"Conservative facts are non-facts" - Paul Krugman

[mudwhistle]

Every once in awhile one the smarter folks on the left says something that is extremely stupid and it gives away everything they've been doing. Paul Krugman did just that.

Paul Krugman: Conservative Facts Are ?Non-Facts? | Video | TheBlaze.com

The truth isn't the truth to the left when you take into account the source. That's the nice thing about being a lying-liberal. You don't have to listen to the truth anymore. A statement or a set of facts can be totally discounted if one single thing about them is incorrect. It doesn't even have to be germaine to the basis of the argument. Because it is a RWer saying it, it has to be false. This rationalization allows them to win any argument simply by ignoring the truth that is plain as the nose on their collective faces.

It used to be that everyone was entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts but with liberals it's both. This is why it's useless arguing with thm. They refuse to face up to reality.

 

[ClosedCaption]

A statement or a set of facts can be totally discounted if one single thing about them is incorrect.

You mean how you dismiss a source like Thinkprogress because of who it comes from?

Oh, wait, I forgot you hold liberals to different standards than yourself

 

[editec]

It IS possible for two intelligent minds to honestly look at the same set of facts and arrive at two different conclusions.

That's what makes for horse races, folks.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Krugman is wrong in the trillions column, and that's a fact

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

As if we needed more evidence that Krugman's a complete leftwing tool.

 

[mudwhistle]

A statement or a set of facts can be totally discounted if one single thing about them is incorrect.

You mean how you dismiss a source like Thinkprogress because of who it comes from?

Oh, wait, I forgot you hold liberals to different standards than yourself

First thing a liar does when defending the indefensible is claim somebody else did it.

That never excuses the perp other than in their own minds.

 

[ClosedCaption]

A statement or a set of facts can be totally discounted if one single thing about them is incorrect.

You mean how you dismiss a source like Thinkprogress because of who it comes from?

Oh, wait, I forgot you hold liberals to different standards than youmebodyrself

First thing a liar does when defending the indefensible is claim somebody else did it.

That never excuses the perp other than in their own minds.

Sure, hold liberals to a different standard than you do yourself. You've reached your hypocrit quota for today. You can stop now

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"“Here’s the problem with the trust fund,” Johnson interjected. “The federal government owns U.S. Treasury Bonds. It’s the same thing as if you have $20, you spend it, and by the way, that money’s spent, it’s gone. You write yourself a note for $20, stick it in your pocket and say ‘I’ve got twenty bucks.’ No, you don’t, you have a note you have to sell on the open market. The trust fund is a fiction. It doesn’t — it has no value to the federal government.”"

Yup....that's what got Krugman so flustered

Actually, it's much worse than that because the note the Government gave to the "trust Fund" cannot be sold on the open market, only the US Government can buy those notes

 

[mudwhistle]

You mean how you dismiss a source like Thinkprogress because of who it comes from?

Oh, wait, I forgot you hold liberals to different standards than youmebodyrself

First thing a liar does when defending the indefensible is claim somebody else did it.

That never excuses the perp other than in their own minds.

Sure, hold liberals to a different standard than you do yourself. You've reached your hypocrit quota for today. You can stop now

Blah blah blah........

 

[edthecynic]

"“Here’s the problem with the trust fund,” Johnson interjected. “The federal government owns U.S. Treasury Bonds. It’s the same thing as if you have $20, you spend it, and by the way, that money’s spent, it’s gone. You write yourself a note for $20, stick it in your pocket and say ‘I’ve got twenty bucks.’ No, you don’t, you have a note you have to sell on the open market. The trust fund is a fiction. It doesn’t — it has no value to the federal government.”"

Yup....that's what got Krugman so flustered

Actually, it's much worse than that because the note the Government gave to the "trust Fund" cannot be sold on the open market, only the US Government can buy those notes

Except, of course, when the Right wants to claim that the deficit was 162 billion in 2007, then the SS trust fund was an asset.

 

[g5000]

It IS possible for two intelligent minds to honestly look at the same set of facts and arrive at two different conclusions.

That's what makes for horse races, folks.

Exactly what I was thinking listening to Krugman and Johnson's exchange.


For a long time, the Social Security Trust Fund has been collecting more in revenues than it has been making in payments. It has been running a surplus.

That surplus has been borrowed by the federal government and used for other purposes. Wars, food stamps, roads, bridges, studies of the sex lives of fruit flies, etc.

The amount of money that has been borrowed from the Social Security trust fund is $2.7 trillion.

This is "intragovernmental debt".

When you hear we have a $16 trillion debt, $2.7 trillion of that debt is money owed to the Social Security Trust Fund.

In 2017, or thereabouts, the Social Security Trust Fund is going to start running in the red for the first time. It will be collecting less in revenues than it will be making in payments.

And so it is going to start needing that $2.7 trillion paid back.

That money is going to have to come from somewhere. It does not exist. It has been spent, as Johnson said.

But that debt has already been accounted for. It has been incorporated into our national debt. This shortfall is not going to be new debt, it is already on the books, which is what Krugman was saying.

It is a simple fact we have $16 trillion in debt that has to be paid back, whether that money has to be paid back to China, or Social Security, or your 401k, it has to be paid back.

Nothing has changed with respect to the negative balance on the books.


What can be changed is how much and how soon Social Security needs to be paid back.

Just as an extreme example, if we ended Social Security right now, that $2.7 trillion would never have to be paid back.



So if Congress can find a way to make Social Security decrease its outgo, or increase its income, then that $2.7 trillion that is owed to the fund can be spread out over a longer period of time, or even put off indefinitely.

And that is all that matters. Figuring out how to do that.

 

[g5000]

And, yes, that $2.7 trillion rightfully belongs to retirees, and one could make the argument that preventing them from receiving the same benefits they receive now is ripping them off.

However, they are the ones who elected the government which spent all that money on them in other ways.

It is like spending your retirement nest egg before you retire.

They did it to themselves by demanding the government spend more than it takes in all these years. They did it to themselves by demanding lower taxes all their lives and more spending.

Now they want their full retirement benefits.


Gimme, gimme, gimme, and make the next generation behind me pay for it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"“Here’s the problem with the trust fund,” Johnson interjected. “The federal government owns U.S. Treasury Bonds. It’s the same thing as if you have $20, you spend it, and by the way, that money’s spent, it’s gone. You write yourself a note for $20, stick it in your pocket and say ‘I’ve got twenty bucks.’ No, you don’t, you have a note you have to sell on the open market. The trust fund is a fiction. It doesn’t — it has no value to the federal government.”"

Yup....that's what got Krugman so flustered

Actually, it's much worse than that because the note the Government gave to the "trust Fund" cannot be sold on the open market, only the US Government can buy those notes

Except, of course, when the Right wants to claim that the deficit was 162 billion in 2007, then the SS trust fund was an asset.

The issue is that the Fund has Madoff Bonds as assets, try to stay on tpoic

 

[Oddball]

"“Here’s the problem with the trust fund,” Johnson interjected. “The federal government owns U.S. Treasury Bonds. It’s the same thing as if you have $20, you spend it, and by the way, that money’s spent, it’s gone. You write yourself a note for $20, stick it in your pocket and say ‘I’ve got twenty bucks.’ No, you don’t, you have a note you have to sell on the open market. The trust fund is a fiction. It doesn’t — it has no value to the federal government.”"

Yup....that's what got Krugman so flustered

Actually, it's much worse than that because the note the Government gave to the "trust Fund" cannot be sold on the open market, only the US Government can buy those notes

Except, of course, when the Right wants to claim that the deficit was 162 billion in 2007, then the SS trust fund was an asset.

The OASI "trust fund" has been on budget as an "asset" for decades, including the time when the mythical 'balanced budget" and "surplus" were declared by fucking intellectual frauds like you.

 

[g5000]

Social Security Trust Funds

When Johnson was talking about the $20 IOU in his pocket, he was talking about the Social Security Trust Funds assets (securities held by the Fund). The $2.7 trillion of intragovernmental debt.

 

[g5000]

Investments held at end of month

 

[edthecynic]

"“Here’s the problem with the trust fund,” Johnson interjected. “The federal government owns U.S. Treasury Bonds. It’s the same thing as if you have $20, you spend it, and by the way, that money’s spent, it’s gone. You write yourself a note for $20, stick it in your pocket and say ‘I’ve got twenty bucks.’ No, you don’t, you have a note you have to sell on the open market. The trust fund is a fiction. It doesn’t — it has no value to the federal government.”"

Yup....that's what got Krugman so flustered

Actually, it's much worse than that because the note the Government gave to the "trust Fund" cannot be sold on the open market, only the US Government can buy those notes

Except, of course, when the Right wants to claim that the deficit was 162 billion in 2007, then the SS trust fund was an asset.

The OASI "trust fund" has been on budget as an "asset" for decades, including the time when the mythical 'balanced budget" and "surplus" were declared by fucking intellectual frauds like you.

Actually it was Gingrich and the GOP congress who took credit for the "surplus" and the economy, that is until the tech bubble burst and then suddenly the economy belonged to Clinton. And you have no idea what I "declared" back then as I was not on any messageboard back then.

 

[Oddball]

Fucking liar.

The OASI "trust fund" has been raided to cover overspending for way farther back than that.

And Clintoon fluffers have been taking credit for the fake "balanced budget" and "surplus" every bit as much as republicans have.

 

[editec]

And, yes, that $2.7 trillion rightfully belongs to retirees, and one could make the argument that preventing them from receiving the same benefits they receive now is ripping them off.

However, they are the ones who elected the government which spent all that money on them in other ways.

It is like spending your retirement nest egg before you retire.

They did it to themselves by demanding the government spend more than it takes in all these years. They did it to themselves by demanding lower taxes all their lives and more spending.

Now they want their full retirement benefits.


Gimme, gimme, gimme, and make the next generation behind me pay for it.

Oh for goodness sakes, you cannot believe that the people were choosing to allow the government to piss away money like drunken sailors.

Millions of Americans fought like hell to end the Viet Nam conflict yet it went on for 12 years.

And that is where the national debt problem REALLY started.

Blaming the spendthrift behavior of our government on "the people" is just plain goofy.

 

[mudwhistle]

You can't draw different conclusions from the same facts.

Somebody has to be wrong. Only a liar tries to get away with that.