Where's the Outrage?

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

Trying to ridicule me does nothing to dispute the black and white numbers.

You keep ridiculing the blog...but tell me that the table showing intergovernmental transfers isn't correct. If nobody can, I think we really did rob the fund, just like Al Gore said.

I take great offense that I was trying to ridicule. I DID ridicule. Like Master Yoda say, "Do, or do not, there is no try."

I ridicule the blog for two reasons:

1. The blogger is laughable.
2. It makes me laugh.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by fritz3552

No - but did you get MY point - that W. had much more class than the Bamster. The Bamster is STILL criticizing W's administration directly. It's one thing to have your minions do it (as W's administration did - I have no delusions about that), but to be the President and directly criticize the previous administration is the epitome of low class.

Well if Obama was making false accusations about Bush you would have a point. There have been a lot of pundits and Republicans who are blaming Obama for a lot of mess and if I were Obama I would tell them hey I am trying to fix the shit Bush fucked up. Do you really expect Obama or anyone else to pretend that 2000 to 2008 never happened. Do you expect Obama not to mention that the economy fell before he got in office? I think you have so much hatred for Obama did you expect him to have amnesia and totally believe that everything going on from the 2 wars to the economic collaspe happened under his watch. Everything I have seen Obama blame the previous administration he was right. Can you name one thing that Obama blamed Bush that Bush had nothing to do with? Also, there are lot of GOP's hyprocrits who are blaiming Obama for bailouts even though they were at ribbon cutting ceromonies with bailout money. Your analogy of Bush not criticizing Clinton holds no merit because as I and many others have pointed out Bush stepped into the White house on day 1 No wars- a fantastic strong economy, low unemployment, no mortgage crisis, no need of bailouts, need collaspe of banks- so why would Bush complain if he was handed a silver platter??? It has nothing to do with class- I am pretty sure Obama is a classy guy- Obama praised Ronald Reagan numerous of times, but if you are living in a world where you think 2000 to 2008 were glory years for America and that the Bush administration really did great things than stay in your world.

[dirty dog]

" a fantastic strong economy,"

This is not correct the economy was in fact in a decline due to the tech bubble bursting. It was not as bad as 2008 but it was not a fantastic strong economy.

I am not trying to piss any one off, but at this point who really gives a shit, its like an adult version of my daddy is better than your daddy.

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Well if Obama was making false accusations about Bush you would have a point. There have been a lot of pundits and Republicans who are blaming Obama for a lot of mess and if I were Obama I would tell them hey I am trying to fix the shit Bush fucked up. Do you really expect Obama or anyone else to pretend that 2000 to 2008 never happened. Do you expect Obama not to mention that the economy fell before he got in office? I think you have so much hatred for Obama did you expect him to have amnesia and totally believe that everything going on from the 2 wars to the economic collaspe happened under his watch. Everything I have seen Obama blame the previous administration he was right. Can you name one thing that Obama blamed Bush that Bush had nothing to do with? Also, there are lot of GOP's hyprocrits who are blaiming Obama for bailouts even though they were at ribbon cutting ceromonies with bailout money. Your analogy of Bush not criticizing Clinton holds no merit because as I and many others have pointed out Bush stepped into the White house on day 1 No wars- a fantastic strong economy, low unemployment, no mortgage crisis, no need of bailouts, need collaspe of banks- so why would Bush complain if he was handed a silver platter??? It has nothing to do with class- I am pretty sure Obama is a classy guy- Obama praised Ronald Reagan numerous of times, but if you are living in a world where you think 2000 to 2008 were glory years for America and that the Bush administration really did great things than stay in your world.

Actually, 2003 through 2006 were glory years for America - strong economy, no mortgage crisis, no need for bailouts, low unemployment, no collapse of banks. 2000-2001 were leftover Clinton. 2001-2003 were getting over 9/11; and 2006-2008 were stymied by the Democrat-controlled Congress which really fucked everything up - mortgage crises, growing unemployment, banks in trouble, weakening economy.

[lacrew_2000]

Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

I take great offense that I was trying to ridicule. I DID ridicule. Like Master Yoda say, "Do, or do not, there is no try."

I interpret this to mean that you can't dispute the fact that intra-governmental transfers from the social security fund were used to artificially balance the budget in the 90's.

Thank you for your input.

The money was double counted. The same trick was used with the healthcare bill...counting money 'borrowed' from medicare in the balance sheet of the healthcare act, to make it deficit neutral.

All I'm saying is lets have some honest accounting. Every year we hire auditors to look at our company's books....we could never get away with one half of the company borrowing money from the other half, to make the company balance sheet look better (one of the reasons Wittig is in prison right now btw). Why do we put up with it from our government? Why try to quash discussion of it with ridicule? It happened. SS is broke. I wish somebody could prove me wrong, instead of just joke about it.

Right now Glenn Beck is investigating a similar scheme with treasury bond auctions...and of course he is being painted as a raving lunatic....but...he's....right . Its black and white, public information, that anyone can see...but our 'leaders' turn a blind eye.

And so it continues. Anybody who points out the obvious, almost criminal accounting of our money, is laughed at....and we keep letting the lunatics run the asylum.

But I'll keep pointing out the obvious, and view the ridicule as a positive step, because obviously that is the largest couter-argument that can be mustered.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by fritz3552

Actually, 2003 through 2006 were glory years for America - strong economy, no mortgage crisis, no need for bailouts, low unemployment, no collapse of banks. 2000-2001 were leftover Clinton. 2001-2003 were getting over 9/11; and 2006-2008 were stymied by the Democrat-controlled Congress which really fucked everything up - mortgage crises, growing unemployment, banks in trouble, weakening economy.

Wow, talk about passing the buck. This post is going to a special thread. LOL.

[Longermonger]

Glory years or GLORY BUBBLE? Forget about the runaway military spending (not counted as part of the budget) and all of the dead and wounded soldiers. Yeah, just forget about all that stuff and forget about gas prices quadrupling. Just re-write history like Karl Rove and see how many idiots buy it. Ta-da! That's the 2010 Republican election strategy.

Oh, and say that Afghanistan is a war "of Obama's choosing" to make political point like the Republican party chairman said recently.

[dirty dog]

"Forget about the runaway military spending (not counted as part of the budget) and all of the dead and wounded soldiers. Yeah, just forget about all that stuff and forget about gas prices quadrupling. Just re-write history like Karl Rove and see how many idiots buy it. Ta-da! That's the 2010 Republican election strategy."

You always got to do it, your zest to trash the GOP you have to embellish the truth and skew it towards your point. Stop it young man LOL. Okay first military spending, we are at war, whether or not you agree with the war or not at the time the war started over 90% of America and almost the entire congress supported it. This being said military spending has to occur, in addition had Clinton not trashed the military but cutting it by over 150 billion over his tenure it would not have needed to be rebuilt, and all these neat toys that people love but forget how much they cost. They love Jdams because it doesnt kill as many civilians, but they forget each bomb cost 15 times as much as a standard 500 pound "dumb" bomb.

As for oil prices, if this was a Bush statagy how come Obama hasn't corrected it. I mean prices are .50 cents cheaper than their high under Bush, seems to me this wold be one of those easy to fix things if it was just dismantling a Bush evil plan to be rich, hmmmm wait a minute, already rich.........

As for Steele, I know his point was Obama could have stopped the war already, I made the same point a month ago, so by not stopping it and by actually intensifying it, he has taken ownership of it, Obama even said it was the war we should be fighting, so in a way he has chosen it. This being said, Steele could have said it much differently and gotten his point across, his method was poor and only gave his opposition ammunition which he seems to do a lot. Not a big fan of him or howard Dean, in fact I would like to see both positions eliminated as I think they promote the we must win at all costs agenda which is common in politics these days.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

I interpret this to mean that you can't dispute the fact that intra-governmental transfers from the social security fund were used to artificially balance the budget in the 90's.

Thank you for your input.

Interpret it however you feel. Here is a link to a nonpartisan, not-for-profit that indicates there was a surplus. Notice the numbers are from the U.S. Congressional Budget Office. You are welcome for the input by the way.

Clinton Surplus, Fact or Fiction?

BTW, when you open up a sentence with "Right now Glenn Beck is investigating..." I don't know if one could take the rest of the sentence seriously. Also, I think Glenn Beck's being painted as a raving lunatic is a self-portrait. LOL.

[lacrew_2000]

Your link is to Factcheckdotorg. While you ridiculed my link, you put up a link to a partisan political web-site, funded by the Frank Annenburg foundation (whose former board members include Bill Ayers and Barack Obama). I think its interesting, to say the least, that they call themselves 'factcheck'.

I'm not so sure why this is so hard to understand. Congress (usually GOP btw) borrowed from the SS trust fund in the 90's, in order to claim a balanced budget. Clinton stole their thunder and claimed the surplus as his own. Al Gore, a generally shallow man, had a moment of conscience and clarity and made the 'lockbox' a campaign point. It went over like a lead balloon, because most people couldn't understand it...if both parties, and the media are saying we had a surplus, we have a surplus didn't we? Al's campaign to protect social security didn't help him one bit.

But the IOU's are still sitting there in the trust fund...reminds me of a scene near the end of Dumb and Dumber. But please, if somebody would like to enlighten me, and show me that the general fund did not borrow from the trust fund, I'd love to hear it.

For those interested, here is a CBO report on the transfers:

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3982&type=0

Here is a link from a University of Florida guy explaining the transfers in layman's terms (although it might not pass your 'blog' standard):

http://grove.ufl.edu/~leo/fed_trust_funds.html

I knew mentioning Beck would get a reaction. I actually seldom listen to him, because he is somewhat depressing. I remember around 3-4 years ago, he kept harping on an 'economic tsunami' that would hit. I tuned him out, since that wasn't possible....

...the darnest thing about Beck...he has a track record of being right, no matter how annoying he can be.

[kcbigpapa]

Lacrew, you may have to point out where in the CBO report where it states the transfers between 1993 and 2001 fiscal years that show there was no surplus. The information that is relayed is from 2002. There is one graph that goes back to 2000, but that seems to be it unless I am missing something. I ask this question in all seriousness.

Also, this is unarguable, factcheck.org uncovers BOTH Democrat and Republican lies, mistrusts, distortions, whatever you want to call it. UNARGUABLE!!! LOL.

One could argue that Beck has a track record of being wrong as well. Just because he puts it on a chalkboard doesn't make it fact. Don't forget, a broken clock is right two times a day. The other 1,438 minutes of the day it is wrong.

[lacrew_2000]

Federal 'Borrowing' from the trust fund:


Frankly, I was taken a little by surprise...I kinda thought most people knew about this (again, it was a major point in Al Gore's presidential campaign). The 'public debt' went down, while the 'total debt' went up....and if debt goes up in any given year, it means we ran a deficit. Its an accounting trick...and its just plain wrong. Politicians from both sides of the aisle try to trick us with strange accounting. BTW, I know that this started with the senior Bush...and I know that junior Bush broke his campaign promise and continued the practice...and yes, in the middle, Clinton used it as well. My original point: Do not use the Clinton years and tax policy as a model of fiscal success...without acknowledging that the general fund borrowed billions from SS. I actually agreed with old Al on this one. Now, a bunch of fancy economists will say 'there is no such thing as a lockbox' and 'its ridiculous to peg a tax (SS) to a specific service' and 'the trust fund should not even exist'. Why? Its a forceable retirement fund...people have gone to prison for using 401k balances to improve their balance sheet.

If I can't convince you that we have been borrowing from the trust fund, I'll give up. I'll give a little hint about that chart though. The chart represents the value of the trust fund...but it also represents the amount borrowed from the fund (after 1983)...that's right, every surplus penny gets 'borrowed'.

[Judge Smails]

To Dirty dogs post on Steele comments, I agree that the heads of the RNC and DNC seem to serve no real purpose and get in the way of party platforms that should be formed by folks that actually have to face an electorate.

I too winced when I heard the Steele comments. It is an understatement to say they were clumsy. Somewhat quietly, there were just a few whispers that although worded wrong, at least the general idea that the escalation now makes it Obama's war is the point.

I am now against the war in Afghanistan because I don't know what the def of victory is. It is a gd pile of rocks with some opium growing with a tribal culture that has a long history of opposing what we think of as democracy. Meantime, our soldiers continue to die for Karzai?

To the extension of unemployment benefits, interesting article late last week in the Wall Street Journal from Arthur Laffer ( admittedly conservative) that puts forth at least an intelligent debate as to why unemployment benefits are not stimulative. I will try to dig up a link. Decent reading to ponder whatever side you are on...

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

If I can't convince you that we have been borrowing from the trust fund, I'll give up. I'll give a little hint about that chart though. The chart represents the value of the trust fund...but it also represents the amount borrowed from the fund (after 1983)...that's right, every surplus penny gets 'borrowed'.

Someone must have labeled that graph poorly. I didn't see where it said the amount borrowed from the fund after 1983. Was that just inferred? Also, if I cannot use the Clinton years as a model of fiscal success, am I allowed to use the Bush (W.) years as a model? I did find this here:

Nutty Republican Site That Blames Slavery on Other Blacks and Other Wack-O Stuff, Plus They Can Dispel the Myth That Jesus Was Real

This website, which is, like I said nutty... sorry, meant to put ULTRA conservative, claims there was a surplus. Of course, they credit the GOP led Congress for this. You may want to show them the graph you posted. Warn them before you do of how bright the green is and for them to turn down the brightness on their monitors. Also, explain to them how it is labeled, well without the actual labels. Then forward that to the Congressional Budget Office as well, because they have bad information as well. Make sure they know the "truth as told by lacrew" as well. We will bring down the whole system with your graph. By the way, I read both of your posts, and NOT ONE mentioned there was no surplus under Clinton. Did you even bother to read them? I am referring to the Florida Guy link and the CBO link. Please provide more links disproving there was a surplus that doesn't actually mention that there was no surplus as I find them incredibly creditable and it makes your argument SSSSOOOO much better. Now tell me the truth, did you and JG collaborate to make the website I linked to above? If so, kudos. Your partisan BS is getting almost as bad as JG's.

[lacrew_2000]

I see I have hit a sore spot.

I'm going to try one more time. Since you like to 'official' websites, I have gone to the SSA website.

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

If you go to the bottom right, you can do a time series report for 'all years' and see the data for yourself. Its a shitty way to do a link, but I can't get the table itself to link anything before year 2000, which is one of the reasons I haven't tried to use it.

In this table, what is noted as a Special Issue Security 'Investment' is really the general fund borrowing from the SSA. The bonds are long term, while the certificates are short term. If you look at any two consecutive years, the difference in the 'investment' in SI bonds would be the amount borrowed in the latter of the two years.

If you can't understand this, I'm sorry...but don't deflect your inability to understand this by ridiculing me.

You may note that its just as bad during the Bush years as it is during the Clinton years...so I don't know why the hell you think its partisan to point this out.

Again, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, and I won't continue to call you out on it. I sincerely thought everybody knew about these transfers, and wasn't trying to flush out anybody's ignorance.