Don't Let WTFagboy Call You a Hypocrite On Medicare

"
Lusty, you got Little Boy aka wtf babbling to himself again with fabricated statements he's attributing to others, which he answers with cut and pastes. . Originally Posted by LexusLover

Actually I quoted your cut and paste of Moynihan I asked you if you even understood what you had quoted and could you tell me what you thought it meant you senile old leeching hypocrite.

So far you haven't shown a clue as to its meaning. You have shied away from telling us how much money your parents pay in taxes. Could that be because the only tax they pay is on their SS?

"Put Social Security on a pay-as-you-go basis. In 1997, for example, the government took in $446 billion in Social Security taxes and paid out only $365 billion in benefits. The extra $81 billion went into a trust fund (valued at about $631 billion) and was lent out to finance other federal programs. Moynihan has long wanted to end this nonsense. We're extracting tax dollars from those who can least afford it – and from everyone who might have better uses for it. Paring back, or even abolishing, the payroll tax is an idea that liberals, social conservatives and libertarians can love."
. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Still struggling with your embarrassment, Little Boy?

Fabricate something else so you can challenge the fabrication, ok?

LexusLiar's generation gave us this grand illusion called Ronnie Reagan. This is why I make fun of the Tea'billy generation. They cry about the deficit, yet they are the generation that exploded it with their supply side something for nothing attitude. "We can just cut taxes if we want to raise more tax revenue....'' That is what Reagan and Grover taught them. Nothing more....it is sad really. Lucky for them this country had another oil play or they would be in deep shit. Originally Posted by WTF

No grand illusion - you love Ronnie! You already admitted you are the biggest SUPPLY-SIDER on this board. Now you're making me cut and paste my previous posts!

Ronnie Reagan licked your sweet spot. He cut taxes and revenues surged by 65% while he was in office...

Bushie Boy licked your sweet spot. He cut taxes and revenues surged by 44% in the following 4 years...

Even Jack Kennedy tickled your sweet spot. He cut taxes and revenues surged by 55% in the next 5 years...

FACTS JACK!

So you don't have to keep explaining how the Laffer Curve works. You don't need to remind us what a passionate supply-sider you are. We get it. You like having your sweet spot licked and you're totally non-partisan about who does the licking. Good for you, fagboy. The only question in everyone's mind is – did Jack and Ronnie and Bushie eat out your asshole while they were licking your sweet spot???

. Originally Posted by lustylad

No grand illusion - you love Ronnie! You already admitted you are the biggest SUPPLY-SIDER on this board. Now you're making me cut and paste my previous posts! Originally Posted by lustylad

lustylady, take Reagan's dick out of your sweet spot and try and explain how you pay your self interest on money you do not have?

Yes you can if you look at the big picture.

You are being fooled or trying to fool by accounting tricks and a snapshot instead of looking at the entire movie.

LexusLiar's generation adjusted SS/Medicare and then took the surplus and spent it....if you have trouble admitting it was on the vast industrial military complex, tax cuts and the like then you do not understand the two biggest drives of government expenditures.

This would not be such a serious problem if Social Security was still running annual surpluses. But Social Security ran it last annual surplus in 2009, and began running permanent annual deficits in 2010. The cost of paying full Social Security benefits for 2010 exceeded Social Security’s total tax revenue by $49 billion. So how did the government pay full Social Security benefits in 2010? They borrowed $49 billion from China, or one of our other creditors. And the amount that will have to be borrowed in future years will become larger and larger. If the trust fund had not been looted, there would be $2.7 trillion of marketable U.S. Treasury bonds in the fund that could be sold in the open market for cash. But the trust fund doesn’t hold a dime’s worth of marketable real assets of any kind. - See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/#sthash.48VBUUpw.dpuf


If you look at it in a vacuum, then yes they set aside SS/Medicare money but that is not the real world, in the real world they promptly spent in on war toys, tax cuts. This is like you setting aside say a million dollars for retirement and then promptly quitting a high paying job for charity work that pays nothing and then borrowing 5 million dollars to travel the world getting into fights.

At the end of the day , you net value is minus 4 million dollars and counting on a downward spiral. You seem to want to hail that as some great retirement savings plan. His generation raised the SS tax rate and promptly cut personal income taxes and increased military spending.....that is wtf Moynihan was talking about. You can not have an honest debate on SS/Medicare saving without talking about other government spending and how that effects the SS/Medicare savings (or more accurately savings that is not). There is no savings.

LexusLiar's generation gave us this grand illusion called Ronnie Reagan. This is why I make fun of the Tea'billy generation. They cry about the deficit , yet they are the generation that exploded it with their supply side something for nothing attitude. "We can just cut taxes if we want to raise more tax revenue....'' That is what Reagan and Grover taught them. Nothing more....it is sad really. Lucky for them this country had another oil play or they would be in deep shit. Originally Posted by WTF

lustylady, take Reagan's dick out of your sweet spot and try and explain how you pay your self interest on money you do not have? Originally Posted by WTF

"There you go again..." sighs Ronnie as he spoons his new tranny boyfriend WTF... "Can't stop doubling down on dumb and dumber. You remind me of Bonzo..."


The Treasury is not paying interest to itself. It is paying interest to present and future SS/Medicare beneficiaries on money they paid into the trust funds years ago.

Are you opposed to deficit spending? You don't want the government to borrow at all? That's how it pays its bills when it doesn't have the money on hand. A while ago you were arrogantly lecturing Tea'billies that "all debt isn't bad". Did you change your mind?

If the trust fund had not been looted, there would be $2.7 trillion of marketable U.S. Treasury bonds in the fund that could be sold in the open market for cash. But the trust fund doesn’t hold a dime’s worth of marketable real assets of any kind. Originally Posted by WTF

You dumbass, you don't even understand what you cut and pasted. Just because the Treasury bonds in the trust funds are not allowed by law to be sold in the open market doesn't mean they aren't "real assets". They pay interest and are just as good as marketable T-bonds as full faith and credit obligations of the US Government.

.

"
Are you opposed to deficit spending? You don't want the government to borrow at all? That's how it pays its bills when it doesn't have the money on hand. A while ago you were arrogantly lecturing Tea'billies that "all debt isn't bad". Did you change your mind?. Originally Posted by lustylad

I was saying that not all debt is bad debt you distorting closet queen.

For instance , were I to buy a house , I have shelter over my head and a tangible asset.

However were I to go overseas and destroy then rebuild someone in say Iraq a house....that is bad debt.

Have you sucked to many peepee's to not see the difference.

Either way , were I to take my retirement saving to do either one of those things instead of pay for them out of my income stream, I'd be a fucking idiot like these Tea'billies if I were trying to maintain I had money in my retirement account, when in fact all I had was an IOU to pay back myself.

"

You dumbass, you don't even understand what you cut and pasted. Just because the Treasury bonds in the trust funds are not allowed by law to be sold in the open market doesn't mean they aren't "real assets". They pay interest and are just as good as marketable T-bonds as full faith and credit obligations of the US Government.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Sure you left yourself a IOU .... and that IOU is only as good as your ability to repay yourself.

If one does like say Milton recommended in Chile....without defaulting on foreign debt you'd have to sell off your assets and cut the retirement saving you had come to expect. It would have to be diverted to repaying China.

In my good debt scenario , you'd have a house to sell.

In your bad debt scenario you'd have nothing to sell. You could tell China , you built a house in Iraq and have an IOU to yourself and see if they will take that. If they took that, instead of you getting back your retirement savings, China would.

Look at the big picture and follow the money and quit following Uncle Milton Friedman's dick around. .

Still struggling with your embarrassment, Little Boy?

Fabricate something else so you can challenge the fabrication, ok? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Fabricate? You quoted Moynihan. I have merely asked you if you understood what he meant?

IMHO...He meant that average taxpayers were financing this huge expansion of Defense spending mainly with their retirement savings.

People like myself were against doing so with this liberal nation building cause you embraced. People like you who were for it.... have no retirement savings , you blew it on your willingness to nation build. Your Medicare and SS is in Iraq, go live there when you retire.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/security/stories/oss032498.htm

"Put Social Security on a pay-as-you-go basis. In 1997, for example, the government took in $446 billion in Social Security taxes and paid out only $365 billion in benefits. The extra $81 billion went into a trust fund (valued at about $631 billion) and was lent out to finance other federal programs. Moynihan has long wanted to end this nonsense. We're extracting tax dollars from those who can least afford it – and from everyone who might have better uses for it. Paring back, or even abolishing, the payroll tax is an idea that liberals, social conservatives and libertarians can love." Originally Posted by LexusLover

Can you finally tell us what you think the material you quoted means?

Can you finally tell us what you think the material you quoted means? Originally Posted by WTF

LexusLover? You there?

LexusLover? You there? Originally Posted by WTF

Bring lustylad back with you when you two can tell me how taking more money out of one pocket than you put in the other will add up to any kind of retirement savings!

I was saying that not all debt is bad debt you distorting closet queen.

For instance, were I to buy a house, I have shelter over my head and a tangible asset.

However were I to go overseas and destroy then rebuild someone in say Iraq a house....that is bad debt.

Have you sucked to many peepee's to not see the difference.

Either way , were I to take my retirement saving to do either one of those things instead of pay for them out of my income stream, I'd be a fucking idiot like these Tea'billies if I were trying to maintain I had money in my retirement account, when in fact all I had was an IOU to pay back myself.


Sure you left yourself a IOU.... and that IOU is only as good as your ability to repay yourself.

If one does like say Milton recommended in Chile....without defaulting on foreign debt you'd have to sell off your assets and cut the retirement saving you had come to expect. It would have to be diverted to repaying China.

In my good debt scenario, you'd have a house to sell.

In your bad debt scenario you'd have nothing to sell. You could tell China, you built a house in Iraq and have an IOU to yourself and see if they will take that. If they took that, instead of you getting back your retirement savings, China would.

Look at the big picture and follow the money and quit following Uncle Milton Friedman's dick around. Originally Posted by WTF

You are such a total fucking wormhead. This is way off-topic but if you think debt is only ok if used to build or buy a “tangible asset” - why do you bitch about Bushie Boy spending money on “war toys”? Tanks and planes and ships – those are all tangible assets, you dumbass. Under your false distinction, much of the Bush debt looks like “good debt”. And why don't you bitch about all those transfer payments that eat up most of the federal budget without delivering anything tangible in return? You know, the stuff Obama keeps running up the debt for – food stamps, extended unemployment benefits, Obamacare subsidies, etc. Under the WTFagboy rule of thumb, that's all “bad debt”.

But let's get back on topic here. I have two simple questions for you to answer without deflecting or evading. A simple yes or no will suffice.

1. Did the money that built up the trillions of dollars in assets held in the SS and Medicare trust funds come from US taxpayers? YES ____ NO ____

2. Do the trust funds earn a return on those assets? YES ____ NO ____

.

Fabricate? You quoted Moynihan. I have merely asked you if you understood what he meant?

IMHO...He meant that average taxpayers were financing this huge expansion of Defense spending mainly with their retirement savings.

People like myself were against doing so with this liberal nation building cause you embraced. People like you who were for it.... have no retirement savings, you blew it on your willingness to nation build. Your Medicare and SS is in Iraq, go live there when you retire. Originally Posted by WTF

The Moynihan quote is from 1998. There was no "huge expansion of defense spending" then. In the '90s, Clinton was reaping the benefits of the Reagan-Bush post-Cold War "peace dividend". US defense spending dropped from close to 7% of GDP in 1986 to roughly half that level in the late '90s. So even if we tried to follow the money according to your dumb logic, all the SS surpluses built up during those years must have gone somewhere else.

You're not very good at "following the money", are you fagboy?

.

You're not very good at "following the money", are you fagboy? Originally Posted by lustylad

Only if it's Daddy's Money.

Only if it's Daddy's Money. Originally Posted by LexusLover

LL, STFU until you figure out what the Moynihan quote you quoted meant.

The Moynihan quote is from 1998. There was no "huge expansion of defense spending" then. In the '90s, Clinton was reaping the benefits of the Reagan-Bush post-Cold War "peace dividend". US defense spending dropped from close to 7% of GDP in 1986 to roughly half that level in the late '90s. So even if we tried to follow the money according to your dumb logic, all the SS surpluses built up during those years must have gone somewhere else.

You're not very good at "following the money", are you fagboy?

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Moynihan was around in 1986 when he realized wtf was happening....

Do you really want to compare the Defense spending by GDP? Are you trying to imply that we spent less on Defense in the late 90's than in 1986?

So even if we tried to follow the money according to your dumb logic, all the SS surpluses built up during those years must have gone somewhere else.

You're not very good at "following the money", are you fagboy?

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Do you need a Federal Pie Chart to show by year how much we spent of each Federal program. So yes it is not that hard to follow the money even if you want to break out SS/Medicare from debt incurred.


https://www.warresisters.org/federalpiechart

Current military” includes Dept. of Defense ($584 billion) and the military portion from other departments as noted in current military box above ($202 billion). Funding for the war on terror is listed as “Overseas Contingency Operations” and totals $47 in this breakdown. “Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.*
These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the Analytical Perspectives book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2015. The figures are Federal funds, which do not include Trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes.
What you pay (or don’t pay) by April 15, 2014, goes to the Federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining Trust and Federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.

*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated.

Moynihan was around in 1986 when he realized wtf was happening....

Do you really want to compare the Defense spending by GDP? Are you trying to imply that we spent less on Defense in the late 90's than in 1986? Originally Posted by WTF

Do you really want to keep embarrassing yourself? Why do you keep stubbornly and desperately searching for an escape instead of cutting your losses when your arguments are discredited?

I am not implying anything. I am STATING OUTRIGHT AS A FACT that we spent proportionately less and less on defense between 1986 and 2000. I will say it again - slowly - so your syphilis-riddled brain can get it:

US defense spending dropped from close to 7% of GDP in 1986 to roughly half that level in the late '90s.

That is what is referred to as the post-Cold War peace dividend. It means OTHER federal spending categories grew while defense spending shrank as a percentage of the federal budget and the economy. And here is another inconvenient FACT for you, dipshit - The Social Security trust fund already held $1.5 trillion (in US Government IOUs) in 2003. You're the one bragging about how easy it is to follow the money. Where did THAT money go, fagboy? Looks like most of the trust fund was already loaned out to Bushie Boy's predecessors. And since it holds only non-marketable US Treasury securities, he couldn't raid it and sell all of that debt into the open market to pay for “war toys” and Iraqi nation building, as you stupidly claim.

.