"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... As to the present administration going headlong towards
bankruptsy, all the previous ones have paved the trail.

You mean Reagan?


Even Clinton.

Hardly. Clinton actually balanced the budget, remember?


Bill McKee wrote:
He did? When? When was it supposed to be balanced?

Look it up, if you can stand to face the facts.

He signed a budget (created by a Republican Congress), that was balanced
for a couple of years. However, the deficit increased over the life of
his Presidency.

It wasn't 'balanced' anyway.....since it depended on the SS surplus to
achieve a 'balance' That is like believing you are living on a balanced
budget by using you credit card to supplement your living.

Only if you're not paying it off monthly.

... Clinton actually balanced the budget, remember?

He did? When? When was it supposed to be balanced?

Look it up, if you can stand to face the facts.

"NOBBY" wrote
He signed a budget (created by a Republican Congress), that was balanced
for a couple of years.

Careful there, NOBBY, you'll get kicked out of the Clinton-Hating Whacko
Club

.... However, the deficit increased over the life of
his Presidency.


Mostly the first few years, but yes this is true. Does that give Bush &
Cheney a blank check to jump the deficit astronomically?

BTW I thought you pointed to the Clinton Administration to "prove" that
the current Republican-controlled Congress really couldn't do anything
to help the budget under Bush & Cheney? Change your mind?

P.Fritz wrote:
It wasn't 'balanced' anyway.....since it depended on the SS surplus to
achieve a 'balance' That is like believing you are living on a balanced
budget by using you credit card to supplement your living.


Ah, at last a post from Puff Fritzy that is something other than 'me too
me too.' But it's still wrong.

The SS revenue is part of the overall Federal budget. Perhaps it
shouldn't be, since it's already spoken for, but that's a seperate debate.

And please explain how including SS revenue in the budget is like "using
a credit card."

DSK

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... As to the present administration going headlong towards
bankruptsy, all the previous ones have paved the trail.

You mean Reagan?


Even Clinton.

Hardly. Clinton actually balanced the budget, remember?


Bill McKee wrote:
He did? When? When was it supposed to be balanced?

Look it up, if you can stand to face the facts.

He signed a budget (created by a Republican Congress), that was balanced
for a couple of years. However, the deficit increased over the life of
his Presidency.

It wasn't 'balanced' anyway.....since it depended on the SS surplus to
achieve a 'balance' That is like believing you are living on a balanced
budget by using you credit card to supplement your living.

Only if you're not paying it off monthly.

Which of course....the guvmint isn't ;-)

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Jeff Rigby wrote:
Then he doesn't have to borrow the money and your statement was in
error?????

Of course not.

... If the money is there he doesn't to have to borrow it!

Uh huh. And since when did the Bush Administration propose a budget that
was anything close to balanced?

... You can't have it both ways.

I'm not the one trying to have it "both" ways. I am trying to familiarize
you (and a few others) with a few basic facts, & introduce some fairly
simple & straightforward logic.

You are insisting that
1- US treasury bonds are somehow "worthless" when the fact is that they
are the most secure investment available.
Not that they are worthless. Just if they are redeamed then the government
will have to pay them off by issuing other treasury notes because the
budget is not balanced. So the statement that Bush will have to borrow the
money is correct. The money is not there in the treasury!

2- If Bush can somehow make Social Security go bust all the sooner, that
the gov't will be forced to stop borrowing money.

That's a stupid statement. The Bush plan is to cushion the eventual
reorganization of SS by having a small portion that can earn more than the
treasury notes currently being issued. Besides the talking points currently
being considered (raising the SS age to 67, reducing COLA, eliminating many
of the dependant benefits) there are more draconian measures in the works
for those who are under 50.

The Draconian measures are because the money to pay SS to those under 50
will have to come out of the US treasury when the treasury notes have to be
redeamed. And the money is not there!

The SS fund has a surplus, more money coming in than is being spent on
SS.

Correct.

This money can't be used for the Bush SS plan because it's being spent to
finance other areas of the Federal government.

Wrong.

This is like saying that you own your neighbor's house, because the money
the bank loaned him on his mortgage came out of your checking account.

???

Beware the most vocal in criticizing Bush's plan for they have eyes on
the SS money and want to spend it on their pet projects.

Wrong. The most vocal critics of Bush's SS plan are the ones who don't
want Social Security to go bust all the sooner, and who have the fiscal
responsibility to not want to run up an even larger deficit to make up the
difference in SS income/payouts.

So would it be OK if the surplus was used to finance the private accounts?
The Governemnt would then only have to issue treasury notes to the private
sector rather than to it'self. That would cause inflation right, inflation
the cause of which couldn't be hidden from us.


The deficit spendinginflation/sliding scale income tax system that was
started in the 60's breaks down if congress reduces the tax rates or if
we don't have inflation above interest rates that are paid by treasury
notes.

???

That almost sounds like an intelligent statement. But I suspect it's
another one of those delusions which you can't let go of.

Please explain further. Also explain why we haven't had this "breakdown"
when we've actually had inflation rates below Treasury return rates many
times over the past 40 years, inlcuding for about the last 10 ~ 12.

DSK

The breakdown is a short term massive increase in the Federal Deficit.
Long term the "deficit spendinginflation/sliding scale income tax system"
pays off deficit spending by bumping everyone up the sliding scale income
tax rate chart. The more you make the more % of your income you pay in
taxes. IF there is no inflation for long periods then fewer people get
bumped up the tax scale. Or if Republicans move everyone back down the
income tax scale the same applies.

The deficit spending is not being paid back because the Government is not
getting an increase in revenue.

Also, if the Republicans think that they can get elected by agreeing with
you that you have less disposable income because taxes are too high and they
lower your taxes, they get elected. There are long term consequences to
short term efforts to get the money to deficit spend that give new meaning
to the term political payback.

The biggest problem with this system is there is no incentive to balance the
budget. It gets runaway and spends money that it shouldn't be able to spend
(SS).

... You can't have it both ways.

I'm not the one trying to have it "both" ways. I am trying to familiarize
you (and a few others) with a few basic facts, & introduce some fairly
simple & straightforward logic.

You are insisting that
1- US treasury bonds are somehow "worthless" when the fact is that they
are the most secure investment available.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Not that they are worthless.

Whoah, dude, you may have to stop here and start over. D'ya wanna get
kicked out of the fact-denying fascist whacko club?

... Just if they are redeamed then the government
will have to pay them off by issuing other treasury notes

Yep. Got a problem with that? We've been doing it for over 200 years now
and everything's been chugging along just fine, pretty much.


... So the statement that Bush will have to borrow the
money is correct. The money is not there in the treasury!


Nope... the statement would be correct that Bush has already borrowed
the money, *and* he's borrowed a HECK of a lot more than his
predecessors because he slashed income and jumped up spending
astronomically, *AND* his plan is to keep on borrowing astronomically.



2- If Bush can somehow make Social Security go bust all the sooner, that
the gov't will be forced to stop borrowing money.


That's a stupid statement.

I agree. So why are you supporting his efforts?

... The Bush plan is to cushion the eventual
reorganization of SS by having a small portion that can earn more than the
treasury notes currently being issued.

At higher risk, which is how other countries trying the same thing have
stubbed their toes. And additionally by bringing the date of outgo
income that much closer. Hence the increased deficit.

... Besides the talking points currently
being considered (raising the SS age to 67

They already did that

... reducing COLA

Already done that too, but I'm not sure how recently.

... eliminating many
of the dependant benefits

I'm in favor of that.

... there are more draconian measures in the works
for those who are under 50.


Meanwhile, raising the income cut-off is one thing that would make SS
fiscally sound, and it's being harshly excluded. Why?

The Draconian measures are because the money to pay SS to those under 50
will have to come out of the US treasury

Starting some time long after 2040 AD... big big crisis here, whoop
whoop whoop sound the alarms!



The SS fund has a surplus, more money coming in than is being spent on
SS.

Correct.


This money can't be used for the Bush SS plan because it's being spent to
finance other areas of the Federal government.

Wrong.

This is like saying that you own your neighbor's house, because the money
the bank loaned him on his mortgage came out of your checking account.


???


OKay, think hard about this.

Social Security has it's own bank account. The dollars that get
deposited into this bank account can NOT be spent by any other branch of
the Federal gov't. Just like you cannot spend the money in your
brother's checking account.

Now, should the Social Security Administration let that money sit there,
earning no interest? No, of course not... especially when the Congress
needs to borrow because it cannot control it's bladder and ****es tax
money away on all sorts of stupid things (as well as a few worthwhile
ones). So they do what businesses & communities do... issue bonds, which
pay interest. These bonds are universally reckoned as the most secure
investment available in the world, which is nice because having a high
rating keeps the premium low.

Still with me? The money in the SS account is tallied against the
overall Federal budget, in the same way your brothers checking account
balance might be tallied against your family's net worth, but it is
*spent* on only two things.... spent only two things... spent on only
two things... (keep repeating that until it sinks in):
1- Social Security benefits payments
2- U.S. Treasury bonds

You could take the viewpoint that putting the SS money into Treasuries
is just a form of money-laundering, but the FACT remains that it is no
more "spent by the Federal gov't" than the money your brother spends
comes out of your bank account... or your neighbor's mortgage, even if
it comes from the same bank.

That's a lot for one day, so think it over. Class dismissed.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
... You can't have it both ways.

I'm not the one trying to have it "both" ways. I am trying to familiarize
you (and a few others) with a few basic facts, & introduce some fairly
simple & straightforward logic.

You are insisting that
1- US treasury bonds are somehow "worthless" when the fact is that they
are the most secure investment available.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Not that they are worthless.

Whoah, dude, you may have to stop here and start over. D'ya wanna get
kicked out of the fact-denying fascist whacko club?

... Just if they are redeamed then the government will have to pay them
off by issuing other treasury notes

Yep. Got a problem with that? We've been doing it for over 200 years now
and everything's been chugging along just fine, pretty much.


... So the statement that Bush will have to borrow the money is correct.
The money is not there in the treasury!


Nope... the statement would be correct that Bush has already borrowed the
money, *and* he's borrowed a HECK of a lot more than his predecessors
because he slashed income and jumped up spending astronomically, *AND* his
plan is to keep on borrowing astronomically.



2- If Bush can somehow make Social Security go bust all the sooner, that
the gov't will be forced to stop borrowing money.


That's a stupid statement.

I agree. So why are you supporting his efforts?

... The Bush plan is to cushion the eventual reorganization of SS by
having a small portion that can earn more than the treasury notes
currently being issued.

At higher risk, which is how other countries trying the same thing have
stubbed their toes. And additionally by bringing the date of outgo
income that much closer. Hence the increased deficit.

... Besides the talking points currently being considered (raising the
SS age to 67

They already did that

... reducing COLA

Already done that too, but I'm not sure how recently.

... eliminating many of the dependant benefits

I'm in favor of that.

... there are more draconian measures in the works for those who are
under 50.


Meanwhile, raising the income cut-off is one thing that would make SS
fiscally sound, and it's being harshly excluded. Why?

The Draconian measures are because the money to pay SS to those under 50
will have to come out of the US treasury

Starting some time long after 2040 AD... big big crisis here, whoop whoop
whoop sound the alarms!



The SS fund has a surplus, more money coming in than is being spent
on SS.

Correct.


This money can't be used for the Bush SS plan because it's being spent
to finance other areas of the Federal government.

Wrong.

This is like saying that you own your neighbor's house, because the money
the bank loaned him on his mortgage came out of your checking account.


???


OKay, think hard about this.

Social Security has it's own bank account. The dollars that get deposited
into this bank account can NOT be spent by any other branch of the Federal
gov't. Just like you cannot spend the money in your brother's checking
account.

Now, should the Social Security Administration let that money sit there,
earning no interest? No, of course not... especially when the Congress
needs to borrow because it cannot control it's bladder and ****es tax
money away on all sorts of stupid things (as well as a few worthwhile
ones). So they do what businesses & communities do... issue bonds, which
pay interest. These bonds are universally reckoned as the most secure
investment available in the world, which is nice because having a high
rating keeps the premium low.

Still with me? The money in the SS account is tallied against the overall
Federal budget, in the same way your brothers checking account balance
might be tallied against your family's net worth, but it is *spent* on
only two things.... spent only two things... spent on only two things...
(keep repeating that until it sinks in):
1- Social Security benefits payments
2- U.S. Treasury bonds

You could take the viewpoint that putting the SS money into Treasuries is
just a form of money-laundering, but the FACT remains that it is no more
"spent by the Federal gov't" than the money your brother spends comes out
of your bank account... or your neighbor's mortgage, even if it comes from
the same bank.

That's a lot for one day, so think it over. Class dismissed.

DSK

DSK, the difference in our viewpoints seem illogical. As far as foreign
"affairs" and our President you are a pessimist and distrust our motives but
where the US treasury is concerned you seem to be an optimist. I'm the
opposite, I trust the executive branch and distrust the Congress/Treasury

The following site explains better than I can my feelings on the ability of
the Federal government to repay the 1.7 trillion dollars to the SS account.
See: http://www.federalbudget.com/SSdebate.html

Jeff Rigby wrote:
DSK, the difference in our viewpoints seem illogical.

Only because you reject fact & logic.

... As far as foreign
"affairs" and our President you are a pessimist and distrust our motives but
where the US treasury is concerned you seem to be an optimist. I'm the
opposite, I trust the executive branch and distrust the Congress/Treasury


That's because the Treasury is run by people with some sense, they have
kept the US money thing going for 200+ years now, without starting any
wars under false pretenses.


The following site explains better than I can my feelings on the ability of
the Federal government to repay the 1.7 trillion dollars to the SS account.
See: http://www.right-wing-whacko-bull****


Considering that their opening statements are nonsense & lies, no wonder
you have such an attitude. Notice however that they stop short of
claiming that U.S. Treasury bonds are worthless.

I suggest you look at FACTs not right-wing blather.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... As to the present administration going headlong towards bankruptsy,
all the previous ones have paved the trail.

You mean Reagan?


Even Clinton.

Hardly. Clinton actually balanced the budget, remember?


Bill McKee wrote:
He did? When? When was it supposed to be balanced?

Look it up, if you can stand to face the facts.



What if the excess Social Security money was not thrown in the General Fund?
And it was the Republican Congress that forced the budget on Clinton.


... Even he admitted that he raised them excessively.

When?


Do a little research.

In other words, this is the latest from right-wing hate-talk radio and it
never really happened.


You are not very smart.

Possibly.

... Can not understand what you read.

???
You mean you can't understand what I write?

... I am for the Libertarian stand, but mostly they push the pot button.

When & where? Baradnik barely mentioned this in his campaign last year.

We have several Libertarians elected in local positions. Mostly they seem
to be common sense conservatives of a kind that is getting rarer & rarer.

If you want to see what the Libertarian Party is *really* all about, read
this
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

Perhaps you will do a little backpedalling, or perhaps you'll quit
altogether talking about things you know nothing about.


.... Fiscal responsibility? 15% inflation? How long to double prices
at 15% rate?

About 4 1/2 years. Know how to work 'the rule of 75'?

So, did you look up the origin & definition of the word "shinplaster"? Are
you advocating a return to the good ol' days of extreme monetary swings &
national fiscal panics?

... Remember Jimmy Carter years?

Yes. I also remember the early Reagan years, and the massive gov't
spending that was his prescription to end 'stagflation.'

Funny thing, how come Bush & Cheney's massive spending has not given a
similar boost to the economy?

... The overall tax burden in 1950 was about 22%, now it is about 50%,
What a job killer that is.

You just plain don't have the facts.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...criptions.html

For 1998, the total federal budget was 29% of GDP. Do you think it's
almost doubled since then? How can it, when Bush & Cheney have cut taxes??


The total Tax burden! We have state taxes, local taxes, excise taxes.

I suggest you get in touch with reality before making these kinds of dire
pronouncements. Or it may be that you'd prefer to live in right-wing
fantasy land, and that's OK by me... just don't try to drag the rest of us
in there with you. You already have enough company in the form of "Bert,"
"P.Fritz," John H, NOBBY (although you may want to watch him, he's
actually a Socialist infiltrator) and the other wrecked.boats fascist
whackoes.

DSK


Bush and Cheny did not cut taxes. Congress did. Bush requested it, but
Congress cut taxes. Same as Congress is charge of spending the money.

Funny thing, how come Bush & Cheney's massive spending has not given a
similar boost to the economy?


Kubez wrote:
Uh, maybe because no government has ever spent a country into prosperity?


LOL maybe not. Reagan came a lot closer than Bush & Cheney have done.

Familiar with the concept of velocity, as applied to M1 & M2? Usually
gov't expenditure increases velocity as well as increasing aggregate
national demand. But this time around the wheel, apparently Bush &
Cheney's spending is not feeding the same money-go-round that all the
rest of us are riding on.



... The overall tax burden in 1950 was about 22%, now it is about
50%, What a job killer that is.


You just plain don't have the facts.


Kubez wrote:
Actually he does. You missed the word "overall" which combines federal,
state and local spending.


And why is state & local taxes part of the U.S. Treasury issue? That's
retarded... is it President Bush's fault if you live in a high tax
state? You'll notice (if you pay attention) that he lives in a low tax
state...



Your exclusion of state and local spending was already pointed out.
However, you make a second mistake by equating cutting taxes with cutting
(or at least controlling) the budget.

Not a mistake... and besides, I have mentioned spending several times.


.... And in
addition to the thirteen standard appropriations bills, we have the Iraq
and Afghanistan operations being funded "off-budget", and the shell games
being played with the alleged "surpluses" in Social Security.

Which of the two is more important? Fiscally, I mean, not as a moral issue.


Bush/Cheney (I find it interesting that in every mention you pair the two)

Not every time. And they come as a set, it is undeniable that Vice
President Cheney is huge driving factor in this administration...
indeed, many believe that he is calling all the shots.


Bush/Cheney ....
have increased spending - even ON-budget discretionary spending - faster
than Clinton. This is quite easy to verify.

The combination of cutting taxes and increasing spending has only served
to increase the debt and deficit.

Yes, and currently more than 20% of the federal budget outlay is for
debt repayment... which ought to be the final nail in the coffin for
those screeches of "US Treasury bonds are worthless" but somehow I doubt
it will be... this level of debt is already painful, at what point does
it become crippling?


This is why it is SPENDING that matters, not today's arbitrary tax rate.
The bill must be paid at some point.

Agreed. So what's the answer? Certainly not 3 1/2 more years of
off-budget not-against-terrorist war, plus whatever else Bush & Cheney
dream up; but hey it's too late to get off this bus now. Maybe at the
next stop, somebody good will get on ;)

Regards
Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Funny thing, how come Bush & Cheney's massive spending has not given a
similar boost to the economy?


Kubez wrote:
Uh, maybe because no government has ever spent a country into prosperity?


LOL maybe not. Reagan came a lot closer than Bush & Cheney have done.

Familiar with the concept of velocity, as applied to M1 & M2? Usually
gov't expenditure increases velocity as well as increasing aggregate
national demand. But this time around the wheel, apparently Bush &
Cheney's spending is not feeding the same money-go-round that all the rest
of us are riding on.



... The overall tax burden in 1950 was about 22%, now it is about
50%, What a job killer that is.

You just plain don't have the facts.


Kubez wrote:
Actually he does. You missed the word "overall" which combines federal,
state and local spending.


And why is state & local taxes part of the U.S. Treasury issue? That's
retarded... is it President Bush's fault if you live in a high tax state?
You'll notice (if you pay attention) that he lives in a low tax state...



Your exclusion of state and local spending was already pointed out.
However, you make a second mistake by equating cutting taxes with cutting
(or at least controlling) the budget.

Not a mistake... and besides, I have mentioned spending several times.


.... And in addition to the thirteen standard appropriations bills, we
have the Iraq and Afghanistan operations being funded "off-budget", and
the shell games being played with the alleged "surpluses" in Social
Security.

Which of the two is more important? Fiscally, I mean, not as a moral
issue.


Bush/Cheney (I find it interesting that in every mention you pair the
two)

Not every time. And they come as a set, it is undeniable that Vice
President Cheney is huge driving factor in this administration... indeed,
many believe that he is calling all the shots.


Bush/Cheney ....
have increased spending - even ON-budget discretionary spending - faster
than Clinton. This is quite easy to verify.

The combination of cutting taxes and increasing spending has only served
to increase the debt and deficit.

Yes, and currently more than 20% of the federal budget outlay is for debt
repayment... which ought to be the final nail in the coffin for those
screeches of "US Treasury bonds are worthless" but somehow I doubt it will
be... this level of debt is already painful, at what point does it become
crippling?


This is why it is SPENDING that matters, not today's arbitrary tax rate.
The bill must be paid at some point.

Agreed. So what's the answer? Certainly not 3 1/2 more years of off-budget
not-against-terrorist war, plus whatever else Bush & Cheney dream up; but
hey it's too late to get off this bus now. Maybe at the next stop,
somebody good will get on ;)

Regards
Doug King


I do live in a high tax state. We did limit growth of the property tax, so
the people who had been in their homes for years, would not be priced out of
them. But we have an 8.75% sales tax in my county, we have an over 10%
income tax rate, and lots of those taxes are required by unfunded mandates
from the Federal Government. Overall, we're screwed!