Consideration required
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:14:18 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 16:37:16 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:31:17 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

The reason why Clinton showed a surplus was because he could borrow
from Social Security and call it income although it was still
increasing the debt.

uh huh. bet that trick was never tried before or since

It has been done by every president since LBJ, who signed the
legislation. Unfortunately it was too late to help him. Nixon got the
only other balanced budget since Eisenhower, using the SS surplus.
Ike did it by actually cutting spending.


Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced?
Was
the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...federal. html


Which year did the debt actually go down? I didn't think so.
Taking one piece of the debt (the money you borrow from SS) and
applying it to lowering your deficit is basically paying your Visa
card bill with your Mastercard.
Ike actually had a year when the debt went down.



So, you're unwilling to believe a non-partisan group... whatever.

I believe what they say, I just question what that really means. When
you are using borrowed money to balance your budget you are lying to
yourself.


From where are you claiming he borrowed money? As they said, even if you
include the SS "borrowing," there was still a surplus.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Consideration required
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:24:04 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

From where are you claiming he borrowed money? As they said, even if you
include the SS "borrowing," there was still a surplus.

--
Ever since 1940 the government has been borrowing the surplus from the
"trust fund". We put a similar treasury bond in there as we give the
Chinese. The question is only which one we will cash first if money
gets tight.
The major difference started in the last year of L:BJ when they
changed the bookkeeping rules to show that surplus as revenue for the
government and not a trust fund for the future SS recipients. (it was
put "on budget"). They still borrow it and spend it issuing a bond and
putting it on the debt but the money shows up as revenue when we
compute the deficit. It was a trick to hide the cost of the Vietnam
war. As I said, Nixon actually got a surplus ... for one year 1969.
The debt still went up.


I stand by my original statement and link.


I would expect no less ;-)

The fact still remains that when they spend the surplus it becomes
debt and by it being "on budget" it does not show up on the deficit.

"when they spend the surplus it becomes debt"???? Well, eventually. Again,
what's your point

Sleazy Vietnam era accounting trick that makes the budget look better
than it is. It is all academic anyway because in a year or two that
surplus will peak and be dropping, totally gone in 6 years or so. I
will be curious how they juggle the books to make the SS deficit, not
show up on the budget deficit. (the down side of it being "on
budget").

Clinton was well past the "Sleazy Vietnam era."

--
Nom=de=Plume

Consideration required
 

Harry wrote:
On 2/7/10 11:30 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:25:04 -0500, wrote:




The national debt story.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16


Look at the increase in revenues during those years.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist15z1.xls




Reagan wasn't in office by then...

FYI, the economy grew 6% in the last quarter... the best in SIX years!



Statistical spin. When you hit rock bottom, and upward movement is
statistically huge.

even if you subtract effects of inventories, the economy grew.

which is more than we can say about bush


Bruce is one of those Republithugs who doesn't want any sort of
economic turnaround. Improvement in the economy will make it more
difficult for the Republithugs. Bruce hates America.
Sure, Harry. That's exactly what I said, right?

Consideration required
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:44:06 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:24:04 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

They still borrow it and spend it issuing a bond and
putting it on the debt but the money shows up as revenue when we
compute the deficit. It was a trick to hide the cost of the Vietnam
war. As I said, Nixon actually got a surplus ... for one year 1969.
The debt still went up.


I stand by my original statement and link.


I would expect no less ;-)

The fact still remains that when they spend the surplus it becomes
debt and by it being "on budget" it does not show up on the deficit.

"when they spend the surplus it becomes debt"???? Well, eventually. Again,
what's your point

It becomes debt but because of the LBJ trick it does not show up in
the deficit.

Sleazy Vietnam era accounting trick that makes the budget look better
than it is. It is all academic anyway because in a year or two that
surplus will peak and be dropping, totally gone in 6 years or so. I
will be curious how they juggle the books to make the SS deficit, not
show up on the budget deficit. (the down side of it being "on
budget").

Clinton was well past the "Sleazy Vietnam era."

True but he still got the $105 billion extra in his budget from that
sleazy accounting trick in 1999 to show a surplus.


You act like the debt is something that's so horrible we're going to shrivel
up at any moment. What do you think the consequences would be of not doing
that? The gov't runs out of money and throws people out of their jobs among
other nasty things. Your solution?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Consideration required
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:44:06 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:24:04 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

They still borrow it and spend it issuing a bond and
putting it on the debt but the money shows up as revenue when we
compute the deficit. It was a trick to hide the cost of the Vietnam
war. As I said, Nixon actually got a surplus ... for one year 1969.
The debt still went up.


I stand by my original statement and link.


I would expect no less ;-)

The fact still remains that when they spend the surplus it becomes
debt and by it being "on budget" it does not show up on the deficit.

"when they spend the surplus it becomes debt"???? Well, eventually. Again,
what's your point

It becomes debt but because of the LBJ trick it does not show up in
the deficit.

Sleazy Vietnam era accounting trick that makes the budget look better
than it is. It is all academic anyway because in a year or two that
surplus will peak and be dropping, totally gone in 6 years or so. I
will be curious how they juggle the books to make the SS deficit, not
show up on the budget deficit. (the down side of it being "on
budget").

Clinton was well past the "Sleazy Vietnam era."

True but he still got the $105 billion extra in his budget from that
sleazy accounting trick in 1999 to show a surplus.


FYI:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...l-debt-ceiling


--
Nom=de=Plume

Consideration required
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 18:33:07 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"when they spend the surplus it becomes debt"???? Well, eventually.
Again,
what's your point

It becomes debt but because of the LBJ trick it does not show up in
the deficit.

Sleazy Vietnam era accounting trick that makes the budget look better
than it is. It is all academic anyway because in a year or two that
surplus will peak and be dropping, totally gone in 6 years or so. I
will be curious how they juggle the books to make the SS deficit, not
show up on the budget deficit. (the down side of it being "on
budget").

Clinton was well past the "Sleazy Vietnam era."

True but he still got the $105 billion extra in his budget from that
sleazy accounting trick in 1999 to show a surplus.


You act like the debt is something that's so horrible we're going to
shrivel
up at any moment. What do you think the consequences would be of not doing
that? The gov't runs out of money and throws people out of their jobs
among
other nasty things. Your solution?

The debt will sink us long before global warming. We are taxing at
about 18% of GDP right now but in 30 years that won't even be enough
to cover the interest on the debt if you take the worst case GAO
projections. Most of the projected spending is in entitlements, not
discretionary spending so somebody is not only going to have to touch
the third rail, (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) they have to grab it and rip
it out.
That won't happen.


And, you believe that the economy will never recover significantly enough to
make progress toward reducing the debt... well, that's pretty pessimistic I
think.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Consideration required
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:26:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The debt will sink us long before global warming. We are taxing at
about 18% of GDP right now but in 30 years that won't even be enough
to cover the interest on the debt if you take the worst case GAO
projections. Most of the projected spending is in entitlements, not
discretionary spending so somebody is not only going to have to touch
the third rail, (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) they have to grab it and rip
it out.
That won't happen.


And, you believe that the economy will never recover significantly enough
to
make progress toward reducing the debt... well, that's pretty pessimistic
I
think.

Simple answer ... no ... there is not going to be enough growth to
sustain the ponzi schemes we have contracted with the boomers and
beyond.

I thought we were talking about jobs, not schemes. You're saying you don't
think jobs will return? Because basically that's what creates an economy
capable of dealing with the debt.

It is simple demographics. 2.1 workers per retiree can not sustain the
same benefit package the greatest generation extracted from short
sighted politicians when it was 18 workers per retiree.

Yet, that's exactly what Obama is trying to do... look at the long term.
He's being vilified for that on a daily basis.

Barry Goldwater warned us about this problem in 1964, when we might
have been able to actually do something about it but we denied there
was a problem and continued to kick the can down the road for another
46 years even adding to the problem with new entitlements. My kids
have a better chance of seeing a unicorn than they do of seeing a
social security check. The only question is whether the US as we know
it will still be here.

Well Sen. Goldwater had other problems... 1964 was a long time ago, and he
warned us about a lot of things.


As much as I hate the idea of losing my benefits, I think we will have
to cut back on SS somehow and we really need to cut the COST of
medical care, not just get the government to pay for it.
Unfortunately that means we will be rationing care and there will not
be the kind of extravagant treatments for dead people than we are used
to. Up to half of the total medical expenditures most people have are
in their last 6 months of life and it really only buys them a month or
so.

The gov't isn't going to be "paying" for anything. The point is to offer
competition through a public option. That would do what you want, even
though you may not want to believe it. If you're worried about end of life
counseling then have a chat with Palin and the nut jobs who are calling it
death panels.

Personally I don't want that kind of care but I am not the usual
person. If I ever got that sick I would just want out.

It's called a living will. But, according to those on the right, that a
death panel decision not an individual decision.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Consideration required
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 23:13:57 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:26:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:
And, you believe that the economy will never recover significantly
enough
to
make progress toward reducing the debt... well, that's pretty
pessimistic
I
think.

Simple answer ... no ... there is not going to be enough growth to
sustain the ponzi schemes we have contracted with the boomers and
beyond.

I thought we were talking about jobs, not schemes. You're saying you don't
think jobs will return? Because basically that's what creates an economy
capable of dealing with the debt.


There just are not enough young people out there to support the number
of old people we have, even if they did get good jobs

There are, depending on how it's structured, how much costs can be reduced,
and possibly a change in benefits.


It is simple demographics. 2.1 workers per retiree can not sustain the
same benefit package the greatest generation extracted from short
sighted politicians when it was 18 workers per retiree.

Yet, that's exactly what Obama is trying to do... look at the long term.
He's being vilified for that on a daily basis.

Agreed, and so has every other politician who tries to touch the third
rail.

The "third rail" is typically Social Security.


Barry Goldwater warned us about this problem in 1964, when we might
have been able to actually do something about it but we denied there
was a problem and continued to kick the can down the road for another
46 years even adding to the problem with new entitlements. My kids
have a better chance of seeing a unicorn than they do of seeing a
social security check. The only question is whether the US as we know
it will still be here.

Well Sen. Goldwater had other problems... 1964 was a long time ago, and he
warned us about a lot of things.

Yes he warned us about a lot of things, most of which were right.

Like what? He changed his views on several things.


The fix for Social Security really had to happen a long time ago.

Completely untrue. It's an ongoing problem and solution set.



As much as I hate the idea of losing my benefits, I think we will have
to cut back on SS somehow and we really need to cut the COST of
medical care, not just get the government to pay for it.
Unfortunately that means we will be rationing care and there will not
be the kind of extravagant treatments for dead people than we are used
to. Up to half of the total medical expenditures most people have are
in their last 6 months of life and it really only buys them a month or
so.

The gov't isn't going to be "paying" for anything. The point is to offer
competition through a public option. That would do what you want, even
though you may not want to believe it. If you're worried about end of life
counseling then have a chat with Palin and the nut jobs who are calling it
death panels.

Of course the government/tax payer was going to pay. This will start
out as a modest health plan and then become the same boondoggle
Medicare has become, over budget, deficit spending with a 15-20% fraud
rate.
We will never agree to the taxes necessary to support "free" health
care.
Nobody has ever proven to anyone who actually looks that this will be
cheap.

According to you. And, you're wrong.


Personally I don't want that kind of care but I am not the usual
person. If I ever got that sick I would just want out.

It's called a living will. But, according to those on the right, that a
death panel decision not an individual decision.

The death panel is simply the people who decide whether a person
without a living will gets extraordinary measures in the last few days
of their life. I am for death panels.
Personally I will just want the nitrous oxide, hold the oxygen.
(the dentist's preferred form of punching out)

Right now, the rich live, the poorer die.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Consideration required
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:08:51 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 23:13:57 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


There just are not enough young people out there to support the number
of old people we have, even if they did get good jobs

There are, depending on how it's structured, how much costs can be
reduced,
and possibly a change in benefits.


You really think 2.1 kids for each SS recipient is "enough"? My SS
check will be $1946 a month when I plan on taking it in 2012 (age 66).
That means each one of those 2.1 kids will be paying $11,120 a year
just for my SS check and that doesn't cover my Medicare ... assuming
SSA doesn't have any overhead. $15,000-$18,000 a year is a better
number when you look at overhead, SSI and other things SSA will have
to fund out of that FICA tax.


It is simple demographics. 2.1 workers per retiree can not sustain the
same benefit package the greatest generation extracted from short
sighted politicians when it was 18 workers per retiree.

Yet, that's exactly what Obama is trying to do... look at the long term.
He's being vilified for that on a daily basis.

Agreed, and so has every other politician who tries to touch the third
rail.

The "third rail" is typically Social Security.
Yes, that is what we are talking about but the Obama and the Senate
also found out you get a lot of mail when you say you are taking money
out of Medicare.



Barry Goldwater warned us about this problem in 1964, when we might
have been able to actually do something about it but we denied there
was a problem and continued to kick the can down the road for another
46 years even adding to the problem with new entitlements. My kids
have a better chance of seeing a unicorn than they do of seeing a
social security check. The only question is whether the US as we know
it will still be here.

Well Sen. Goldwater had other problems... 1964 was a long time ago, and
he
warned us about a lot of things.

Yes he warned us about a lot of things, most of which were right.

Like what? He changed his views on several things.

Social Security, Vietnam, Cuba, all consuming government.

One quote you should like from later in his life
"I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."



The fix for Social Security really had to happen a long time ago.

Completely untrue. It's an ongoing problem and solution set.

How do you figure that? If we had made substantial changes 2 or 3
decades ago, it wouldn't be going broke before the end of this one.
The only solution now is that ~$16,000 per worker tax I pointed out
above. I know your knee jerk reaction is to just tax the rich people
more but there are not that many rich people. The government owes
Social Security over $2 trillion dollars and even if they had it to
give, they program is still broke in 2043. Unfortunately we don't have
the $2 trillion to give so it is really going to be in trouble in 2016
according to the trust fund report from SSA.


Of course the government/tax payer was going to pay. This will start
out as a modest health plan and then become the same boondoggle
Medicare has become, over budget, deficit spending with a 15-20% fraud
rate.
We will never agree to the taxes necessary to support "free" health
care.
Nobody has ever proven to anyone who actually looks that this will be
cheap.

According to you. And, you're wrong.

Facts ma'am, give me some facts. If they are not cutting the cost of
care itself, it won't be cheaper and the plan is adding 40 million
people, most of which probably won't be able to pay a fraction of
their bill. We all will have to make up that difference.
The CBO report on the Senate bill said costs would go up for those who
have insurance now. That was pretty definitive for me.


Personally I don't want that kind of care but I am not the usual
person. If I ever got that sick I would just want out.

It's called a living will. But, according to those on the right, that a
death panel decision not an individual decision.

The death panel is simply the people who decide whether a person
without a living will gets extraordinary measures in the last few days
of their life. I am for death panels.
Personally I will just want the nitrous oxide, hold the oxygen.
(the dentist's preferred form of punching out)

Right now, the rich live, the poorer die.

I ran those numbers for you all here a while ago and people without
insurance die at about the same rate as people who have insurance.
(using the "lack of insurance kills 43,000 people a year" factoid and
"41 million don't have insurance" as a starting point). The difference
is a few percent and other factors like crime, lifestyle and living
conditions will easily cover that difference.
Run those numbers against national death rates yourself and see.

If you are saying poor people live in more dangerous neighborhoods,
have a higher illegal drug use rate and have more dangerous
lifestyles/jobs, I agree but giving them insurance won't really change
that much.


I'm sorry, but you seem to have all the answers, most of which appear to be
either made up or twist and turn like a winding road in the mountains. It's
just not worth it. On the one had you claim that jobs is the answer, and on
the other you claim the debt is going to destroy us. Debt in a recession is
a good thing. It's not even out of bounds... about the same as the "decades"
ago you claim... about the same % of GDP as in the 70s.

If you want to believe people don't die for lack of insurance, go for it. If
you want to believe that Obama is somehow at fault and he's incompetent,
that's fine with me. If you want to believe that Goldwater was some kind of
prescient god, that's fine. None of these things actually turn into facts,
however.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Consideration required
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 23:45:41 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

None of these things actually turn into facts,
however.

They will
Come talk to me in 2012 (when the end of the SS surplus is in sight)
and see what everyone is talking about, including the Democrats.
I guarantee it will be the debt crisis and the impending failure of
Social Security.

Anyone who is relying upon Social Security or Medicare to support them
in their retirement years is a fool.