On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:09:57 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 21/03/2011 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:14:00 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

Two years? From when he decided to go after Saddam, perhaps. Other
that you're just rewriting the facts.

Two years of no fly zones, following 8 years under Clinton and over a
year with GHWB.

The question is, what is our exit strategy in Libya?

We don't seem to have one for any of our other military adventures and
we are still in all of them.

Obama is going to use this as an excuse with Congress to continue his
out of control debt-spending. Nothing worse than a liberla-debtor in
debtors denial. Congress should just say balanced budget, you run out
of money you are closed down.

Then the real steps toward recovery will occur.

So, when Obama called for PayGo and the Republicans said no, I guess
that makes it Obama's fault in your tiny brain.

If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is
about as significant as cutting the NPR budget.

"Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as
instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually
decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large
surpluses."

On 21/03/2011 6:02 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:09:57 -0600,
wrote:

On 21/03/2011 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:14:00 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

Two years? From when he decided to go after Saddam, perhaps. Other
that you're just rewriting the facts.

Two years of no fly zones, following 8 years under Clinton and over a
year with GHWB.

The question is, what is our exit strategy in Libya?

We don't seem to have one for any of our other military adventures and
we are still in all of them.

Obama is going to use this as an excuse with Congress to continue his
out of control debt-spending. Nothing worse than a liberla-debtor in
debtors denial. Congress should just say balanced budget, you run out
of money you are closed down.

Then the real steps toward recovery will occur.

So, when Obama called for PayGo and the Republicans said no, I guess
that makes it Obama's fault in your tiny brain.

If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is
about as significant as cutting the NPR budget.

"Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as
instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually
decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large
surpluses."

Well that isn't pay as you go. Pay as you go is when you have real
money, and are not running in currency debt. That is, spending is less
than revenue. And Obama wants this long after his 8th year -- which
hopefully the fool will never see.

Pay as you go mean you spend less than your revnue. And that includes
servicing the DEBT.

Hey, the rest is bu11sh1t from the fleabaggers.

Look for gasoline and food to go up 15% shortly just to show you the
effects of creating new inflationary ponzi debt dollars like sheets of
toilet paper buys you.

Want a bet oil goes up 1% tomorrow? Might be 2%.... me, I am laughing
all the way to th bank as my biggest holdings are REAL oilfields.

Ponzi liberal-socialism, screws the unaware every time.

How many barrels of oil are you worth?

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:27:47 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:02:41 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote:



If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is
about as significant as cutting the NPR budget.

"Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as
instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually
decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large
surpluses."

That was when SS and Medicare were paying their own way. Both are in
deficit now.

They are not in deficit in any way that affects the upcoming budget.
It's nonsense, right-wing fear-mongering.

On 21/03/2011 7:43 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:27:47 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:02:41 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote:



If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is
about as significant as cutting the NPR budget.

"Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as
instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually
decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large
surpluses."

That was when SS and Medicare were paying their own way. Both are in
deficit now.

They are not in deficit in any way that affects the upcoming budget.
It's nonsense, right-wing fear-mongering.

Ya, but look at the debtor that owes money to SS. Seriously, SS has
been raided as a cheap money source by the government. Below market
rate returns for decauses, a slight of government hand in skimming it.

Now the government does not want to have to pay back the SS debt it
owes. And as the US government depeciates the currency, it makes SS
shortfalls worse.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:43:50 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:27:47 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:02:41 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote:



If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is
about as significant as cutting the NPR budget.

"Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as
instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually
decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large
surpluses."

That was when SS and Medicare were paying their own way. Both are in
deficit now.

They are not in deficit in any way that affects the upcoming budget.
It's nonsense, right-wing fear-mongering.

You are not that stupid. How can you possibly say a program that
spends moire than it takes in is not in deficit?

Medicare has been upside down for several years and SS went upside
down 2 years ago.

She can say that because she knows it will keep you talking to her
snerk

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:48:04 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:43:50 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:27:47 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:02:41 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote:



If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is
about as significant as cutting the NPR budget.

"Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as
instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually
decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large
surpluses."

That was when SS and Medicare were paying their own way. Both are in
deficit now.

They are not in deficit in any way that affects the upcoming budget.
It's nonsense, right-wing fear-mongering.

You are not that stupid. How can you possibly say a program that
spends moire than it takes in is not in deficit?

Medicare has been upside down for several years and SS went upside
down 2 years ago.

And, it is not contributing one penny to the current deficit problem.
It "may" at some point if it isn't fixed.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:43:12 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:23:35 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:48:04 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:43:50 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:27:47 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:02:41 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote:



If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is
about as significant as cutting the NPR budget.

"Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as
instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually
decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large
surpluses."

That was when SS and Medicare were paying their own way. Both are in
deficit now.

They are not in deficit in any way that affects the upcoming budget.
It's nonsense, right-wing fear-mongering.

You are not that stupid. How can you possibly say a program that
spends moire than it takes in is not in deficit?

Medicare has been upside down for several years and SS went upside
down 2 years ago.

And, it is not contributing one penny to the current deficit problem.
It "may" at some point if it isn't fixed.


WHAT? We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar of the short fall and
Obama chopping 2% off of the FICA tax rate only makes it worse.

WHAT? Not because of SS/MC. I don't agree with any tax cut for the
wealthy.


Before that, they were trying to say a recovery would put SS back into
the black for a year, maybe two. Now they can't even make that claim.

Medicare is just spiraling down the black hole of debt with no end in
sight.

Go hide under your blankey.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:43:18 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:40:28 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:43:12 -0400, wrote:


You are not that stupid. How can you possibly say a program that
spends moire than it takes in is not in deficit?

Medicare has been upside down for several years and SS went upside
down 2 years ago.

And, it is not contributing one penny to the current deficit problem.
It "may" at some point if it isn't fixed.


WHAT? We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar of the short fall and
Obama chopping 2% off of the FICA tax rate only makes it worse.

WHAT? Not because of SS/MC. I don't agree with any tax cut for the
wealthy.

The income taxes have nothing to do with the short fall in FICA.


Were do you get the notion that I think FICA and income tax are the
same things?

As I said the wealthy need to be taxed more not less.


Before that, they were trying to say a recovery would put SS back into
the black for a year, maybe two. Now they can't even make that claim.

Medicare is just spiraling down the black hole of debt with no end in
sight.

Go hide under your blankey.

Denial is not the answer.

Ok, so don't hide and face the facts. One fact is that there is no
short-term crisis for either program. Another is that lowering taxes
on wealthy people will do little or nothing to help job creation.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:11:10 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:23:21 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:43:18 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:40:28 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:43:12 -0400, wrote:


You are not that stupid. How can you possibly say a program that
spends moire than it takes in is not in deficit?

Medicare has been upside down for several years and SS went upside
down 2 years ago.

And, it is not contributing one penny to the current deficit problem.
It "may" at some point if it isn't fixed.


WHAT? We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar of the short fall and
Obama chopping 2% off of the FICA tax rate only makes it worse.

WHAT? Not because of SS/MC. I don't agree with any tax cut for the
wealthy.

The income taxes have nothing to do with the short fall in FICA.


Were do you get the notion that I think FICA and income tax are the
same things?

... because you linked the shortfall in SS/MC with the Obama tax cut
(It stopped being the Bush tax cut when Obama renewed the bill)

I did no such thing.


As I said the wealthy need to be taxed more not less.

OK, it still won't fix this problem.

Which problem is "this"? You keep changing the subject, so it's hard
to tell what you're talking about.


Before that, they were trying to say a recovery would put SS back into
the black for a year, maybe two. Now they can't even make that claim.

Medicare is just spiraling down the black hole of debt with no end in
sight.

Go hide under your blankey.

Denial is not the answer.

Ok, so don't hide and face the facts. One fact is that there is no
short-term crisis for either program. Another is that lowering taxes
on wealthy people will do little or nothing to help job creation.

The plane has already hit the mountain. We are borrowing money to pay
out SS/.MC benefits now and the big outlays are still ahead of us.
When do you think this will be a problem? When the bonds demand 3% or
5% to sell? At around 7% and our current rate of borrowing, the
interest alone will be bigger that the whole budget is now, within a
decade.

According to you, Mr. Expert. In fact, it's just a fear-based rant
that is getting old and worn out. Why don't you go back to the birth
certificate rant, at least that's entertaining on some level.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:31:38 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:43:43 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:11:10 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:23:21 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:43:18 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:40:28 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:43:12 -0400, wrote:


You are not that stupid. How can you possibly say a program that
spends moire than it takes in is not in deficit?

Medicare has been upside down for several years and SS went upside
down 2 years ago.

And, it is not contributing one penny to the current deficit problem.
It "may" at some point if it isn't fixed.


WHAT? We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar of the short fall and
Obama chopping 2% off of the FICA tax rate only makes it worse.

WHAT? Not because of SS/MC. I don't agree with any tax cut for the
wealthy.

The income taxes have nothing to do with the short fall in FICA.


Were do you get the notion that I think FICA and income tax are the
same things?

... because you linked the shortfall in SS/MC with the Obama tax cut
(It stopped being the Bush tax cut when Obama renewed the bill)

I did no such thing.

Didn't you just say "WHAT? Not because of SS/MC. I don't agree with
any tax cut for the wealthy."
There was no FICA tax cut "for the wealthy", it was an income tax cut.
The FICA tax cut was for the people who make less than $101k

As I said the wealthy need to be taxed more not less.

OK, it still won't fix this problem.

Which problem is "this"? You keep changing the subject, so it's hard
to tell what you're talking about.

"This" is the SS/MC short fall.

Before that, they were trying to say a recovery would put SS back into
the black for a year, maybe two. Now they can't even make that claim.

Medicare is just spiraling down the black hole of debt with no end in
sight.

Go hide under your blankey.

Denial is not the answer.

Ok, so don't hide and face the facts. One fact is that there is no
short-term crisis for either program. Another is that lowering taxes
on wealthy people will do little or nothing to help job creation.

The plane has already hit the mountain. We are borrowing money to pay
out SS/.MC benefits now and the big outlays are still ahead of us.
When do you think this will be a problem? When the bonds demand 3% or
5% to sell? At around 7% and our current rate of borrowing, the
interest alone will be bigger that the whole budget is now, within a
decade.

According to you, Mr. Expert. In fact, it's just a fear-based rant
that is getting old and worn out. Why don't you go back to the birth
certificate rant, at least that's entertaining on some level.

I suppose you should read a bit more dear. No credible economist
right now thinks our entitlements are sustainable. It is particularly
true when Obama signed on to the formerly "bush tax cuts" and then cut
an additional 2% from the payroll taxes. Reagan would be proud ...
except he actually raised the payroll taxes along with Tip O'neil to
prop up social security. Obama hastened it's failure.

Don't call me dear. It's demeaning and you're not qualified.

Just because something is unsustainable doesn't mean it's an imminent
problem. Nobody disputes that both need to be fixed.

If your google is broken, I suppose I can find you the projections of
what the debt will cost us at various increasing interest rates but I
am sure you saw those projections and rejected them as fear mongering.
It is just the math that makes me worry.

Math shouldn't make you worry. It's just math.