The Republican Social Security Scam, in a Nutshell

[Chris Bellomy]

First, I quote Dave Johnson of seetheforest.blogspot.com:

Social Security runs a huge surplus, which is put into
government bonds. In the 2000 election Al Gore said this money
should be kept in a "lockbox," to pay back the bonds when
Social Security needs it. Instead Bush said this surplus was
"your money" and gave it out as tax cuts for the rich.

That tax cut WAS "your money" and it was supposed to be in
safe keeping until you needed it for your retirement. Instead
Bush and his cronies got their hands on it.

In 2018 Social Security stops running a surplus and needs that
money to pay YOU or your parents. Bush doesn't have it because
it went to tax cuts for the rich, and says that because of
this Social Security is "in crisis." So we need to cut
benefits, etc. But saying this 2018 problem is because of
Social Security is like blaming the bank when you don't have
enough to pay your mortgage payment this month, and insisting
that the bank lay off employees so they won't need your money.

I have another, more salient point about this. The Social
Security surplus was a result of higher payroll (FICA) taxes,
which are paid only up to a certain cap of income (roughly
$87k last I checked). If you make more than that cap per year
in salary, everything above the cap is tax free, FICA-wise.
Further, investment income is not subject to FICA at all.

Put another way, that surplus was paid for by average working
people, *not* by the wealthy. But who did Bush give the money
to with his tax cuts? Did he cut the FICA rate? Of course not.
He moved that money which had been paid by average folks
straight into the pockets of his rich donors.

The next time Republicans whine about the progressive income
tax, ask them why they never mention FICA, nor do they ever
propose any relief for those taxpayers. Nothing gets to the
heart of their scam more directly than this.

[HERB]

For the 40 years the Democrats were in control, they stole from SS Program
and gave to those who never put a dime in and lived off the public trough!
That's where the funds went!

Now you blame it on Republicans?

Post by Chris Bellomy
Social Security runs a huge surplus, which is put into
government bonds. In the 2000 election Al Gore said this money
should be kept in a "lockbox," to pay back the bonds when
Social Security needs it. Instead Bush said this surplus was
"your money" and gave it out as tax cuts for the rich.
That tax cut WAS "your money" and it was supposed to be in
safe keeping until you needed it for your retirement. Instead
Bush and his cronies got their hands on it.
In 2018 Social Security stops running a surplus and needs that
money to pay YOU or your parents. Bush doesn't have it because
it went to tax cuts for the rich, and says that because of
this Social Security is "in crisis." So we need to cut
benefits, etc. But saying this 2018 problem is because of
Social Security is like blaming the bank when you don't have
enough to pay your mortgage payment this month, and insisting
that the bank lay off employees so they won't need your money.
I have another, more salient point about this. The Social
Security surplus was a result of higher payroll (FICA) taxes,
which are paid only up to a certain cap of income (roughly
$87k last I checked). If you make more than that cap per year
in salary, everything above the cap is tax free, FICA-wise.
Further, investment income is not subject to FICA at all.
Put another way, that surplus was paid for by average working
people, *not* by the wealthy. But who did Bush give the money
to with his tax cuts? Did he cut the FICA rate? Of course not.
He moved that money which had been paid by average folks
straight into the pockets of his rich donors.
The next time Republicans whine about the progressive income
tax, ask them why they never mention FICA, nor do they ever
propose any relief for those taxpayers. Nothing gets to the
heart of their scam more directly than this.

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics HERB <***@nospam.swbell.net> wrote:
:
:
: For the 40 years the Democrats were in control, they stole from SS Program
: and gave to those who never put a dime in and lived off the public trough!
: That's where the funds went!

Please, this thread is for the adults only.

[HERB]

Post by Chris Bellomy
: For the 40 years the Democrats were in control, they stole from SS Program
: and gave to those who never put a dime in and lived off the public trough!
: That's where the funds went!
Please, this thread is for the adults only.

So, you are leaving? Bye Bye

[lein]

Post by HERB

Post by Chris Bellomy
: For the 40 years the Democrats were in control, they stole from SS Program
: and gave to those who never put a dime in and lived off the public trough!
: That's where the funds went!
Please, this thread is for the adults only.

So, you are leaving? Bye Bye

No, he has no answer to your comments.

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by HERB
For the 40 years the Democrats were in control, they stole from SS Program
and gave to those who never put a dime in and lived off the public trough!
That's where the funds went!

Folks who "never put in a dime" aren't eligible for social security.

Unless, of course, they are children or spouses drawing survivors'
benefits via their deceased parents or spouses who put in THEIR
dimes.

But, I suppose the actual facts shouldn't get in the way of a good
rant.

I especially liked the "public trough" reference. How original.

Peace and justice,

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics Bill Shatzer <***@oregonvos.net> wrote:
:
:
:
: On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, HERB wrote:
:
: > For the 40 years the Democrats were in control, they stole from SS Program
: > and gave to those who never put a dime in and lived off the public trough!
: > That's where the funds went!
:
: Folks who "never put in a dime" aren't eligible for social security.
:
: Unless, of course, they are children or spouses drawing survivors'
: benefits via their deceased parents or spouses who put in THEIR
: dimes.
:
: But, I suppose the actual facts shouldn't get in the way of a good
: rant.
:
: I especially liked the "public trough" reference. How original.

I didn't bother responding to him because the guy had
absolutely zero footing in the facts. You can't really
argue with someone so willing just to spew baseless venom.
So I didn't.

[Sanders Kaufman]

Post by Chris Bellomy
I didn't bother responding to him because the guy had
absolutely zero footing in the facts. You can't really
argue with someone so willing just to spew baseless venom.

It's because he doesn't have any of the facts that he bears a response.
Although I gotta admit, for an old guy (if that's what the anonymous poster
is), he's *stunningly* uninformed about SSI.

[cor]

Post by HERB
For the 40 years the Democrats were in control, they stole from SS Program
and gave to those who never put a dime in and lived off the public trough!
That's where the funds went!
Now you blame it on Republicans?

last time I checked it was Bush that was going to change SS.
As it is now it will be ok untill 2050.
If Bush changes it it will be 2 Trillion dollars in the red.
In the past both Reps and Dems in Congress made changes that left SS
alive and well.

Post by HERB

Post by Chris Bellomy
Social Security runs a huge surplus, which is put into
government bonds. In the 2000 election Al Gore said this money
should be kept in a "lockbox," to pay back the bonds when
Social Security needs it. Instead Bush said this surplus was
"your money" and gave it out as tax cuts for the rich.
That tax cut WAS "your money" and it was supposed to be in
safe keeping until you needed it for your retirement. Instead
Bush and his cronies got their hands on it.
In 2018 Social Security stops running a surplus and needs that
money to pay YOU or your parents. Bush doesn't have it because
it went to tax cuts for the rich, and says that because of
this Social Security is "in crisis." So we need to cut
benefits, etc. But saying this 2018 problem is because of
Social Security is like blaming the bank when you don't have
enough to pay your mortgage payment this month, and insisting
that the bank lay off employees so they won't need your money.
I have another, more salient point about this. The Social
Security surplus was a result of higher payroll (FICA) taxes,
which are paid only up to a certain cap of income (roughly
$87k last I checked). If you make more than that cap per year
in salary, everything above the cap is tax free, FICA-wise.
Further, investment income is not subject to FICA at all.
Put another way, that surplus was paid for by average working
people, *not* by the wealthy. But who did Bush give the money
to with his tax cuts? Did he cut the FICA rate? Of course not.
He moved that money which had been paid by average folks
straight into the pockets of his rich donors.
The next time Republicans whine about the progressive income
tax, ask them why they never mention FICA, nor do they ever
propose any relief for those taxpayers. Nothing gets to the
heart of their scam more directly than this.

[Sam Stone]

Post by cor
As it is now it will be ok untill 2050.

That's a fucking LIE!

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics Sam Stone <***@mental.org> wrote:
: cor wrote:
:
: > As it is now it will be ok untill 2050.
:
: That's a fucking LIE!

2042 by current estimates, but the estimates keep getting
moved back.

So, he'll be dead-on correct in about eight years.

[gmlnrts]

To be quite frank, theres nothing wrong SS. Its never been stronger.
Its a myth that its broken and need to be fixed. Regardless, they
will captilize on the myths and misconception to their advantage.
The Bush privatization proposal will be another exercise in class warfare -
doling out massive corporate welfare to key campaign contributors in Wall
Street at the expense of the poor and middle class. This will eventual lead
to phasing out of Social Security.


Got'a love it!

"Let me put it to you bluntly. In a changing world, we want more people to
have control over your own life."
—George W. Bush, Annandale, Va, Aug. 9, 2004

[tcarr]

Post by gmlnrts
To be quite frank, theres nothing wrong SS. Its never been stronger.
Its a myth that its broken and need to be fixed.

The SS trustees disagree with you. Perhaps you could cite your
acturial analysis indicating its solvency for the proscribed 75 year
planning period?

"Long-Range Results

Under the intermediate assumptions the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds
are projected to become exhausted in 2042. For the 75-year projection
period, the actuarial deficit is 1.89 percent of taxable payroll, 0.03
percentage point smaller than in last year's report. The open group
unfunded obligation for OASDI over the 75-year period is $3.7 trillion
in present value, $0.2 trillion more than the obligation estimated a
year ago.

The OASDI annual cost rate is projected to increase from 11.07 percent
of taxable payroll in 2004, to 16.83 percent in 2030, and to 19.29
percent in 2078, or to a level that is 5.91 percent of taxable payroll
more than the projected income rate for 2078. Expressed in relation to
the projected gross domestic product (GDP), OASDI cost is estimated to
rise from the current level of 4.3 percent of GDP, to 6.3 percent in
2030, and to 6.6 percent in 2078.

Between about 2010 and 2030, OASDI cost will increase rapidly due to
the retirement of the large baby-boom generation. After 2030, increases
in life expectancy and relatively low fertility rates will continue to
increase Social Security system costs, but more slowly. Annual cost
will exceed tax income starting in 2018 at which time the annual gap
will be covered with cash from redeeming special obligations of the
Treasury, until these assets are exhausted in 2042. Separately, the DI
fund is projected to be exhausted in 2029 and the OASI fund in 2044.

Solvency

The combined OASDI Trust Funds are projected to become insolvent (i.e.,
unable to pay scheduled benefits in full on a timely basis) when assets
are exhausted in 2042 under the long-range intermediate assumptions.
For the trust funds to remain solvent throughout the 75-year projection
period, the combined payroll tax rate could be increased during the
period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent increase of
1.89 percentage points, benefits could be reduced during the period in
a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent reduction of 12.6
percent, general revenue transfers equivalent to $3.7 trillion (in
present value) could be made during the period, or some combination of
approaches could be adopted. Significantly larger changes would be
required to maintain solvency beyond 75 years.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_highlights.html#wp76460

Leadership is more than reacting to crisis.

T.Carr




Regardless, they

Post by gmlnrts
will captilize on the myths and misconception to their advantage.
The Bush privatization proposal will be another exercise in class warfare -
doling out massive corporate welfare to key campaign contributors in Wall
Street at the expense of the poor and middle class. This will

eventual lead

Post by gmlnrts
to phasing out of Social Security.
Got'a love it!
"Let me put it to you bluntly. In a changing world, we want more people to
have control over your own life."
-George W. Bush, Annandale, Va, Aug. 9, 2004

[T-minus4years]

Post by gmlnrts
To be quite frank, theres nothing wrong SS.

<snip>
If there is nothing wrong with SS, then why is Bush trying to fix it?
- -
CNN
Bush: Time to overhaul Social Security
President also says he'll send 'tough budget' to Congress

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Thursday that "now is the time
to confront Social Security" to deal with a projected $3.7 trillion,
75-year shortfall and give younger workers the ability to invest some
of their contributions.

Bush also promised to send Congress "a tough budget" early next year to
hold the line on federal spending.

"You will see fiscal discipline exercised inside the Oval Office this
coming budget cycle," the president told a White House economic
conference.

Bush, who credited his tax-cutting policies with reviving the economy,
said his strategy will be "to grow the economy with reasonable tax
policy but to make sure the deficit is dealt with by being wise about
how we spend money."

"It's not going to be easy," he said. "It turns out (congressional)
appropriators take their title seriously."

Bush said he intends to ignore the traditional political perils of
meddling with Social Security in order to save the system for future
generations.

"This is an issue on which I campaigned and I'm still standing," he
said.

All participants on Thursday's panel, including financial service firm
officials, supported Bush's Social Security plans.

Away from the conference, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney called Wall
Street's support for partial privatization a conflict of interest and
"a risky scheme for America but a sure bet for the financial services
industry."

In a letter to the Securities Industry Association, Sweeney asked the
group to disavow Bush's proposed overhaul. "Will the financial services
industry behave as professionals with a duty to speak candidly to the
investing public, or will elements of the industry once again seek to
make money at the expense of their customers, only this time on a much
grander scale?" Sweeney wrote.

Bush was not specific about his own ideas for solving the problem, but
laid out a few do-or-die principles.

He said that for an undefined group of seniors "nothing will change" in
their benefit structure, that there should be no increase in payroll
taxes and that younger workers should be moved toward private accounts
for some portion of their Social Security contributions.

The audience chuckled as Bush wrapped up his list of requirements by
adding, "With those principles in mind, I'm open-minded with the
members of Congress."

Bush said there are more Americans who have no confidence they will
ever see any Social Security benefits than people who are worried their
current checks will stop coming.

"I think Congress needs to understand that," he said.

Richard Parsons -- chairman and chief executive of Time Warner Inc.,
the parent company of CNN.com -- warned that "We're on a train wreck
course."

"You can't fix this problem with no pain, without making some
sacrifices but the time to start making those sacrifices is now," said
Parsons, a chairman of Bush's 2001 committee on partial-privatization.

Democrats say supporters of personal accounts are exaggerating Social
Security's funding problem.

Bush "wants to use an ideological solution to a manageable problem,"
said Rep. Robert Matsui of California, the top Democrat on the House
Social Security subcommittee.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan countered that the problem
is real. "Today's guaranteed benefits are an empty promise to our
younger workers," McClellan said.

In 2018, the system starts paying out more in benefits than it collects
in taxes. In 2042, the system will be able to cover 73 percent of
promised benefits, according to Social Security's trustees.

The White House acknowledges that allowing younger workers to invest
funds in private accounts would do little to help plug the shortfall.

"It will take more to solve the problem than just personal accounts,"
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday. The
transformation would be part of a "comprehensive solution to strengthen
Social Security."

Bush is expected to propose details in January, but won't offer
specific legislation. His summit helped bolster his plans by providing
a public forum.

Bush has ruled out an increase in payroll taxes to pay for the
overhaul. Experts say he would have little choice but to borrow the
funds, perhaps $1 trillion to $2 trillion, in order to continue paying
benefits for current and near-retirees whose checks are funded by
workers' payroll taxes.

Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, top Democrat on the House Budget
Committee, said Bush's summit was a "pep rally for privatization," when
the more urgent problem is the skyrocketing federal budget deficit,
which hit $413 billion in 2004.

Tackling Social Security is "putting the cart before the horse" by
pursuing a program "with enormous implications for federal borrowing
without doing anything about the rest of the budget," Spratt said.

[tcarr]

C.Bellomy opined.....

First, I quote Dave Johnson of seetheforest.blogspot.com:


Social Security runs a huge surplus, which is put into
government bonds.

----

That is the only legal investment for the SS surplus

---

C.Bellomy..cont


In the 2000 election Al Gore said this money
should be kept in a "lockbox," to pay back the bonds when
Social Security needs it. Instead Bush said this surplus was
"your money" and gave it out as tax cuts for the rich.

----

What utter nonsense

Lets keep this simple...

The SS generates a surplus
The general fund borrows the surplus
The General fund issues a interest bearing IOU.

Around 2018 the SS trust will begin redeeming its IOU's
from the general fund.

These IOU's will keep SS solvent until 2042

The "lock box" was a political creation

---

C.Bellomy cont

That tax cut WAS "your money" and it was supposed to be in
safe keeping until you needed it for your retirement. Instead
Bush and his cronies got their hands on it.

---

The Tax cut is OUR money..You are free to do what your want with
yours
The problems with SS are largely independent of the general fund

----
C.Bellomy..cont

In 2018 Social Security stops running a surplus and needs that
money to pay YOU or your parents. Bush doesn't have it because
it went to tax cuts for the rich, and says that because of
this Social Security is "in crisis."

---

Wrong

The SS trust fund will redeem its IOU's and will be solvent until
2042
Try reading the SS trustees report

----
C.Bellomy..


So we need to cut
benefits, etc. But saying this 2018 problem is because of
Social Security is like blaming the bank when you don't have
enough to pay your mortgage payment this month, and insisting
that the bank lay off employees so they won't need your money.

----

You are still confused

There is no "problem" in 2018
SS will run a deficit and redeem its IOU;s to cover it.
The general fund will need to replace that debt with publicly held
debt
or run a surplus

The idea of modifying benefits is to keep the system solvent beyond
the 2042
timeframe

What do you think future benefits are linked to..CPI or increase in
wages?


-----

C.Bellomy..cont

I have another, more salient point about this. The Social
Security surplus was a result of higher payroll (FICA) taxes,
which are paid only up to a certain cap of income (roughly
$87k last I checked). If you make more than that cap per year
in salary, everything above the cap is tax free, FICA-wise.
Further, investment income is not subject to FICA at all.

----

Social Security is a unique system where the benefit is capped
IF the benefit is capped then why not the tax?

----

C.Bellomy

Put another way, that surplus was paid for by average working
people, *not* by the wealthy. But who did Bush give the money
to with his tax cuts? Did he cut the FICA rate? Of course not.
He moved that money which had been paid by average folks
straight into the pockets of his rich donors.

---
You are still confused

SS taxes fund SS
Income taxes fund the government

You are trying to combine the two as the same
That simply is not accurate
----

C.Bellomy


The next time Republicans whine about the progressive income
tax, ask them why they never mention FICA, nor do they ever
propose any relief for those taxpayers. Nothing gets to the
heart of their scam more directly than this.

---
SS is a system where the benefits are progressive, not the tax
IF you pay only 25% of the max tax, you still receive more than 25%
of the max benefit

I would recommed you do a bit more research in the system and its
problems if you care to be taken seriously relative to potential
solutions



T.Carr

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics tcarr <***@aol.com> wrote:

: You are still confused
:
: SS taxes fund SS
: Income taxes fund the government

This is flat-out incorrect. In 1982, at the urging of
Alan Greenspan, the FICA rate was increased specifically
for the purpose of deficit reduction in the general fund.
It was this increase in *payroll* taxes that played the
most significant role in retiring the deficit during
Clinton's tenure as President.

Bush took the resulting surplus and spent it as an
*income* tax reduction for the wealthiest 1%. Wage
earners paid the tax; the wealthy cashed the checks.
Pure income redistribution from bottom to top at its
most brazen.

[t***@aol.com]

In dfw.politics tcarr <***@aol.com> wrote:

: You are still confused
:
: SS taxes fund SS
: Income taxes fund the government

CBellomy snipped 95% of the previous post to comment...


This is flat-out incorrect. In 1982, at the urging of
Alan Greenspan, the FICA rate was increased specifically
for the purpose of deficit reduction in the general fund.
It was this increase in *payroll* taxes that played the
most significant role in retiring the deficit during
Clinton's tenure as President.

----

You are factually in error...again

The SS taxes are increased (or benefits revised) to keep the system
solvent for the 75 year planning period establised by the SS
trustees

The current SS "surplus" is due to increases in the payroll tax to
cover the
predicted shortfall once the babyboomers begin to collect benefits

SS payroll taxes have increased in a attempt to keep the system
solvent

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

-----

C.Bellomy..cont

Bush took the resulting surplus and spent it as an
*income* tax reduction for the wealthiest 1%. Wage
earners paid the tax; the wealthy cashed the checks.
Pure income redistribution from bottom to top at its
most brazen.

----

Not nearly a "brazen" as your disingenous snips of the original
thread and deliberate mis statements of SS and its taxes

btw..any time you would care to back you assertions with credible,
cited support, let me know


T.Carr

[lein]

Post by Chris Bellomy
: You are still confused
: SS taxes fund SS
: Income taxes fund the government
CBellomy snipped 95% of the previous post to comment...
This is flat-out incorrect. In 1982, at the urging of
Alan Greenspan, the FICA rate was increased specifically
for the purpose of deficit reduction in the general fund.
It was this increase in *payroll* taxes that played the
most significant role in retiring the deficit during
Clinton's tenure as President.

Actually, it was reforms in government spending that started when
Clinton lost congress in 1994 that retired deficit spending. You
remember, they brought Clinton kicking and screaming into accepting
welfare reform (among other reforms).

Then came the economic bubble which lasted up to Clinton's last year.

[Sanders Kaufman]

Post by lein
Actually, it was reforms in government spending that started when
Clinton lost congress in 1994 that retired deficit spending. You
remember, they brought Clinton kicking and screaming into accepting
welfare reform (among other reforms).

Ya might wanna rethink what you said.
Deficit spending is a lot of things, but "retired" ain't one of them.
In fact, since the US Republican Guard seized power - deficit spending has
*skyrocketed*.

[Sam Stone]

Post by Sanders Kaufman
deficit spending has
*skyrocketed*.

Not historically it hasn't.

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics Sam Stone <***@mental.org> wrote:
: Sanders Kaufman wrote:
: > deficit spending has
: > *skyrocketed*.
:
: Not historically it hasn't.

Well, yeah, it has, by any metric you choose to measure.

[Sam Stone]

Post by Chris Bellomy
: > deficit spending has
: > *skyrocketed*.
: Not historically it hasn't.
Well, yeah,

Nope.

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics lein <***@xyz.gov> wrote:
: ***@aol.com wrote in news:1103886284.158298.51290
: @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
:
: > In dfw.politics tcarr <***@aol.com> wrote:
: >
: >: You are still confused
: >:
: >: SS taxes fund SS
: >: Income taxes fund the government
: >
: > CBellomy snipped 95% of the previous post to comment...
: >
: >
: > This is flat-out incorrect. In 1982, at the urging of
: > Alan Greenspan, the FICA rate was increased specifically
: > for the purpose of deficit reduction in the general fund.
: > It was this increase in *payroll* taxes that played the
: > most significant role in retiring the deficit during
: > Clinton's tenure as President.
:
: Actually, it was reforms in government spending that started when
: Clinton lost congress in 1994 that retired deficit spending.

The deficit started falling in the first two years of Clinton's
tenure, when the Congress was controlled by the Democrats.

(Sorta like JoePa's coaching acumen.)

[Scratch]

Post by Chris Bellomy
: >
: >: You are still confused
: >: SS taxes fund SS
: >: Income taxes fund the government
: >
: > CBellomy snipped 95% of the previous post to comment...
: >
: >
: > This is flat-out incorrect. In 1982, at the urging of
: > Alan Greenspan, the FICA rate was increased specifically
: > for the purpose of deficit reduction in the general fund.
: > It was this increase in *payroll* taxes that played the
: > most significant role in retiring the deficit during
: > Clinton's tenure as President.
: Actually, it was reforms in government spending that started when
: Clinton lost congress in 1994 that retired deficit spending.
The deficit started falling in the first two years of Clinton's
tenure, when the Congress was controlled by the Democrats.
(Sorta like JoePa's coaching acumen.)

http://www.tldm.org/news2/sellout.htm

[Mark Ferguson]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 11:19:32 -0800, "Scratch"

Post by Scratch

Post by Chris Bellomy
: >
: >: You are still confused
: >: SS taxes fund SS
: >: Income taxes fund the government
: >
: > CBellomy snipped 95% of the previous post to comment...
: >
: >
: > This is flat-out incorrect. In 1982, at the urging of
: > Alan Greenspan, the FICA rate was increased specifically
: > for the purpose of deficit reduction in the general fund.
: > It was this increase in *payroll* taxes that played the
: > most significant role in retiring the deficit during
: > Clinton's tenure as President.
: Actually, it was reforms in government spending that started when
: Clinton lost congress in 1994 that retired deficit spending.
The deficit started falling in the first two years of Clinton's
tenure, when the Congress was controlled by the Democrats.
(Sorta like JoePa's coaching acumen.)

http://www.tldm.org/news2/sellout.htm

I guess I can create a page stating falsities against Bush, like he is
good for our country and you would post the URL as some sort of fact.

The simple and plain truth is that Republican presidents starting with
Regean and then on to the first and second Bushes have a spend and cut
tax policy that cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and kept taking
from the poor what littel they had.

Registrant Name:These Last Days Ministries
Registrant Organization:These Last Days Ministries
Registrant Street1:P.O. Box 40
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Lowell
Registrant State/Province:MI
Registrant Postal Code:49331
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:[phone]
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:***@TLDM.ORG

Sounds just as a doom sayer from what I see --These Last Days
Ministries.

Can I call my domain, Politician sold us out or PSUO.ORG....

--
Mark Ferguson

Sun Tsu is a snitch and a rat bastard that sells out any that he
does not agree with.

Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

"Why don't you ever go into detail about how you asked theBanana(tm)
to do research on Andrew Conru and AdultFriendFinder.com for you after
stating that the court had ordered you "not to" because of your
lawsuit?".

[Sanders Kaufman]

Post by Mark Ferguson
Registrant Name:These Last Days Ministries
Sounds just as a doom sayer from what I see --These Last Days
Ministries.

If you're in the D/FW area, it's *staggering* how rife the area is with
these kinds of Seminary School drop-outs.
They learn how to set up a tax-free church corporation at one of the many
other church corporations in the area.
Then they go off and start a ministry and beg for money, and go off and
start them left and right.

We've got con-artist televangelist wanna-bes, selling "salvation" to each
other, coming out of our *ears*.

Every once in a while, one of their idiot flock slaughters her children in
gruesome ways for God.

[Sam Stone]

Post by Sanders Kaufman
Every once in a while, one of their idiot flock slaughters her children in
gruesome ways for God.

Pity yer mama weren't one of em...

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics Sam Stone <***@mental.org> wrote:
: Sanders Kaufman wrote:
:
: > Every once in a while, one of their idiot flock slaughters her children in
: > gruesome ways for God.
:
: Pity yer mama weren't one of em...

Ah, that Christian spirit on Christmas Day.

[Sam Stone]

Post by Mark Ferguson
I guess I can create a page stating falsities against Bush

Big surprise you scumsucker.

[Mark Ferguson]

Post by Sam Stone

Post by Mark Ferguson
I guess I can create a page stating falsities against Bush

Big surprise you scumsucker.

Did you call me a scumsucker :-) You lack in that area I guess if
that is the best you are capable of.

Might I suggest alt.flame for a while to hone your skills because as
for now they frankly suck very badly.

--
Mark Ferguson

Sun Tsu is a snitch and a rat bastard that sells out any that he
does not agree with.

Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

"Why don't you ever go into detail about how you asked theBanana(tm)
to do research on Andrew Conru and AdultFriendFinder.com for you after
stating that the court had ordered you "not to" because of your
lawsuit?".

[Sam Stone]

Mark Ferguson wrote:


Dance boy, dance!

[Mark Ferguson]

Post by Sam Stone
Dance boy, dance!

I am a good dancer. Do you like me when I dance? Do your friends
know about you?

--
Mark Ferguson

Sun Tsu is a snitch and a rat bastard that sells out any that he
does not agree with.

Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

"Why don't you ever go into detail about how you asked theBanana(tm)
to do research on Andrew Conru and AdultFriendFinder.com for you after
stating that the court had ordered you "not to" because of your
lawsuit?".

[Sam Stone]

Post by Mark Ferguson

Post by Sam Stone
Dance boy, dance!

I am a good dancer.

Ya, long as I call the tune.

[Sam Stone]

Post by Mark Ferguson

Post by Sam Stone
Dance boy, dance!

I am a good dancer.

And I call the tune.

[Sam Stone]

Post by Chris Bellomy
The deficit started falling in the first two years of Clinton's
tenure, when the

...tech bubble bloated the tax revenues and Slick sat on em....

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics Sam Stone <***@mental.org> wrote:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
:
: > The deficit started falling in the first two years of Clinton's
: > tenure, when the
:
: ...tech bubble bloated the tax revenues and Slick sat on em....

There was no tech bubble in 1993-94.

Keep scrambling for excuses, though. I'm sure you'll find
a good one at some point.

[Sam Stone]

Post by Chris Bellomy
: > The deficit started falling in the first two years of Clinton's
: > tenure, when the
: ...tech bubble bloated the tax revenues and Slick sat on em....
There was no tech bubble in 1993-94.

Sure was, internet came online for most folks end of '94.

[Mark Ferguson]

Post by Sam Stone

Post by Chris Bellomy
: > The deficit started falling in the first two years of Clinton's
: > tenure, when the
: ...tech bubble bloated the tax revenues and Slick sat on em....
There was no tech bubble in 1993-94.

Sure was, internet came online for most folks end of '94.

You're not very good at this are you?

--
Mark Ferguson

Sun Tsu is a snitch and a rat bastard that sells out any that he
does not agree with.

Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

"Why don't you ever go into detail about how you asked theBanana(tm)
to do research on Andrew Conru and AdultFriendFinder.com for you after
stating that the court had ordered you "not to" because of your
lawsuit?".

[Sam Stone]

Post by Mark Ferguson

Post by Sam Stone

Post by Chris Bellomy
: > The deficit started falling in the first two years of Clinton's
: > tenure, when the
: ...tech bubble bloated the tax revenues and Slick sat on em....
There was no tech bubble in 1993-94.

Sure was, internet came online for most folks end of '94.

You're not very good at this are you?

Got a factual rebuttal?

http://www.fcc.gov/omd/history/internet/making-connections.html

While large institutions, governments, and businesses have found it
economically worthwhile to pay for high-speed connections for most of
the past forty years, in most American homes - where the Internet became
of interest after the introduction of the graphically-oriented World
Wide Web in 1993 - affordable Internet access has been limited to 56
kbps modems operating over public phone lines. However, recently
introduced broadband products and services offer North American
households the possibility of getting access to a bit more of the
bandwidth and connection speed actually available on the Internet. North
American household's access to broadband began in 1996, when Rogers
Communications introduced the first cable modem service in Canada

[Sanders Kaufman]

Post by Mark Ferguson

Post by Sam Stone

Post by Chris Bellomy
: > The deficit started falling in the first two years of Clinton's
: > tenure, when the
: ...tech bubble bloated the tax revenues and Slick sat on em....
There was no tech bubble in 1993-94.

Sure was, internet came online for most folks end of '94.

You're not very good at this are you?

Chris,
The so-called "tech bubble" started a few years earlier - with dBase,
WordPerfect and Lotus.

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics Sanders Kaufman <***@kaufman.net> wrote:
: "Mark Ferguson" <***@stop-spam.org> wrote in message
: news:***@4ax.com...
: > On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 06:47:23 GMT, Sam Stone <***@mental.org> wrote:
: >
: >>Chris Bellomy wrote:
: >>> In dfw.politics Sam Stone <***@mental.org> wrote:
: >>> : Chris Bellomy wrote:
: >>> :
: >>> : > The deficit started falling in the first two years of Clinton's
: >>> : > tenure, when the
: >>> :
: >>> : ...tech bubble bloated the tax revenues and Slick sat on em....
: >>>
: >>> There was no tech bubble in 1993-94.
: >>
: >>Sure was, internet came online for most folks end of '94.
: >
: > You're not very good at this are you?
:
: Chris,
: The so-called "tech bubble" started a few years earlier - with dBase,
: WordPerfect and Lotus.

Different era, different bubble, and at any rate that
bubble was more than over in 1993-94. Ashton-Tate wasn't
even in existence by then.

[Sanders Kaufman]

Post by Sam Stone

Post by Chris Bellomy
The deficit started falling in the first two years of Clinton's
tenure, when the

...tech bubble bloated the tax revenues and Slick sat on em....

Tech is just tech.
Stock scams bloated the bubble.
It's stupid for Bush's followers to claim that technology is somehow
inherantly evil.
But then again... they *are* trying to appeal to the stupid.

[Sam Stone]

Post by Sanders Kaufman

Post by Sam Stone

Post by Chris Bellomy
The deficit started falling in the first two years of Clinton's
tenure, when the

...tech bubble bloated the tax revenues and Slick sat on em....

Tech is just tech.
Stock scams bloated the bubble.

Money flowed.

Deal with it whore.

[HERB]

EVERYONE got lower taxes! Those who PAID more got more reduction. Those who
paid nothing got nothing.
Talk about lies!

Millions who paid 15% got their taxes lowered to 10%!
(and they certainly are not in the top 1%!

Post by Chris Bellomy
: You are still confused
: SS taxes fund SS
: Income taxes fund the government
This is flat-out incorrect. In 1982, at the urging of
Alan Greenspan, the FICA rate was increased specifically
for the purpose of deficit reduction in the general fund.
It was this increase in *payroll* taxes that played the
most significant role in retiring the deficit during
Clinton's tenure as President.
Bush took the resulting surplus and spent it as an
*income* tax reduction for the wealthiest 1%. Wage
earners paid the tax; the wealthy cashed the checks.
Pure income redistribution from bottom to top at its
most brazen.

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics HERB <***@nospam.swbell.net> wrote:
: EVERYONE got lower taxes!

No. Most of us got higher taxes as the burden was shifted
to other, more regressive, forms of taxation.

Now, having already dumped this on our heads, having already
looted our money for the rich, Bush wants spend another few
billion so he can move still more of our money into the
pockets of his investment banker buddies.

How far up your ass are you going to let them fuck you,
Herb, before you realize what's going on?

[Sanders Kaufman]

Post by Chris Bellomy
No. Most of us got higher taxes as the burden was shifted
to other, more regressive, forms of taxation.

That speaks to the fundamental failing of Bush's non-Fundamentalist
supporters.
They're short-sighted.
They think they can avoid paying their bills without any consequence.

[Gene]

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:12:10 GMT, Chris Bellomy

Post by Chris Bellomy
How far up your ass are you going to let them fuck you,

How long will you continue to duck and dodge without referring to
any points made by the other side?

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics Gene <***@nowwhere.com> wrote:
: On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:12:10 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
:
:
: >
: >How far up your ass are you going to let them fuck you,
:
: How long will you continue to duck and dodge without referring to
: any points made by the other side?

When somebody makes one that actually has a basis in fact,
I'll respond appropriately.

I haven't seen anyone address the facts *I* made, so why
aren't you dealing with that?

[Elf!]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 01:18:24 GMT, Chris Bellomy

Post by Chris Bellomy
: On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:12:10 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: >
: >How far up your ass are you going to let them fuck you,
: How long will you continue to duck and dodge without referring to
: any points made by the other side?
When somebody makes one that actually has a basis in fact,
I'll respond appropriately.
I haven't seen anyone address the facts *I* made, so why
aren't you dealing with that?

Because they aren't. Simple.

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics Elf! <***@poling.com> wrote:
: On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 01:18:24 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
:
: >In dfw.politics Gene <***@nowwhere.com> wrote:
: >: On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:12:10 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: >: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: >:
: >:
: >: >
: >: >How far up your ass are you going to let them fuck you,
: >:
: >: How long will you continue to duck and dodge without referring to
: >: any points made by the other side?
: >
: >When somebody makes one that actually has a basis in fact,
: >I'll respond appropriately.
: >
: >I haven't seen anyone address the facts *I* made, so why
: >aren't you dealing with that?
:
: Because they aren't. Simple.

Do you dispute that the Congress raised the FICA rate in 1982
at Alan Greenspan's urging in order to reduce the deficit?

Do you dispute that the deficit was, in fact, eliminated during
Clinton's tenure, thanks in no small part to revenue generated
by that FICA increase?

Do you dispute that Bush and the Republicans brought back the
deficit by passing a tax cut strongly slanted to the rich?

I'm really curious which part of that you think is untrue,
because it's all correct and all provable. No amount of
sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "LA LA LA
LA LA!!!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!" will change any of it.

[lein]

Post by Chris Bellomy
: On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 01:18:24 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: >: On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:12:10 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: >: >
: >: >How far up your ass are you going to let them fuck you,
: >: How long will you continue to duck and dodge without referring to
: >: any points made by the other side?
: >
: >When somebody makes one that actually has a basis in fact,
: >I'll respond appropriately.
: >
: >I haven't seen anyone address the facts *I* made, so why
: >aren't you dealing with that?
: Because they aren't. Simple.
Do you dispute that the Congress raised the FICA rate in 1982
at Alan Greenspan's urging in order to reduce the deficit?
Do you dispute that the deficit was, in fact, eliminated during
Clinton's tenure, thanks in no small part to revenue generated
by that FICA increase?
Do you dispute that Bush and the Republicans brought back the
deficit by passing a tax cut strongly slanted to the rich?
I'm really curious which part of that you think is untrue,
because it's all correct and all provable. No amount of
sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "LA LA LA
LA LA!!!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!" will change any of it.

Did you ignore the fact that took place in November 1994, Clinton's
second year?

Did you ignore the fact that controling government spending is
attributed as a major factor towards reducing/eliminating the deficit?

Did you ignore the fact that Clinton's first 2 years were dedicated
towards increasing government spending?

Did you ignore the fact that despite a recession that started with
Clinton's last budget, despite a trillion dollar hit on 9/11, our
economy has grown many times faster than your high taxing counterparts
in Europe and unlike Old Europe (or Jimmy Carter), we don't have double
digit unemployment?


So tell us Mr. Fact, if Bush raised taxes, would unemployment be lower
and would the economy be growing? If so, where would the money to pay
these employees originate?

[Sanders Kaufman]

Post by lein

Post by Chris Bellomy
Do you dispute that Bush and the Republicans brought back the
deficit by passing a tax cut strongly slanted to the rich?

Did you ignore the fact that controling government spending is
attributed as a major factor towards reducing/eliminating the deficit?
Did you ignore the fact that Clinton's first 2 years were dedicated
towards increasing government spending?

That's a very dishonest statement.
Spending more money wasn't the goal - good government was.
Bush, on the other hand, spends our money like he never had to work for his
own.

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics lein <***@xyz.gov> wrote:
: Chris Bellomy <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in news:0T1rl9rsIov7N34
: @redshark.goodshow.net:
:
: > In dfw.politics Elf! <***@poling.com> wrote:
: >: On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 01:18:24 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: >: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: >:
: >: >In dfw.politics Gene <***@nowwhere.com> wrote:
: >: >: On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:12:10 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: >: >: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >: >
: >: >: >How far up your ass are you going to let them fuck you,
: >: >:
: >: >: How long will you continue to duck and dodge without referring
: to
: >: >: any points made by the other side?
: >: >
: >: >When somebody makes one that actually has a basis in fact,
: >: >I'll respond appropriately.
: >: >
: >: >I haven't seen anyone address the facts *I* made, so why
: >: >aren't you dealing with that?
: >:
: >: Because they aren't. Simple.
: >
: > Do you dispute that the Congress raised the FICA rate in 1982
: > at Alan Greenspan's urging in order to reduce the deficit?
: >
: > Do you dispute that the deficit was, in fact, eliminated during
: > Clinton's tenure, thanks in no small part to revenue generated
: > by that FICA increase?
: >
: > Do you dispute that Bush and the Republicans brought back the
: > deficit by passing a tax cut strongly slanted to the rich?
: >
: > I'm really curious which part of that you think is untrue,
: > because it's all correct and all provable. No amount of
: > sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "LA LA LA
: > LA LA!!!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!" will change any of it.
:
: Did you ignore the fact that took place in November 1994, Clinton's
: second year?

Yes, I do tend to ignore facts that are untrue.

Go look up how the deficit shrunk in FY's 1993 and 1994, when
Dems ran Congress.

[Sam Stone]

Post by Chris Bellomy
Yes, I do tend to ignore facts

We know.

[lein]

Post by Chris Bellomy
: On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:12:10 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: >
: >How far up your ass are you going to let them fuck you,
: How long will you continue to duck and dodge without referring to
: any points made by the other side?
When somebody makes one that actually has a basis in fact,
I'll respond appropriately.
I haven't seen anyone address the facts *I* made, so why
aren't you dealing with that?

yeah, you are Mr. Fact. No one can stand up to you, can they Mr. Fact.

[HERB]

Post by Chris Bellomy
: EVERYONE got lower taxes!
No. Most of us got higher taxes as the burden was shifted
to other, more regressive, forms of taxation.
Now, having already dumped this on our heads, having already
looted our money for the rich, Bush wants spend another few
billion so he can move still more of our money into the
pockets of his investment banker buddies.

(Filth Snipped)

Post by Chris Bellomy
Herb, before you realize what's going on?

Well, sonny, with a 20% increase in my portfolio in the last year,
I would like 4 more years of the same.

You and Sanders would make good poster boys for sore losers.

At what income level do you consider a person rich?

Anyone who has lived conservative and not blowed their income on
frivolous good times, booze, cars, boats etc. and not saved for old age?

(Excluding of course, those who are destitute due to causes they could not
control.)

Second thought, please don't answer. We have read your filthy mouthed ,
redundant personal attacks before.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by HERB

Post by Chris Bellomy
Herb, before you realize what's going on?

Well, sonny, with a 20% increase in my portfolio in the last year,
I would like 4 more years of the same.

You'll need it to make up for the 40% drop between 2001 and 2004

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics HERB <***@nospam.swbell.net> wrote:
:
: "Chris Bellomy" <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
: news:***@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > In dfw.politics HERB <***@nospam.swbell.net> wrote:
: > : EVERYONE got lower taxes!
: >
: > No. Most of us got higher taxes as the burden was shifted
: > to other, more regressive, forms of taxation.
: >
: > Now, having already dumped this on our heads, having already
: > looted our money for the rich, Bush wants spend another few
: > billion so he can move still more of our money into the
: > pockets of his investment banker buddies.
:
: (Filth Snipped)
: >
: >
: > Herb, before you realize what's going on?
:
: Well, sonny, with a 20% increase in my portfolio in the last year,
: I would like 4 more years of the same.

Ah, I see. You're one of the wealthy elite.

Why do you whine so much when you have it so well?

[lein]

Post by Chris Bellomy
: > : EVERYONE got lower taxes!
: >
: > No. Most of us got higher taxes as the burden was shifted
: > to other, more regressive, forms of taxation.
: >
: > Now, having already dumped this on our heads, having already
: > looted our money for the rich, Bush wants spend another few
: > billion so he can move still more of our money into the
: > pockets of his investment banker buddies.
: (Filth Snipped)
: >
: >
: > Herb, before you realize what's going on?
: Well, sonny, with a 20% increase in my portfolio in the last year,
: I would like 4 more years of the same.
Ah, I see. You're one of the wealthy elite.
Why do you whine so much when you have it so well?

Define wealthy? A person if wealthy if (fill in your definition).

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics lein <***@xyz.gov> wrote:
: Chris Bellomy <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in news:1T1rl439IohaN34
: @redshark.goodshow.net:
:
: > In dfw.politics HERB <***@nospam.swbell.net> wrote:
: >:
: >: "Chris Bellomy" <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
: >: news:***@redshark.goodshow.net...
: >: > In dfw.politics HERB <***@nospam.swbell.net> wrote:
: >: > : EVERYONE got lower taxes!
: >: >
: >: > No. Most of us got higher taxes as the burden was shifted
: >: > to other, more regressive, forms of taxation.
: >: >
: >: > Now, having already dumped this on our heads, having already
: >: > looted our money for the rich, Bush wants spend another few
: >: > billion so he can move still more of our money into the
: >: > pockets of his investment banker buddies.
: >:
: >: (Filth Snipped)
: >: >
: >: >
: >: > Herb, before you realize what's going on?
: >:
: >: Well, sonny, with a 20% increase in my portfolio in the last year,
: >: I would like 4 more years of the same.
: >
: > Ah, I see. You're one of the wealthy elite.
: >
: > Why do you whine so much when you have it so well?
:
: Define wealthy? A person if wealthy if (fill in your definition).

"...he can live comfortably without working."

[lein]

Post by Chris Bellomy
: EVERYONE got lower taxes!
No. Most of us got higher taxes as the burden was shifted
to other, more regressive, forms of taxation.

Yeah it shifted, those in the highest brackets pay an even larger share of
the tax burden.

If you like paying more taxes, go to Europe. There are plenty examples
where runaway spending for social programs and high taxes help to keep
economic growth below 1% with double digit unemployment.

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics lein <***@xyz.gov> wrote:
: Chris Bellomy <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in news:0T1rkef2In2tN34
: @redshark.goodshow.net:
:
: > In dfw.politics HERB <***@nospam.swbell.net> wrote:
: >: EVERYONE got lower taxes!
: >
: > No. Most of us got higher taxes as the burden was shifted
: > to other, more regressive, forms of taxation.
:
: Yeah it shifted, those in the highest brackets pay an even larger share of
: the tax burden.

This is a lie; you are a liar. And I think you know it.

Merry Christmas.

[Scratch]

Post by Chris Bellomy
: >: EVERYONE got lower taxes!
: >
: > No. Most of us got higher taxes as the burden was shifted
: > to other, more regressive, forms of taxation.
: Yeah it shifted, those in the highest brackets pay an even larger share of
: the tax burden.
This is a lie; you are a liar. And I think

No you don't

[Mark Ferguson]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 11:22:21 -0800, "Scratch"

Post by Scratch

Post by Chris Bellomy
: >: EVERYONE got lower taxes!
: >
: > No. Most of us got higher taxes as the burden was shifted
: > to other, more regressive, forms of taxation.
: Yeah it shifted, those in the highest brackets pay an even larger share of
: the tax burden.
This is a lie; you are a liar. And I think

No you don't

Semantics..... Why do you agree with the poster if you dislike him so
much? You are correct in that he was right about this and did not
have to even think about it.

I would rather see a flat tax without any deductions at all. Same
percentage for all no matter the income. What do you say about that?

--
Mark Ferguson

Sun Tsu is a snitch and a rat bastard that sells out any that he
does not agree with.

Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

"Why don't you ever go into detail about how you asked theBanana(tm)
to do research on Andrew Conru and AdultFriendFinder.com for you after
stating that the court had ordered you "not to" because of your
lawsuit?".

[Scratch]

Post by Mark Ferguson
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 11:22:21 -0800, "Scratch"

Post by Scratch

Post by Chris Bellomy
news:0T1rkef2In2tN34
: >: EVERYONE got lower taxes!
: >
: > No. Most of us got higher taxes as the burden was shifted
: > to other, more regressive, forms of taxation.
: Yeah it shifted, those in the highest brackets pay an even larger
share
of
: the tax burden.
This is a lie; you are a liar. And I think

No you don't

Semantics..... Why do you agree with the poster if you dislike him so
much? You are correct in that he was right about this and did not
have to even think about it.
I would rather see a flat tax without any deductions at all. Same
percentage for all no matter the income. What do you say about that?
--
Mark Ferguson

To be honest with you Mark I really don't know. I'm still in the gathering
information stage. I have no problems paying my fair share but what I don't
believe is fair is un equal taxation. Such as a penalty of a higher
percentage because someone have been successful in life. That tells all the
kids that if you do what is right, study hard, get good grades, stay out of
trouble and become successful and make lots of money we will make you pay
more in taxes then someone that has no motivation and has a care less
attitude and will probably never create a job for no one else other then
themselves. If that.

[Mark Ferguson]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:20:04 -0800, "Scratch"

Post by Scratch

Post by Mark Ferguson
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 11:22:21 -0800, "Scratch"

Post by Scratch

Post by Chris Bellomy
news:0T1rkef2In2tN34
: >: EVERYONE got lower taxes!
: >
: > No. Most of us got higher taxes as the burden was shifted
: > to other, more regressive, forms of taxation.
: Yeah it shifted, those in the highest brackets pay an even larger
share
of
: the tax burden.
This is a lie; you are a liar. And I think

No you don't

Semantics..... Why do you agree with the poster if you dislike him so
much? You are correct in that he was right about this and did not
have to even think about it.
I would rather see a flat tax without any deductions at all. Same
percentage for all no matter the income. What do you say about that?
--
Mark Ferguson

To be honest with you Mark I really don't know. I'm still in the gathering
information stage. I have no problems paying my fair share but what I don't
believe is fair is un equal taxation. Such as a penalty of a higher
percentage because someone have been successful in life. That tells all the
kids that if you do what is right, study hard, get good grades, stay out of
trouble and become successful and make lots of money we will make you pay
more in taxes then someone that has no motivation and has a care less
attitude and will probably never create a job for no one else other then
themselves. If that.

The reality is while the percentage might be higher so are the right
offs. In corporate America they large corporations end up paying far
less in actual percentages then the average person.

A corporation might pay a bill of several million but that is actually
maybe one percent of the annual gross income. The average individual
will end up paying close to eight or more actual percentage points on
their income. Also you have to look at states with sales tax and they
all have them even Oregon. Oregon's tax is just a hidden tax.

So you get taxed when you earn your money and when you spend it. If
you add all the taxes up, State, Federal, FICA, etc... it comes out to
about forty or so percent.

Everything the corporation buys is done with a Tax ID number which
means they pay no sales tax. Most business do this and since I have
two I know what I am talking about. So you have the largest group of
money makers paying nothing percentage wise.

The reason this has been allowed is complex. If you start a flat tax,
one is introduced every year by Barney Frank I think it is. I have
not read the legislation so I cannot say if it is a flat tax or some
screwed up interpretation of what Frank thinks one should be or one he
thinks he can get passed.

The issue is lobbying and the fact that some corporations will move
their production to other countries. This is fine with me because I
won't buy their products if they wish to remove the jobs from the US
where they kind of belong. This is a personal choice of mine. I also
will not shop at WalMart or any other company that refuses to pay
their share even to their employees.

We all have choices to make.

--
Mark Ferguson

Sun Tsu is a snitch and a rat bastard that sells out any that he
does not agree with.

Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

"Why don't you ever go into detail about how you asked theBanana(tm)
to do research on Andrew Conru and AdultFriendFinder.com for you after
stating that the court had ordered you "not to" because of your
lawsuit?".

[Sanders Kaufman]

Post by Mark Ferguson
So you get taxed when you earn your money and when you spend it. If
you add all the taxes up, State, Federal, FICA, etc... it comes out to
about forty or so percent.

Actually, it comes out exactly to 100%.
All currency comes from the US government in grants (expenses) , and
eventually returns to it in taxes (revenue).

Think of it like this:
1. You earn 100 bucks, and lose 20 to income tax, leaving 80.
Then you spend the 80 - 70 on stuff, 10 on sales tax.
2. The guy you gave the 70 to loses 10 to income tax, leaving 60.
Then he spends the 60 - 50 on stuff, 10 on sales tax and maybe some
phone, city and other taxes.
3. Repeat step 20 until there's only $1 left.
The final recipient of the dollar takes it to the post office and
buys stamps.
Bam! The money - ALL of the money - has made its way back to Uncle Sam.

It's a real shame that Bush Republicans aren't willing to give us back our
money.
They seem to think there's something shameful about being an American
taxpayer.

[Sanders Kaufman]

Post by Scratch
believe is fair is un equal taxation. Such as a penalty of a higher
percentage because someone have been successful in life.

That's a fundamental failing of Bush Republicans.
Paying taxes is a privledge, not a punishment.
As an American you *get* to pay your taxes and receive the blessings of
liberty.
There are people in this world who would kill or die for the privledge of
paying US taxes.

Post by Scratch
That tells all the kids that if you do what is right, study hard, get good
grades, stay out of trouble and become successful and make lots of money
we will make you pay more in taxes then someone that has no motivation and
has a care less

You're right - if you teach your children that the price of liberty (taxes)
is too high, they'll avoid paying it.
But if you're a Hank Hill - you teach your kids that its good and right to
pay your taxes.

You base this anti-tax value on the incorrect assumption that earning more
money will NOT put more money in your own pocket.
That is *so* untrue, and is perhaps the most common lie that Republicans
play upon the economic fears of NeoCons.
If your take-home is $100/hr. and you get a raise to $150/hr - it WILL put
extra money in your pocket, in the pocket of your beloved homeland, and in
the pockets of the poor.

It might even buy a piece of body armor for the soldiers being sacraficed in
Iraq.

[Sam Stone]

Post by Sanders Kaufman
Paying taxes is a privledge, not a punishment.

You're a real ass-fuck lover ain't ya sandra...

[Sanders Kaufman]

Post by Mark Ferguson
I would rather see a flat tax without any deductions at all. Same
percentage for all no matter the income. What do you say about that?

Sounds good to the less well-informed, but you learn quick in BusLaw 101
that a "flat" tax is regressive - it demands more from the poor than it does
from the wealthy.

Your asking that the poor to give up food and medicine, while the wealthy
only give up a little wealth.
The rich make out like bandits and the poor get nothing except a tax bill..

The only time it's fair to ask the poor to subsidize the wealthy is *after*
their food and medicine is taken care of.
Unfortunately, the B'ushists don't want to pay their fair share - much less
provide for the poor or the sick.

[Sam Stone]

Post by Sanders Kaufman
a "flat" tax is regressive - it demands more from the poor than it does
from the wealthy.

Who produces and employs more?

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics Sam Stone <***@mental.org> wrote:
: Sanders Kaufman wrote:
:
: > a "flat" tax is regressive - it demands more from the poor than it does
: > from the wealthy.
:
: Who produces and employs more?

The workers.

[Scratch]

Post by Chris Bellomy
: > a "flat" tax is regressive - it demands more from the poor than it does
: > from the wealthy.
: Who produces and employs more?
The workers.

Which are employed by the poor?

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics Scratch <***@few-years.com> wrote:
:
: "Chris Bellomy" <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
: news:***@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > In dfw.politics Sam Stone <***@mental.org> wrote:
: > : Sanders Kaufman wrote:
: > :
: > : > a "flat" tax is regressive - it demands more from the poor than it
: > does
: > : > from the wealthy.
: > :
: > : Who produces and employs more?
: >
: > The workers.
:
: Which are employed by the poor?

Which *are* the poor.

Wealth is generated by labor. Always has been, always
will be.

[Sanders Kaufman]

Post by Sam Stone

Post by Sanders Kaufman
a "flat" tax is regressive - it demands more from the poor than it does
from the wealthy.

Who produces and employs more?

More what?

[Sam Stone]

Post by Sanders Kaufman

Post by Sam Stone

Post by Sanders Kaufman
a "flat" tax is regressive - it demands more from the poor than it does
from the wealthy.

Who produces and employs more?

More what?

Income and humans.

[Mark Ferguson]

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 01:14:20 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"

Post by Sanders Kaufman

Post by Mark Ferguson
I would rather see a flat tax without any deductions at all. Same
percentage for all no matter the income. What do you say about that?

Sounds good to the less well-informed, but you learn quick in BusLaw 101
that a "flat" tax is regressive - it demands more from the poor than it does
from the wealthy.

You are stupid aren't you. A flat tax is an equal tax and the only
tax that is fair.

If you wish to continue to bitch like the shit bird you are then fight
for your uneven field of play so those that are getting shorted can
continue to bitch and whine.

Please note the flame. You eventually might get the hang of flaming
but that does require intellect so I do not hold my hopes out for you.

When you get smarter then you might wish to rethink what you say.

Post by Sanders Kaufman
Your asking that the poor to give up food and medicine, while the wealthy
only give up a little wealth.
The rich make out like bandits and the poor get nothing except a tax bill..

The cry of the wealthy.... It isn't fair to the poor folk.

If the MicroScabs and the IBM and all the other such corporations paid
their fair share of taxes the tax rate for the federal taxes would be
a small percentage of only one to three percent of the gross income.

Just what is the GNP?

Post by Sanders Kaufman
The only time it's fair to ask the poor to subsidize the wealthy is *after*
their food and medicine is taken care of.

Let us clear the air. What was your total gross income for this year?
The reason I ask is you seem to fight for the poor low income slob to
protect the wealthy from actually paying their fair share.

Post by Sanders Kaufman
Unfortunately, the B'ushists don't want to pay their fair share - much less
provide for the poor or the sick.

What a loon. The flat tax is the only fair tax. Remove all
deductions and the eventual tax will only be a couple of points.

--
Mark Ferguson

Sun Tsu is a snitch and a rat bastard that sells out any that he
does not agree with.

Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

"Why don't you ever go into detail about how you asked theBanana(tm)
to do research on Andrew Conru and AdultFriendFinder.com for you after
stating that the court had ordered you "not to" because of your
lawsuit?".

[Sanders Kaufman]

Post by Mark Ferguson
If you wish to continue to bitch like the shit bird you are then fight
for your uneven field of play so those that are getting shorted can
continue to bitch and whine.

You're drunk again, aren't you.

Post by Mark Ferguson
The reason I ask is you seem to fight for the poor low income slob to
protect the wealthy from actually paying their fair share.

It's not very Christian of you to refer to elderly and infirm Americans as
"slobs".

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics Mark Ferguson <***@stop-spam.org> wrote:

: I would rather see a flat tax without any deductions at all. Same
: percentage for all no matter the income. What do you say about that?

The best answer to this is to examine how this has fared
through history, because it has been done.

Capitalist economies with robust consumer classes *always*
come with progressive tax structures. The United States didn't
develop a middle class until it instituted an income tax that
was considerably more progressive than the one in place today.
Since conservatives started making the tax code more regressive
starting in 1978, the middle class has shrunk, the disparity
between classes has grown, and class mobility has decreased
sharply. You can look it up, it's true.

Countries with flat tax systems invariably possess permanent
aristocracies and underclasses. One's lot in life is typically
assigned at birth. This is the favored system of Central American
"democracies," for instance.

So, my question to you is this: What matters to you more? A
flat tax system which you perceive to be more fair, or a society
in which one can rise as far as his ability and determination
will take him?

(There's a second argument that the flat tax is inherently
unfair because the rich benefit far more from government than
do the poor. This is a *very* lengthy conversation, because
it gets down to the nitty gritty of property itself and the
government's essential role in enforcing the notion of property
rights. In a nutshell, anarchy would hurt everybody, but it
would hurt the rich a lot more than it would the poor, who
already live in a sort of anarchy.)

I think you're a serious guy, so I spent the time on a serious
answer for you. I hope it's well received, even if you have
trouble with it in places.

[Sam Stone]

Post by Chris Bellomy
The United States didn't
develop a middle class until it instituted an income tax that
was considerably more progressive than the one in place today.

Um no...it got a middle class after it evolved from a pre-industrial
agrarian state.

hth

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics Sam Stone <***@mental.org> wrote:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
:
: > The United States didn't
: > develop a middle class until it instituted an income tax that
: > was considerably more progressive than the one in place today.
:
: Um no...it got a middle class after it evolved from a pre-industrial
: agrarian state.

That happened after the Civil War.

The middle class didn't come into being until after WWII.

HTH. HAND.

[Mark Ferguson]

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 06:14:18 GMT, Chris Bellomy

Post by Chris Bellomy
: > The United States didn't
: > develop a middle class until it instituted an income tax that
: > was considerably more progressive than the one in place today.
: Um no...it got a middle class after it evolved from a pre-industrial
: agrarian state.
That happened after the Civil War.
The middle class didn't come into being until after WWII.

You are talking to a moron Chris. Middle class resulted from labor
reforms. Many of these have been winnowed down.

Post by Chris Bellomy
HTH. HAND.

--
Mark Ferguson

Sun Tsu is a snitch and a rat bastard that sells out any that he
does not agree with.

Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

"Why don't you ever go into detail about how you asked theBanana(tm)
to do research on Andrew Conru and AdultFriendFinder.com for you after
stating that the court had ordered you "not to" because of your
lawsuit?".

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics Mark Ferguson <***@stop-spam.org> wrote:
: On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 06:14:18 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
:
: >In dfw.politics Sam Stone <***@mental.org> wrote:
: >: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: >:
: >: > The United States didn't
: >: > develop a middle class until it instituted an income tax that
: >: > was considerably more progressive than the one in place today.
: >:
: >: Um no...it got a middle class after it evolved from a pre-industrial
: >: agrarian state.
: >
: >That happened after the Civil War.
: >
: >The middle class didn't come into being until after WWII.
:
: You are talking to a moron Chris. Middle class resulted from labor
: reforms. Many of these have been winnowed down.

Yes sir, you are absolutely right.

(Not often you read *that* in a politics group.)

cb

[Mark Ferguson]

Post by Sam Stone

Post by Chris Bellomy
The United States didn't
develop a middle class until it instituted an income tax that
was considerably more progressive than the one in place today.

Um no...it got a middle class after it evolved from a pre-industrial
agrarian state.

Well the hog does wallow.

The middle class came after the labor reform [mainly legislation]
movements to end unfair labor practices by the barons of industry.
These practices included no traditional number of hours in a week
[forty as it is now was not heard of], no guarantee for employment or
set wages.

Legislation allowed the formation of such organization as Organized
Labor Unions that could collectively bargain for better wages. Of
course this was after the strike busters were retired.

Income tax at the federal level was instituted to pay for World War
one I believe and had absolutely nothing to do with the middle class.
This tax was supposed to be repealed but never was.

IOW you both are mistaken.

Post by Sam Stone
hth

--
Mark Ferguson

Sun Tsu is a snitch and a rat bastard that sells out any that he
does not agree with.

Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

"Why don't you ever go into detail about how you asked theBanana(tm)
to do research on Andrew Conru and AdultFriendFinder.com for you after
stating that the court had ordered you "not to" because of your
lawsuit?".

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics Mark Ferguson <***@stop-spam.org> wrote:
: On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 06:10:37 GMT, Sam Stone <***@mental.org> wrote:
:
: >Chris Bellomy wrote:
: >
: >> The United States didn't
: >> develop a middle class until it instituted an income tax that
: >> was considerably more progressive than the one in place today.
: >
: >
: >Um no...it got a middle class after it evolved from a pre-industrial
: >agrarian state.
:
: Well the hog does wallow.
:
: The middle class came after the labor reform [mainly legislation]
: movements to end unfair labor practices by the barons of industry.
: These practices included no traditional number of hours in a week
: [forty as it is now was not heard of], no guarantee for employment or
: set wages.
:
: Legislation allowed the formation of such organization as Organized
: Labor Unions that could collectively bargain for better wages. Of
: course this was after the strike busters were retired.
:
: Income tax at the federal level was instituted to pay for World War
: one I believe and had absolutely nothing to do with the middle class.
: This tax was supposed to be repealed but never was.
:
: IOW you both are mistaken.

Well, you can see my other post, but essentially there was
no middle class in 1928. There was after the war, at which
point we had a very progressive income tax.

The key data here, IMO, is examining the tax codes of various
countries over the last 100 years and seeing how those economies
fared.

cb

[Sam Stone]

Post by Mark Ferguson

Post by Sam Stone

Post by Chris Bellomy
The United States didn't
develop a middle class until it instituted an income tax that
was considerably more progressive than the one in place today.

Um no...it got a middle class after it evolved from a pre-industrial
agrarian state.

Well the hog does wallow.

And so you were conceived...

[Mark Ferguson]

Post by Sam Stone

Post by Mark Ferguson

Post by Sam Stone

Post by Chris Bellomy
The United States didn't
develop a middle class until it instituted an income tax that
was considerably more progressive than the one in place today.

Um no...it got a middle class after it evolved from a pre-industrial
agrarian state.

Well the hog does wallow.

And so you were conceived...

Yes but did you swallow last night?

--
Mark Ferguson

Sun Tsu is a snitch and a rat bastard that sells out any that he
does not agree with.

Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

"Why don't you ever go into detail about how you asked theBanana(tm)
to do research on Andrew Conru and AdultFriendFinder.com for you after
stating that the court had ordered you "not to" because of your
lawsuit?".

[Sam Stone]

Post by Mark Ferguson
I would rather see a flat tax without any deductions at all.

But yer a moron.

[Sam Stone]

Post by Chris Bellomy
This is a lie; you are a liar.

No you are.

Drop fucking dead.

[cor]

Post by HERB
EVERYONE got lower taxes! Those who PAID more got more reduction. Those who
paid nothing got nothing.
Talk about lies!
Millions who paid 15% got their taxes lowered to 10%!
(and they certainly are not in the top 1%!

Most of taxes tax cuts went to Billionaires. Yea, that fraction of one percent
that did not work at all for those moneys.

[Sam Stone]

Post by cor
Most of taxes tax cuts went to Billionaires.

Oh?

They seem to have gone to those who actually PAID their taxes...

We must have a lot of "billionaires"..

Why I must be one too!

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics Sam Stone <***@mental.org> wrote:
: cor wrote:
:
: > Most of taxes tax cuts went to Billionaires.
:
: Oh?
:
: They seem to have gone to those who actually PAID their taxes...

No, not really.

[Gene]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:36:03 GMT, Chris Bellomy

Post by Chris Bellomy
Social Security runs a huge surplus, which is put into
government bonds. In the 2000 election Al Gore said this money
should be kept in a "lockbox," to pay back the bonds when
Social Security needs it. Instead Bush said this surplus was
"your money" and gave it out as tax cuts for the rich.

Obvously DJ never bothered to look into facts.

Q23: Was the original Social Security program designed to be
self-supporting?

A: Yes. In fact the actuaries estimated the program would have a $47
billion reserve by 1980, and the Trust Fund balance hit $46 billion in
1974. However, the reserve declined after that so that the balance
stood at only $26 billion in 1980. (Today the Trust Fund reserves are
over $1 trillion.)

[Sanders Kaufman]

Post by Gene
Q23: Was the original Social Security program designed to be
self-supporting?
A: Yes. In fact the actuaries estimated the program would have a $47
billion reserve by 1980, and the Trust Fund balance hit $46 billion in
1974. However, the reserve declined after that so that the balance
stood at only $26 billion in 1980.

That coincides with the Nixon administration.
Post Viet-Nam they were looking for a way to fund tax cuts... so they
decided to rob the retirement funds.
(Organized crime *always* goes after the retirement funds.)
Now that the same exact individuals are running the country again, they're
robbing the elderly and infirm again.

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics Gene <***@nowwhere.com> wrote:
: On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:36:03 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
:
: >First, I quote Dave Johnson of seetheforest.blogspot.com:
: >
: > Social Security runs a huge surplus, which is put into
: > government bonds. In the 2000 election Al Gore said this money
: > should be kept in a "lockbox," to pay back the bonds when
: > Social Security needs it. Instead Bush said this surplus was
: > "your money" and gave it out as tax cuts for the rich.
: >
:
: Obvously DJ never bothered to look into facts.
:
: Q23: Was the original Social Security program designed to be
: self-supporting?
:
: A: Yes. In fact the actuaries estimated the program would have a $47
: billion reserve by 1980, and the Trust Fund balance hit $46 billion in
: 1974. However, the reserve declined after that so that the balance
: stood at only $26 billion in 1980. (Today the Trust Fund reserves are
: over $1 trillion.)

Great non sequitur! Thanks!

cb

[Gene]

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:12:51 GMT, Chris Bellomy

Post by Chris Bellomy
: On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:36:03 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: >
: > Social Security runs a huge surplus, which is put into
: > government bonds. In the 2000 election Al Gore said this money
: > should be kept in a "lockbox," to pay back the bonds when
: > Social Security needs it. Instead Bush said this surplus was
: > "your money" and gave it out as tax cuts for the rich.
: >
: Obvously DJ never bothered to look into facts.
: Q23: Was the original Social Security program designed to be
: self-supporting?
: A: Yes. In fact the actuaries estimated the program would have a $47
: billion reserve by 1980, and the Trust Fund balance hit $46 billion in
: 1974. However, the reserve declined after that so that the balance
: stood at only $26 billion in 1980. (Today the Trust Fund reserves are
: over $1 trillion.)
Great non sequitur! Thanks!

Can't refute it? I know. But that'll never stop idiots like you for
whining...I pity the democrats...

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics Gene <***@nowwhere.com> wrote:
: On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:12:51 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
:
: >In dfw.politics Gene <***@nowwhere.com> wrote:
: >: On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:36:03 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: >: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: >:
: >: >First, I quote Dave Johnson of seetheforest.blogspot.com:
: >: >
: >: > Social Security runs a huge surplus, which is put into
: >: > government bonds. In the 2000 election Al Gore said this money
: >: > should be kept in a "lockbox," to pay back the bonds when
: >: > Social Security needs it. Instead Bush said this surplus was
: >: > "your money" and gave it out as tax cuts for the rich.
: >: >
: >:
: >: Obvously DJ never bothered to look into facts.
: >:
: >: Q23: Was the original Social Security program designed to be
: >: self-supporting?
: >:
: >: A: Yes. In fact the actuaries estimated the program would have a $47
: >: billion reserve by 1980, and the Trust Fund balance hit $46 billion in
: >: 1974. However, the reserve declined after that so that the balance
: >: stood at only $26 billion in 1980. (Today the Trust Fund reserves are
: >: over $1 trillion.)
: >
: >Great non sequitur! Thanks!
:
: Can't refute it?

Can't refute what? A response that has absolutely nothing to
do with what I posted? Who cares what the state of the trust
fund was in 1980?

[Elf!]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 01:20:23 GMT, Chris Bellomy

Post by Chris Bellomy
: On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:12:51 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: >: On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:36:03 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: >: >
: >: > Social Security runs a huge surplus, which is put into
: >: > government bonds. In the 2000 election Al Gore said this money
: >: > should be kept in a "lockbox," to pay back the bonds when
: >: > Social Security needs it. Instead Bush said this surplus was
: >: > "your money" and gave it out as tax cuts for the rich.
: >: >
: >: Obvously DJ never bothered to look into facts.
: >: Q23: Was the original Social Security program designed to be
: >: self-supporting?
: >: A: Yes. In fact the actuaries estimated the program would have a $47
: >: billion reserve by 1980, and the Trust Fund balance hit $46 billion in
: >: 1974. However, the reserve declined after that so that the balance
: >: stood at only $26 billion in 1980. (Today the Trust Fund reserves are
: >: over $1 trillion.)
: >
: >Great non sequitur! Thanks!
: Can't refute it?
Can't refute what? A response that has absolutely nothing to
do with what I posted? Who cares what the state of the trust
fund was in 1980?

How about the 1 trillion it is at now?

[Chris Bellomy]

In dfw.politics Elf! <***@poling.com> wrote:
: On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 01:20:23 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
:
: >In dfw.politics Gene <***@nowwhere.com> wrote:
: >: On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:12:51 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: >: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: >:
: >: >In dfw.politics Gene <***@nowwhere.com> wrote:
: >: >: On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:36:03 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: >: >: <***@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: >: >:
: >: >: >First, I quote Dave Johnson of seetheforest.blogspot.com:
: >: >: >
: >: >: > Social Security runs a huge surplus, which is put into
: >: >: > government bonds. In the 2000 election Al Gore said this money
: >: >: > should be kept in a "lockbox," to pay back the bonds when
: >: >: > Social Security needs it. Instead Bush said this surplus was
: >: >: > "your money" and gave it out as tax cuts for the rich.
: >: >: >
: >: >:
: >: >: Obvously DJ never bothered to look into facts.
: >: >:
: >: >: Q23: Was the original Social Security program designed to be
: >: >: self-supporting?
: >: >:
: >: >: A: Yes. In fact the actuaries estimated the program would have a $47
: >: >: billion reserve by 1980, and the Trust Fund balance hit $46 billion in
: >: >: 1974. However, the reserve declined after that so that the balance
: >: >: stood at only $26 billion in 1980. (Today the Trust Fund reserves are
: >: >: over $1 trillion.)
: >: >
: >: >Great non sequitur! Thanks!
: >:
: >: Can't refute it?
: >
: >Can't refute what? A response that has absolutely nothing to
: >do with what I posted? Who cares what the state of the trust
: >fund was in 1980?
:
: How about the 1 trillion it is at now?

Irrelevant, except insofar as investment bankers are rubbing
their hands together at the commissions they're going to siphon
off the top.

[lein]

Post by Chris Bellomy
Social Security runs a huge surplus, which is put into
government bonds. In the 2000 election Al Gore said this money
should be kept in a "lockbox," to pay back the bonds when
Social Security needs it. Instead Bush said this surplus was
"your money" and gave it out as tax cuts for the rich.

Ponzi had a "lockbox"