Don't Let WTFagboy Call You a Hypocrite On Medicare

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 ____

. Originally Posted by lustylad

You won't answer the questions, fagboy? Ok, then everyone knows you are tapping out on this thread.

.

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:


. Originally Posted by lustylad

proportionately less

Ok...speaking of proportionality . How much did Reagan grow the debt vs.Clinton and vs. GWB?

- so your syphilis-riddled brain can get it:


. Originally Posted by lustylad

You can not speculate on one's medical condition. Be like me claiming you had AIDS. I can out that you are a Homo but not that you have HIV.

proportionately less
Originally Posted by WTF

Sheesh, you are such a moron. You just posted a graph that proves my point. Do you know how to read graphs? See how spending drops between 1988 and 2000? The drop was even steeper as a % of the federal budget or the GDP.

You can not speculate on one's medical condition. Originally Posted by WTF

In that case I will leave it to others to diagnose your pitiful mental deficiencies...

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 ____ Originally Posted by lustylad

Still won't answer my two simple questions... So you're tapping out, right?

.

Sheesh, you are such a moron. You just posted a graph that proves my point. Do you know how to read graphs? See how spending drops between 1988 and 2000? The drop was even steeper as a % of the federal budget or the GDP.
Originally Posted by lustylad

Do you understand how in reducing military spending , we reduced the Federal Deficit and the better our outlook was for retirement spending.

That has been my point for years. LexusLovers generation has spent their retirement savings on wars. Then they come on here and brag about Ronald Reagan. You dumb fucks think Reagan brought down the USSR, low oil prices brought down the USSR , just like high oil prices have emboldened them again.

Graph, you want another graph dipshit. See how in reducing Defense spending , we actually had a surplus? ...and even that is deceiving because if you take away the SS/Medicare surplus you would be in the red. However it would have been much better than 17 trillion. You numbnuts have went from a surplus to increasing Defense spending , reducing taxes and increasing the Federal Deficit to 17 trillion.

Do any of you see why I make fun of idiots that both want to reduce the deficit and not cut back on Defense spending.

The majority of which seem to be folks in the GOP/Tea factions.

Hey dumbfuck, anybody who understands the economy knows that RECESSIONS blow out the deficit, not defense spending. Your graph even shows this. We suffered recessions in 1981, 1989, 2001 and 2008. Now go back and tell us in what years did the deficit start widening? There's the correlation. Can you read your own graph? Duh!

Defense spending is less than 20% of the federal budget, down from 49% in 1962. Yet you want to blame everything on it and ignore everything else. That would be like you spending 80% of your money on tranny hookers, and thinking your problem is you spend too much on food. You are a dipshit who constantly acts like a know-it-all. The truth is you know nothing about the real numbers. You're stupider than the Tea Wipes you constantly make fun of.

So WTFagboy, this is my third attempt to pin you down on the original topic of this thread. What's the matter? Are you too skeered of me to answer?

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 ____

. Originally Posted by lustylad

You are a dipshit who constantly acts like a know-it-all. The truth is you know nothing about the real world ... Originally Posted by lustylad

Fixed it, then +1.

Defense spending is less than 20% of the federal budget, down from 49% in 1962. ? Originally Posted by lustylad

You dumb muther fucker....do you even realize that the Federal Budget was combined with SS/Medicare to both make Defense spending look like it was smaller than it was viaa % of the Federal Budget wise and to seem as if our budget deficit wasn't as large as it was?

No of course you didn't.

Homework for your Tea'tard ass and your inbred butt buddy boyfriend LexusButtHoleLover.

Who was the President that did this?

What year?

I've already told you why.

Take SS and Medicare out of the total and see wtf you get...hint around 33%

You dumb muther fucker....do you even realize that the Federal Budget was combined with SS/Medicare to both make Defense spending look like it was smaller than it was viaa % of the Federal Budget wise and to seem as if our budget deficit wasn't as large as it was?

No of course you didn't. Originally Posted by WTF

Wow - there you go again - the dipshit acting like a know-it-all! The federal budget has ALWAYS included SS (created 1935) and Medicare (created 1965) spending. No need to add it back in because it's already there, you fucktard. So we're talking apples and apples. Nice try, idiot, but as usual you are making stuff up.

You are correct that each year's SS/Medicare SURPLUS has been used to make the overall budget deficit look smaller. I'm the guy who told you that. Go back and read #67 of this thread where I explained Moynihan to you, fagboy. Are you accusing me of not knowing something I taught you? That's SWEET!

Hmmm... Did you take your Alzheimer's meds today? Good. Now when your memory returns, don't forget to answer the questions below. I've put them to you four times in this thread. Everyone on this board keeps scratching their heads asking why won't WTForgetshisname answer such easy questions? Is it because he is a retard or a coward? Or both?

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 ____ Originally Posted by lustylad

Go back and read #67 of this thread where I explained Moynihan to you, fagboy. Originally Posted by lustylad

Did I miss his criticism of Moynihan based on WTHDOIKNOW's self-proclaimed superior knowledge of all things government?

Wow - there you go again - the dipshit acting like a know-it-all! The federal budget has ALWAYS included SS (created 1935) and Medicare (created 1965) spending. No need to add it back in because it's already there, you fucktard. So we're talking apples and apples. Nice try, idiot, but as usual you are making stuff up.

? Originally Posted by lustylad

It is not apples to apples....In your case it is comparing nuts to nuts, you nutty fuc.


One way to estimate the immediate impact of this accounting change is to look at the government's actual expenditures for FY 1969. Under the current unified budget rules, the government reported a surplus of $3.2 billion for FY 1969. Removing the "off-budget" items from the calculation would result in a net deficit of $507 million.
Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2006, Table 1.1, pg. 22.


http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."

Did I miss his criticism of Moynihan based on WTHDOIKNOW's self-proclaimed superior knowledge of all things government? Originally Posted by LexusLover

You haven't mentioned anything about what Moynihan said since you quoted him. I have never criticized Moynihan. He was spot on with what he was saying. What you did was fail to understand that he was indirectly talking about...which was neocons like you spending the money for wars/nation building that was meant for retirement and cooking the books to do so. Read this, you might just learn wtf Moynihan was talking about.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/20...ity-trust-fund

6) In 1990, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a member of the Greenspan Commission, and one of the strongest advocates the the 1983 legislation, became outraged when he learned that first Reagan, and then President George H.W. Bush used the surplus Social Security revenue to pay for other government programs instead of saving and investing it for the baby boomers. Moynihan locked horns with President Bush and proposed repealing the 1983 payroll tax hike. Moynihan’s view was that if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the cookie jar should be emptied, so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue for the government to loot. President Bush would have no part of repealing the payroll tax hike. The “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” president was not about to give up his huge slush fund. The practice of using every dollar of the surplus Social Security revenue for general government spending continues to this day. The 1983 payroll tax hike has generated approximately $2.5 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue which is supposed to be in the trust fund for use in paying for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers. But the trust fund is empty! It contains no real assets. As a result, the government will soon be unable to pay full benefits without a tax increase. Money can be spent or it can be saved. But you can’t do both. Absolutely none of the $2.5 trillion was saved or invested in anything. I have been laboring for more than a decade to expose the great Social Security scam - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/20....UNixcPvD.dpuf

Where'd lustyladyboy go? Back to school to retake history.

Where'd my ladyboy go? Originally Posted by WTF

FIFY

FIFY Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Is he still trying to divert attention from his profit taking off the backs of illegal aliens? Go figure. The admitted son of Social Security/Medicare Leeches who bankroll his lifestyle.