latter spends the Trust
Fund.
j***@gmail.com
2019-04-12 19:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-star
t-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
This entitlement crisis has been building through years.
The blame for this lies with both major parties, and with
the American people themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans
create massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds
to pay for weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
"Massive deficits" only happened when Bush destroyed the budget
SURPLUSES that Clinton created.
Bush 41
Federal deficit in 1989 = 152 Billion Federal deficit in 1990 =
221 Billion Federal deficit in 1991 = 269 Billion Federal deficit
in 1992 = 290 Billion
Clinton
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion Federal deficit in 1994 =
259 Billion Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion Federal deficit
in 1996 = 174 Billion Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion Federal deficit in 1999 = 0
(1.9 billion SURPLUS) Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion
SURPLUS)
Bush 43
Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion Federal deficit in 2002 =
154 Billion Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion Federal deficit
in 2004 = 412 Billion Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion Federal deficit in 2007 =
177 Billion Federal deficit in 2008 = 407 Billion
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
I'm really getting sick of the whole "both parties" thing. The GOP
is absolutely irresponsible.
.
I never said otherwise.
The Republicans spent like crazy until 2007 when the democrats took
control. THEN the democrats won congress and rather than reduce
spending, they took the republican level of spending as a new
baseline upon which to EXPAND for 2008 ... $459 billion.
BTW: who was in charge of the House from 1983 to 1995???
Post by m***@gmail.com
The only two presidents who have overseen deficit reduction have
been Clinton and Obama,
... NOW you are switching horses and saying that the deficit
reduction is due to the PRESIDENT, not the republican house. WHO was
in control of the House when we had a surplus???
BOTH parties are at fault for the spending of the Trust Fund.
Both parties spend. But the Democrats are more likely to tax while
Republicans are more likely to borrow. Only the latter spends the Trust
Fund.
.

BOTH parties spend the Trust Fund.

"But the Democrats are more likely to tax..." Since they did not tax ENOUGH, they spent Trust Fund money and replaced it with Special Issue Bonds.

"Republicans are more likely to borrow. ..." Taking the money from the Trust Fund and replacing it with an IOU (Special Issue Bond), as BOTH parties did is called BORROWING.
Josh Rosenbluth
2019-04-12 21:20:58 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 3:34:20 PM UTC-4, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by j***@gmail.com
BOTH parties are at fault for the spending of the Trust Fund.
Both parties spend. But the Democrats are more likely to tax
while Republicans are more likely to borrow. Only the latter
spends the Trust Fund.
.
BOTH parties spend the Trust Fund.
"But the Democrats are more likely to tax..." Since they did not tax
ENOUGH, they spent Trust Fund money and replaced it with Special
Issue Bonds.
"Republicans are more likely to borrow. ..." Taking the money from
the Trust Fund and replacing it with an IOU (Special Issue Bond), as
BOTH parties did is called BORROWING.
It's true the Democrats didn't tax enough to cover spending. But, their
taxation covered more spending than the Republicans did. Thus, the
Democrats needed to borrow less SS money than the Republicans did.
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-12 22:49:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-star
t-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
This entitlement crisis has been building through years.
The blame for this lies with both major parties, and with
the American people themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans
create massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds
to pay for weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
"Massive deficits" only happened when Bush destroyed the budget
SURPLUSES that Clinton created.
Bush 41
Federal deficit in 1989 = 152 Billion Federal deficit in 1990 =
221 Billion Federal deficit in 1991 = 269 Billion Federal deficit
in 1992 = 290 Billion
Clinton
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion Federal deficit in 1994 =
259 Billion Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion Federal deficit
in 1996 = 174 Billion Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion Federal deficit in 1999 = 0
(1.9 billion SURPLUS) Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion
SURPLUS)
Bush 43
Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion Federal deficit in 2002 =
154 Billion Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion Federal deficit
in 2004 = 412 Billion Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion Federal deficit in 2007 =
177 Billion Federal deficit in 2008 = 407 Billion
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
I'm really getting sick of the whole "both parties" thing. The GOP
is absolutely irresponsible.
.
I never said otherwise.
The Republicans spent like crazy until 2007 when the democrats took
control. THEN the democrats won congress and rather than reduce
spending, they took the republican level of spending as a new
baseline upon which to EXPAND for 2008 ... $459 billion.
BTW: who was in charge of the House from 1983 to 1995???
Post by m***@gmail.com
The only two presidents who have overseen deficit reduction have
been Clinton and Obama,
... NOW you are switching horses and saying that the deficit
reduction is due to the PRESIDENT, not the republican house. WHO was
in control of the House when we had a surplus???
BOTH parties are at fault for the spending of the Trust Fund.
Both parties spend. But the Democrats are more likely to tax while
Republicans are more likely to borrow. Only the latter spends the Trust
Fund.
Jesus that's both simple-minded and stupid. In the last 40 years, Democrats have controlled the government for TWO two-year periods; 1993-1994 and 2009-2010. At neither time did taxes go any higher than they were under ReaganBush in the 1980s. So, I'm afraid you'll need some data to support the Democrats love of taxes. Most of the talk about Clinton's tax increases was bullshit. "largest tax increase in history" was a load of crap. And Obama and the Democrats didn't raise taxes on most people, even when they were implementing the ACA. The only people who saw a considerable increase were those with $450k or more in taxable income.

As for the "both parties spend" nonsense, well... in 36 of the past 40 years, Democrats haven't been in a position to push through any spending bills on their own. As David pointed out, spending bills originate in the House, but if the President and/or the Senate are in the hands of this version of the GOP, they will stay in the House and never become law. Since Republicans took over in 2011, they have passed ONE budget. ONE! for nine years, we have been running the government via continuing resolution. So, when you claim "both parties spend," you're LYING. "Both parties" haven't been in charge of the federal government; it's mostly been Republicans.

IOW, if you look at actual FACTS, when was all this Democratic Spending and Taxing supposed to have happened?
Josh Rosenbluth
2019-04-12 23:14:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 3:01:31 PM UTC-4,
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-7, Mitchell
Post by David Hartung
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 9:24:20 AM UTC-7, David
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-star
t-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by David Hartung
Post by David Hartung
This entitlement crisis has been building through
years. The blame for this lies with both major parties,
and with the American people themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem.
Republicans create massive deficits and Republicans raid
the Trust funds to pay for weapons systems we don't need
and will never use.
Prove it.
"Massive deficits" only happened when Bush destroyed the
budget SURPLUSES that Clinton created.
Bush 41
Federal deficit in 1989 = 152 Billion Federal deficit in 1990
= 221 Billion Federal deficit in 1991 = 269 Billion Federal
deficit in 1992 = 290 Billion
Clinton
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion Federal deficit in 1994
= 259 Billion Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion Federal
deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion Federal deficit in 1997 = 103
Billion Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion Federal deficit
in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS) Federal deficit in 2000 = 0
(86.3 billion SURPLUS)
Bush 43
Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion Federal deficit in 2002
= 154 Billion Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion Federal
deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion Federal deficit in 2005 = 318
Billion Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion Federal deficit
in 2007 = 177 Billion Federal deficit in 2008 = 407 Billion
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
I'm really getting sick of the whole "both parties" thing. The
GOP is absolutely irresponsible.
.
I never said otherwise.
The Republicans spent like crazy until 2007 when the democrats
took control. THEN the democrats won congress and rather than
reduce spending, they took the republican level of spending as a
new baseline upon which to EXPAND for 2008 ... $459 billion.
BTW: who was in charge of the House from 1983 to 1995???
The only two presidents who have overseen deficit reduction
have been Clinton and Obama,
... NOW you are switching horses and saying that the deficit
reduction is due to the PRESIDENT, not the republican house. WHO
was in control of the House when we had a surplus???
BOTH parties are at fault for the spending of the Trust Fund.
Both parties spend. But the Democrats are more likely to tax
while Republicans are more likely to borrow. Only the latter
spends the Trust Fund.
Jesus that's both simple-minded and stupid. In the last 40 years,
Democrats have controlled the government for TWO two-year periods;
1993-1994 and 2009-2010. At neither time did taxes go any higher than
they were under ReaganBush in the 1980s.
Clinton raised tax rates compared to where they were in 1987.
Post by m***@gmail.com
So, I'm afraid you'll need
some data to support the Democrats love of taxes. Most of the talk
about Clinton's tax increases was bullshit. "largest tax increase in
history" was a load of crap. And Obama and the Democrats didn't raise
taxes on most people, even when they were implementing the ACA. The
only people who saw a considerable increase were those with $450k or
more in taxable income.
Who the taxes come from doesn't matter to my argument.
Post by m***@gmail.com
As for the "both parties spend" nonsense, well... in 36 of the past
40 years, Democrats haven't been in a position to push through any
spending bills on their own.
Republicans haven't been in a position for 34 of the past 40 years.
We've had mostly divided government with ample spending.
David Hartung
2019-04-13 00:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-star
t-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
This entitlement crisis has been building through years.
The blame for this lies with both major parties, and with
the American people themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans
create massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds
to pay for weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
"Massive deficits" only happened when Bush destroyed the budget
SURPLUSES that Clinton created.
Bush 41
Federal deficit in 1989 = 152 Billion Federal deficit in 1990 =
221 Billion Federal deficit in 1991 = 269 Billion Federal deficit
in 1992 = 290 Billion
Clinton
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion Federal deficit in 1994 =
259 Billion Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion Federal deficit
in 1996 = 174 Billion Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion Federal deficit in 1999 = 0
(1.9 billion SURPLUS) Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion
SURPLUS)
Bush 43
Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion Federal deficit in 2002 =
154 Billion Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion Federal deficit
in 2004 = 412 Billion Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion Federal deficit in 2007 =
177 Billion Federal deficit in 2008 = 407 Billion
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
I'm really getting sick of the whole "both parties" thing. The GOP
is absolutely irresponsible.
.
I never said otherwise.
The Republicans spent like crazy until 2007 when the democrats took
control. THEN the democrats won congress and rather than reduce
spending, they took the republican level of spending as a new
baseline upon which to EXPAND for 2008 ... $459 billion.
BTW: who was in charge of the House from 1983 to 1995???
Post by m***@gmail.com
The only two presidents who have overseen deficit reduction have
been Clinton and Obama,
... NOW you are switching horses and saying that the deficit
reduction is due to the PRESIDENT, not the republican house. WHO was
in control of the House when we had a surplus???
BOTH parties are at fault for the spending of the Trust Fund.
Both parties spend. But the Democrats are more likely to tax while
Republicans are more likely to borrow. Only the latter spends the Trust
Fund.
Jesus that's both simple-minded and stupid. In the last 40 years, Democrats have controlled the government for TWO two-year periods;
The problem goes back much further than 40 years.
Steve is offline now
2019-04-12 22:07:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-star
t-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame
for this lies with both major parties, and with the American people
themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create
massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for
weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
"Massive deficits" only happened when Bush
destroyed the budget SURPLUSES that Clinton
created.
Bush 41
Federal deficit in 1989 = 152 Billion
Federal deficit in 1990 = 221 Billion
Federal deficit in 1991 = 269 Billion
Federal deficit in 1992 = 290 Billion
Clinton
Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)
Bush 43
Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion
Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion
Federal deficit in 2007 = 177 Billion
Federal deficit in 2008 = 407 Billion
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
I'm really getting sick of the whole "both parties" thing. The GOP is absolutely irresponsible. The only two presidents who have overseen deficit reduction have been Clinton and Obama, and they continue to sell "trickle down," even though it's proven not to work.
Trickle down doesn't work for welfare sows like you, Shook...


Oh my, where do I start documenting Milt Shook's Usenet network lies..

why don't you ask to see my speeding ticket, for going 62 in
a 35 mph zone -- on a bicycle.
Milt Shook
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&hl=en#!original/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/7G3oEpwqWSE/YmnH2zkmFeAJ

how about this one where Shook had been using a sock puppet
but by mistake, this time logged on to his regular account
and continued denying that he was Milt.

*******************************************************
From: ***@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 07:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Sep 26 2008 10:08 am
Subject: Re: #How Palin's Email Got Hacked
Post by m***@gmail.com
And you can keep calling me that, if it makes you feel better, but I'm
really not Milt. Sorry.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.clinton/msg/52c97faded35fa38?hl=en&

but in high school, I had a 3.85 (damned shop
teacher!)
--Milt Shook Jul 8 1997
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.dan-quayle/msg/a88e4b49ae106c97


And my GPA in high school was only NOT a 4.0, because
I sucked at geometry and trig and struggled to keep
a B. But it was a 3.9.
--Milt Shook Dec 10 2007,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/079c941d546859ac

Canyon note: Milt can't remember his earlier lie but his
schoolmates remember Milt as a "slow learner."




*******************************************************

Here's another lie...

*******************************************************

"And I have never been wrong in predicting an
election in my lifetime."
--Milt Shook Dec 23 2003
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0312230621.4eae5f2b%40posting.google.com


Whoops.. here's three incorrect predictions that
preceded that lie...


"But I will make this prediction. The Dems will win the WH next year."
--Milt Shook 1999/09/15
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7rpj0e%24j7j%241%40ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net


"Bush will lose because he can't win in the GOP at this point in time.
face it; he can only win as a moderate. But if he moderates enough
to win, about a third of Repubs will head elsewhere; either they
won't vote, or they'll vote for a third party. And if he plays to
the right wing, he loses the Dems."
--Milt Shook Aug 15 1999
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7p74a2%249p3%241%40birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net


"I also predict 320 or more electoral votes for Gore, as well..."
--Milt Shook Sep 10 2000
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=x4Vu5.1826%24%25p2.89198%40newsread03.prod.itd.earthlink.net






*******************************************************

Here's a funny lie, showing Shook's ignorance

*******************************************************
"I have checked e-mails from at eight other people who live around
here and use Comcast, and two of them sport the same IP as me"
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407141830.56a3a1e%40posting.google.com





*******************************************************

Here's a stupid lie.... since citigroup never got below 97 cents...

*******************************************************
"I bought 1200 shares of Citigroup at 92 cents
-Milt Shook March 10, 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/867141f8f801176e?hl=en

******************************************************






Another stupid lie

******************************************************
"I'm not "living off my 401(k). I took the money out of that, and put
it into a goddamn eTrade account, and even with the overall down
market, I've gained about 15% per month since."
Milt Shook Oct 21, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cc7c58abf8a45ea2?hl=en

******************************************************






...and my all time favorite Shook lie...

******************************************************


Milt Shook is too stupid to find out what a Congressional
page does before claiming to have been one....

"I was a Senate Page for two years when I went to HS in Maryl
NoBody
2019-04-13 13:30:35 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:46:01 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-star
t-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame
for this lies with both major parties, and with the American people
themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create
massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for
weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
"Massive deficits" only happened when Bush
destroyed the budget SURPLUSES that Clinton
created.
Wait so Congress didn't create the surpluses (there never were any)
but the created the deficit? I love Mitchie's hypocrisy.
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-12 18:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
Okay...

https://socialsecurityworks.org/2018/04/12/politicians-steal-social-security/

https://www.quora.com/Has-the-U-S-Congress-really-borrowed-trillions-from-Social-Security-to-use-for-government-spending


This should be obvious, since only Republicans are running record deficits and see no problem with tripling the debt.
David Hartung
2019-04-12 19:13:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
Okay...
https://socialsecurityworks.org/2018/04/12/politicians-steal-social-security/
A statement by an advocacy group, and is obviously not objective.
Post by m***@gmail.com
https://www.quora.com/Has-the-U-S-Congress-really-borrowed-trillions-from-Social-Security-to-use-for-government-spending
Quora?
Mitchell Holman
2019-04-13 02:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-st
art-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame
for this lies with both major parties, and with the American
people themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create
massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for
weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
Okay...
https://socialsecurityworks.org/2018/04/12/politicians-steal-social-se
curity/
A statement by an advocacy group, and is obviously not objective.
Unlike YOUR posts from Lifenews, WND
and rushlimbaugh.com
Steve is offline now
2019-04-12 22:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
Okay...
https://socialsecurityworks.org/2018/04/12/politicians-steal-social-security/
https://www.quora.com/Has-the-U-S-Congress-really-borrowed-trillions-from-Social-Security-to-use-for-government-spending
This should be obvious, since only Republicans are running record deficits and see no problem with tripling the debt.
After Obama nearly ruined the US economy....
Rudy Canoza
2019-04-13 02:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
Okay...
https://socialsecurityworks.org/2018/04/12/politicians-steal-social-security/
This is bullshit. The site says:

Every pay period, starting with our first jobs, America’s workers
contribute to Social Security. The program uses those funds to pay all
benefits and related administrative costs. Social Security does not add
even a penny to the deficit, as Republican President Ronald Reagan so
clearly stated when he was president.

When Social Security runs a surplus, Social Security holds the funds in
trust. Social Security currently has a $2.9 trillion accumulated
surplus, which was intentionally built up over decades to cover the
retirement of the Baby Boom generation. In the guise of a so-called
balanced budget amendment, 233 members of the House of Representatives
just voted to pretend that the accumulated surplus does not exist.

The surplus *DOESN'T* exist. It has been "invested" [sic], by law, in
"special" Treasury bonds, and the treasury has *spent* every last dime of
it. The surplus is not cash sitting around in a vault, and it is not
actually invested in any productive assets that yield a return. The money
was spent on *consumption* by beneficiaries of "entitlement" programs.

The so-called surplus is a fraud, a hoax - it doesn't exist. When Social
Security needs to start drawing it back, the Treasury will be forced to
sell ordinary bills in order to get the money, or it will have to raise
taxes. Which do you think will happen? Here's a broad hint: more
government debt.
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-13 14:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
Okay...
https://socialsecurityworks.org/2018/04/12/politicians-steal-social-security/
This is bullshit.
NOT bullshit at all.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Every pay period, starting with our first jobs, America’s workers
contribute to Social Security. The program uses those funds to pay all
benefits and related administrative costs. Social Security does not add
even a penny to the deficit, as Republican President Ronald Reagan so
clearly stated when he was president.
When Social Security runs a surplus, Social Security holds the funds in
trust. Social Security currently has a $2.9 trillion accumulated
surplus, which was intentionally built up over decades to cover the
retirement of the Baby Boom generation. In the guise of a so-called
balanced budget amendment, 233 members of the House of Representatives
just voted to pretend that the accumulated surplus does not exist.
The surplus *DOESN'T* exist.
Yes, it does. It's a payroll tax and it is accounted for separate from the general fund. You seem to be under the impression that all money goes into the general fund and it's all treated the same, which is not true,
Post by Rudy Canoza
It has been "invested" [sic], by law, in
"special" Treasury bonds, and the treasury has *spent* every last dime of
it.
Not true. These special Treasury Bonds have value and interest is paid on them quarterly. They're just like the bonds we buy to finance the National Debt, except that the general public cannot buy them. Only the government can hold them and they have a relatively short redemption period, when compared to standard Treasuries. The only way they will not be redeemed is uif the government runs out of money, which we all know is impossible unless the Republican Party decides to do so on purpose.
Post by Rudy Canoza
The surplus is not cash sitting around in a vault, and it is not
actually invested in any productive assets that yield a return. The money
was spent on *consumption* by beneficiaries of "entitlement" programs.
No, it isn't. You need to read up on this, from womewhere other than your libertarian opinion pieces. You seem wildluy ignorant about how this bond process works.
Post by Rudy Canoza
The so-called surplus is a fraud, a hoax - it doesn't exist.
Yes, it does. The government can only borrow from it with a promise to pay it back within a short time, and they are legally required to redeem the bonds within 3-4 years. Like I said, the only way SS or MC can go broke is if the government runs out of money, which is unlikely, even with Republicans in charge. If you believe Social Security has no money, then you must believe DoD contractors go broke, as well. After all, as you well know, or should, anyway, at the time Congress appropriates money, that money has not been collected in taxes as yet. It's not like we all pay all of our taxes on October 1 of every Fiscal Year. Even businesses buy the goods they sell with money they won't have until people buy their goods, in most cases.
Post by Rudy Canoza
When Social
Security needs to start drawing it back, the Treasury will be forced to
sell ordinary bills in order to get the money, or it will have to raise
taxes. Which do you think will happen? Here's a broad hint: more
government debt.
Wow. I gave you too much credit. You have the same simple-minded image of how government finance works as all of the right wingnuts here does. Everything is absolute. We are running huge deficits right now because the beloved Republican Party is co0mpletely illogical with their supply-side bullshit. And yes, at some point, the government will have to raise taxes to erase the deficits and pay down the debt. However, the Social Security and Medicare trust funds are in surplus, and when they borrowed the money, they issued special bonds that are not owned by the general public; they are owned by the federal government and they are short-term bonds at a relatively robust interest rate, and the only way they won;t be redeemed is if the government runs out of money, which is impossible.

Wait; you don't believe the Republicans' claim that the United States is broke, right? With household wealth topping $100 trillion right now, that sure doesn't seem to be the case...
Steve is offline now
2019-04-13 16:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Wait; you don't believe the Republicans' claim that the United States is broke, right? With household wealth topping $100 trillion right now, that sure doesn't seem to be the case...
Remember that Milt Shook posting about world economics is like Bruce
Genner tallking about masculinity...

No, dipshit. [Giving a loan is] on the ledger as a liability.
That's why you put a lien on the goddamn house to securitize it.
The payments on the loan are assets, and a good loan can be
seen by others as an asset they're willing to pay for. But
when you initially loan someone money, the loaned money is a
DEBIT (liability). A mortgage is an asset, only because there's
a home attached to it, and in 98% of cases, you will continue
to get your money back, plus interest.

--Milt Shook 9/27/08
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!msg/alt.impeach.clinton/UfPR-nt7O8o/vOvdoiFcJqAJ
j***@gmail.com
2019-04-14 08:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Prove it.
Okay...
https://socialsecurityworks.org/2018/04/12/politicians-steal-social-security/
This is bullshit.
NOT bullshit at all.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Every pay period, starting with our first jobs, America’s workers
contribute to Social Security. The program uses those funds to pay all
benefits and related administrative costs. Social Security does not add
even a penny to the deficit, as Republican President Ronald Reagan so
clearly stated when he was president.
When Social Security runs a surplus, Social Security holds the funds in
trust. Social Security currently has a $2.9 trillion accumulated
surplus, which was intentionally built up over decades to cover the
retirement of the Baby Boom generation. In the guise of a so-called
balanced budget amendment, 233 members of the House of Representatives
just voted to pretend that the accumulated surplus does not exist.
The surplus *DOESN'T* exist.
Yes, it does. It's a payroll tax and it is accounted for separate from the general fund. You seem to be under the impression that all money goes into the general fund and it's all treated the same, which is not true,
Post by Rudy Canoza
It has been "invested" [sic], by law, in
"special" Treasury bonds, and the treasury has *spent* every last dime of
it.
Not true. These special Treasury Bonds have value and interest is paid on them quarterly. They're just like the bonds we buy to finance the National Debt, except that the general public cannot buy them. Only the government can hold them and they have a relatively short redemption period, when compared to standard Treasuries. The only way they will not be redeemed is uif the government runs out of money, which we all know is impossible unless the Republican Party decides to do so on purpose.
Post by Rudy Canoza
The surplus is not cash sitting around in a vault, and it is not
actually invested in any productive assets that yield a return. The money
was spent on *consumption* by beneficiaries of "entitlement" programs.
No, it isn't. You need to read up on this, from womewhere other than your libertarian opinion pieces. You seem wildluy ignorant about how this bond process works.
Post by Rudy Canoza
The so-called surplus is a fraud, a hoax - it doesn't exist.
Yes, it does. The government can only borrow from it with a promise to pay it back within a short time, and they are legally required to redeem the bonds within 3-4 years. Like I said, the only way SS or MC can go broke is if the government runs out of money, which is unlikely, even with Republicans in charge. If you believe Social Security has no money, then you must believe DoD contractors go broke, as well. After all, as you well know, or should, anyway, at the time Congress appropriates money, that money has not been collected in taxes as yet. It's not like we all pay all of our taxes on October 1 of every Fiscal Year. Even businesses buy the goods they sell with money they won't have until people buy their goods, in most cases.
Post by Rudy Canoza
When Social
Security needs to start drawing it back, the Treasury will be forced to
sell ordinary bills in order to get the money, or it will have to raise
taxes. Which do you think will happen? Here's a broad hint: more
government debt.
Wow. I gave you too much credit. You have the same simple-minded image of how government finance works as all of the right wingnuts here does. Everything is absolute. We are running huge deficits right now because the beloved Republican Party is co0mpletely illogical with their supply-side bullshit. And yes, at some point, the government will have to raise taxes to erase the deficits and pay down the debt. However, the Social Security and Medicare trust funds are in surplus, and when they borrowed the money, they issued special bonds that are not owned by the general public; they are owned by the federal government and they are short-term bonds at a relatively robust interest rate, and the only way they won;t be redeemed is if the government runs out of money, which is impossible.
.

SS has been running a deficit since 2010 and has been drawing upon the SS Trust Fund to supplement the collected FICA payments. The SS Surplus of $2.8 trillion will be DEPLETED in 2034. (Social Security Trustee Report)

After that, the FICA collections will be sufficient to pay ONLY 75% of scheduled benefits. (Social Security Trustee Report)

At about that same time, there will be only 2 worker bees for every retiree. Those two worker bees will have to be paying all of the benefits and medical expenses of their very own retiree.
Post by m***@gmail.com
Wait; you don't believe the Republicans' claim that the United States is broke, right? With household wealth topping $100 trillion right now, that sure doesn't seem to be the case...
j***@gmail.com
2019-04-12 18:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
The blame is not with BOTH major parties. it's ONE. they need to go away.
.

BOTH parties have raided the trust fund. HOWEVER, that is not the issue. The issue is that SSA FICA payments have been insufficient to pay benefits since 2010[1]. Since that time, the US Treasury has been paying back what has been usurped out of the Trust Fund[2]. In 2034, the money that has been raided will be completely paid back[3], the Trust Fund WILL BE EMPTY, and the collected FICA benefits will be`sufficient to pay ONLY 75% of scheduled benefits[4].

2034 is only 15 short years away (for the math challenged).

1. SSA Trustee Report
2. ibid
3. ibid
4. ibid
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-12 18:59:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
The blame is not with BOTH major parties. it's ONE. they need to go away.
.
BOTH parties have raided the trust fund. HOWEVER, that is not the issue. The issue is that SSA FICA payments have been insufficient to pay benefits since 2010[1]. Since that time, the US Treasury has been paying back what has been usurped out of the Trust Fund[2]. In 2034, the money that has been raided will be completely paid back[3], the Trust Fund WILL BE EMPTY, and the collected FICA benefits will be`sufficient to pay ONLY 75% of scheduled benefits[4].
2034 is only 15 short years away (for the math challenged).
1. SSA Trustee Report
2. ibid
3. ibid
4. ibid
BOTH PARTIES have done no such thing. Congress has been in the hands of the GOP almost exclusively since 1995, and Congress passes budgets and spends money. That's one party, not both. ONLY the GOP causes runaway deficits, NOT "both parties." Only the GOP starts trillion-dollar wars while also pushing through tax cuts that will leave the Treasury with less money. Only the GOP thinks "deficits don't matter."
Steve is offline now
2019-04-12 22:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
The blame is not with BOTH major parties. it's ONE. they need to go away.
.
BOTH parties have raided the trust fund. HOWEVER, that is not the issue. The issue is that SSA FICA payments have been insufficient to pay benefits since 2010[1]. Since that time, the US Treasury has been paying back what has been usurped out of the Trust Fund[2]. In 2034, the money that has been raided will be completely paid back[3], the Trust Fund WILL BE EMPTY, and the collected FICA benefits will be`sufficient to pay ONLY 75% of scheduled benefits[4].
2034 is only 15 short years away (for the math challenged).
1. SSA Trustee Report
2. ibid
3. ibid
4. ibid
BOTH PARTIES have done no such thing. Congress has been in the hands of the GOP almost exclusively since 1995, and Congress passes budgets and spends money. That's one party, not both. ONLY the GOP causes runaway deficits, NOT "both parties." Only the GOP starts trillion-dollar wars while also pushing through tax cuts that will leave the Treasury with less money. Only the GOP thinks "deficits don't matter."
Remember that Milt Shook posting about world economics is like Bruce
Genner tallking about masculinity...

No, dipshit. [Giving a loan is] on the ledger as a liability.
That's why you put a lien on the goddamn house to securitize it.
The payments on the loan are assets, and a good loan can be
seen by others as an asset they're willing to pay for. But
when you initially loan someone money, the loaned money is a
DEBIT (liability). A mortgage is an asset, only because there's
a home attached to it, and in 98% of cases, you will continue
to get your money back, plus interest.

--Milt Shook 9/27/08
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!msg/alt.impeach.clinton/UfPR-nt7O8o/vOvdoiFcJqAJ
Steve is offline now
2019-04-12 22:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
This entitlement crisis has been building through years. The blame for
this lies with both major parties, and with the American people themselves.
There is no entitlement crisis.
As if a welfare sow like Shook would know...
Post by m***@gmail.com
There is a Republican misappropriation problem. Republicans create massive deficits and Republicans raid the Trust funds to pay for weapons systems we don't need and will never use.
Milt feels safe and sound thinking that pencil-neck Schiff will
protect him.
Post by m***@gmail.com
The blame is not with BOTH major parties. it's ONE. they need to go away.
Not going to happen...
--

"As for me, I'm tired of this BS. I'm going to
finish writing my book."
--Milt Shook 1996/07/28
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.discrimination/msg/753a9d0c7acb5d57?dmode=source

"Keep an eye on your bookstore next Christmas, and my name
will pop out at you."
--Milt Shook 1997/12/06
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=348A1B90.51A97B99%40hearthlink.net

"You mean the one that I'm rewriting for publication right now? Or the
one that two publishing houses are interested in?"
--Milt Shook 1998/06/14
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=35831dc6.12233272%40news.earthlink.net

"Sory I have to leave, but I have a novel to finish. Look in your bookstore
this Christmas; hopefully, no later than march, if Xmas doesn't work out."
--Milt Shook 1998/08/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=35e34aca.5878878%40news.earthlink.net

"The working Title is "Talent on Loan, and it's about a fat janitor who
makes a deal with the devil and becomes a blithering talk show host.
The legal complications keep coming from you-know-who. I'm working
around them, however."
--Milt Shook 1999/08/03
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7o7erc%24v37%241%40nnrp1.deja.com

But make no mistake, Parker; two books with my name on them
will be out shortly.
--Milt Shook 2000-09-09
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=%25UDu5.266%24zC.11426%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net

"I am very close to publishing my first novel,"
--Milt Shook 2002-11-30
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Fq6cnX4oFuzowXSgXTWcqA%40comcast.com

"I'm rewriting that one for a major publisher as we speak."
--Milt Shook 2004-10-22
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=WpidnQe3YPTmA-TcRVn-vg%40comcast.com&oe=ISO-8859-1


Canyon: "Say, when is the new date for your book to be published?"
Milt Shook: June 14 2006 "If they can get the fucking cover right for a change, July 18."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e773f8f44066cd9e?hl=en&


Canyon: "So when are those two books with your name on them going to be out?"
Milt Shook: Aug 19 2006 "I just finished editing the galleys on the first one, so a matter of weeks for that one. The second one, I'm still writing..."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/5ff8772a0127832a?hl=en&


"Unbelievable, isn't it? I mean, the fact that I hope to finish a few
more novels, and I will also be working on a non-fiction book
beginning next year, is considered a "fantasy" by people"
--Milt Shook Mar 16, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b55584049dce6bf2
Siri Cruise
2019-04-12 20:57:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade
-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
Would you buy a used economy from this man?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
BeamMeUpScotty
2019-04-12 21:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade
-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
Would you buy a used economy from this man?
I told you this was the Obama scam when Obama was still in office, Obama
ran up the money borrowed even though he had to print that money to
borrow it..... and that created a huge problem for the future.

Obama was paying near ZERO interest rates, and as the rates actually get
moved back to normal the interest RATES will not just double but they'll
quadruple and more, and that's NOT just on the $10 TRILLION that Obama
borrowed that's also on the budget as interest payments.... So we have
$20 as of TRUMP being elected and rising interest rates. Now TRUMP is
trying to cut Government to also cut spending and deficits but Democrats
are obstructing this Presidency while they did the opposite for Obama
who was CREATING all that debt.

The people selling us an overpriced economy that's been driven like they
stole it, are the Democrats.... They created the entitlement burden.
--
*ADDENDUM*
The CORRUPT Progressive MARXIST ObamaRegime that FAKED
an FBI application to get a FISA WARRANT using a phony "dossier" to
undermine TRUMP's Executive Branch of Government and conspire to
undertake a Coup De`tat that organized the MEDIA and the SHADOW
GOVERNMENT hidden within the bureaucracy to release classified
information to damage TRUMP while Obama was also traveling abroad to
violate the Logan Act and John Kerry making deals with terrorist nations
while Democrats were demanding a Special Council and $25 million dollars
for an unlimited investigation into a FAKE charge of TRUMP/Russia
collusion.... is NOW telling everyone else on the LEFT that the problem
isn't Obama and his LIARS and criminals fault but the problem is all of
those (RANK and File Democrats) with their radicalized progressive
views, does that sum it up?

That's Karma
BeamMeUpScotty
2019-04-12 21:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by David Hartung
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan-greenspan-says-economy-will-start-to-fade
-out-because-of-growing-us-entitlement-burden.html
Would you buy a used economy from this man?
I told you this was the Obama scam when Obama was still in office, Obama
ran up the money borrowed even though he had to print that money to
borrow it..... and that created a huge problem for the future.

Obama was paying near ZERO interest rates, and as the rates actually get
moved back to normal the interest RATES will not just double but they'll
quadruple and more, and that's NOT just on the $10 TRILLION that Obama
borrowed that's also on the money that was already over budget and money
growing as interest payments.... So we have $20 TRILLION in debt as of
the end of Obama and the beginning of TRUMP being elected and now we
have rising interest rates. Now TRUMP is trying to cut Government to
also cut spending and deficits to cut the cost of the money Obama
printed and borrowed, but Democrats are obstructing this Presidency
while they did the opposite for Obama who was CREATING all that debt.

The people selling us an overpriced economy that's been driven like they
stole it, are the Democrats.... They created the entitlement burden with
borrowed money.
--
*ADDENDUM*
The CORRUPT Progressive MARXIST ObamaRegime that FAKED
an FBI application to get a FISA WARRANT using a phony "dossier" to
undermine TRUMP's Executive Branch of Government and conspire to
undertake a Coup De`tat that organized the MEDIA and the SHADOW
GOVERNMENT hidden within the bureaucracy to release classified
information to damage TRUMP while Obama was also traveling abroad to
violate the Logan Act and John Kerry making deals with terrorist nations
while Democrats were demanding a Special Council and $25 million dollars
for an unlimited investigation into a FAKE charge of TRUMP/Russia
collusion.... is NOW telling everyone else on the LEFT that the problem
isn't Obama and his LIARS and criminals fault but the problem is all of
those (RANK and File Democrats) with their radicalized progressive
views, does that sum it up?

That's Karma
jim <""@mwt.net>
2019-04-12 22:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Obama was paying near ZERO interest rates, and as the rates actually get
moved back to normal the interest RATES will not just double but they'll
quadruple and more,
There ya go folks. Now we know what is NOT going to
happen to interest rates.

Isn't it strange that the same people who insist interest
rates are going to spiral out of control also tell us that
interest rates are completely controlled by the govt
BeamMeUpScotty
2019-04-12 23:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <""@mwt.net>
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Obama was paying near ZERO interest rates, and as the rates actually get
moved back to normal the interest RATES will not just double but they'll
quadruple and more,
There ya go folks. Now we know what is NOT going to
happen to interest rates.
Isn't it strange that the same people who insist interest
rates are going to spiral out of control also tell us that
interest rates are completely controlled by the govt
I said they would go back to normal.... and yes they are government
controlled when Obama is trying to borrow money but there is none so the
Federal reserve/Congress prints the money. But at some point the amount
due on that loan will have to be paid unless the Congress and Obama or
Obama's next in line would be able to convince the Federal Reserve to
set the interest rates at near zero again.

Why didn't Maduro do as you suggest and print unlimited amounts of money
while forcing his currency interest rates to near zero? You say it
worked for Obama. I say Obama just made it worse.

Maduro who is as Socialist as Obama hasn't done so well, and he has
total control Maduro doesn't have anyone who can really oppose his rule
since the Socialists confiscated the guns and turned Venezuela into a
shithole.
--
*ADDENDUM*
The CORRUPT Progressive MARXIST ObamaRegime that FAKED
an FBI application to get a FISA WARRANT using a phony "dossier" to
undermine TRUMP's Executive Branch of Government and conspire to
undertake a Coup De`tat that organized the MEDIA and the SHADOW
GOVERNMENT hidden within the bureaucracy to release classified
information to damage TRUMP while Obama was also traveling abroad to
violate the Logan Act and John Kerry making deals with terrorist nations
while Democrats were demanding a Special Council and $25 million dollars
for an unlimited investigation into a FAKE charge of TRUMP/Russia
collusion.... is NOW telling everyone else on the LEFT that the problem
isn't Obama and his LIARS and criminals fault but the problem is all of
those (RANK and File Democrats) with their radicalized progressive
views, does that sum it up?

That's Karma
jim <""@mwt.net>
2019-04-12 23:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Post by jim <""@mwt.net>
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Obama was paying near ZERO interest rates, and as the rates actually get
moved back to normal the interest RATES will not just double but they'll
quadruple and more,
There ya go folks. Now we know what is NOT going to
happen to interest rates.
Isn't it strange that the same people who insist interest
rates are going to spiral out of control also tell us that
interest rates are completely controlled by the govt
I said they would go back to normal....
If rates quadrupled from where they are now that
would not be normal
Siri Cruise
2019-04-12 23:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <""@mwt.net>
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Obama was paying near ZERO interest rates, and as the rates actually get
moved back to normal the interest RATES will not just double but they'll
quadruple and more,
There ya go folks. Now we know what is NOT going to
happen to interest rates.
Isn't it strange that the same people who insist interest
rates are going to spiral out of control also tell us that
interest rates are completely controlled by the govt
FRB usually raises its interest rates during low unemployment. That throws
people out of work to scare commoners not to demand higher wages.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Loading...