independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

[Oldstyle]

Obama reduced the deficit? Really? How much did he reduce it before the GOP took over Congress?

Yes, he reduced the deficit. Bush left behind a $1.4T deficit for FY 2009. The deficit for FY 2010 and FY 2011 (the two budget years of the Democratic-controlled Congress) was $1.24T and $1.29T respectively. He would further reduce the deficit to $503B by 2017. Conservatives opposed his continuing resolutions, remember? It's what Cruz tried to shut the government down over in 2013, the CR that had Obamacare funding. And Democrats were the ones who voted for them. Only a small handful of Conservatives did, so they get no credit for it.

Job creation? What program of Barry's created jobs? His signature program was the ACA and that cost jobs.

FUCKING WRONG AS USUAL.

Since Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010, we have had 84 consecutive months of job creation - the longest streak ever. So your claims that Obamacare cost jobs is bullshit. You were suckered and conned.

Furthermore, Obama's stimulus created more jobs in its 18 months than Bush did in all of his 8 years. Bush lost net 460,000 private sector jobs. Obama gained over 11,000,000 net private sector jobs. You all also predicted that if Obama let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy at the end of 2012, the sky would fall. Of course, you were wrong about that and 2013 was Obama's best growth year both in terms of GDP and jobs. So strike two. The records speak for themselves.

He was pushing Cap & Trade before the Democrats got thrashed in the 2010 midterms...another policy that would have cost far more jobs! His stimulus? That created so few jobs they had to use "Jobs created or saved" to hide how few were created after spending all that money!

The reasons the Democrats lost in the midterms were because of low turnout and Conservative lies about Medicare. And what have the Conservatives done with all this power they won? Absolutely fucking nothing.

Oh, please! Talk about using statistics to obscure the truth! Barack Obama oversaw the worst recovery from a recession in modern economic history...the worst recovery since The Great Depression! During those 84 consecutive months of job creation that you're so proud of the number of jobs created were pathetically small. I know you're math challenged but what's better...84 months of gaining 1,000 jobs a month...or 84 months of alternating losing 500 jobs and gaining 2000?

The reason the Democrats lost in the 2010 midterms is because they ignored what the people wanted and passed the ACA. It had nothing to do with "low turnout and Conservative lies..."!

 

[Oldstyle]

You really aren't that bright...are you, Derp? The ONLY reason that Clinton was able to pay down the Public Debt was because he increased Intragovernmental debt by an even larger amount! That isn't a real surplus...it's budget "sleight of hand"! The only people who think there was a REAL surplus during the Clinton years are people who can't do simple eighth grade math.

You blithering moron, he was only able to increase intragovernmental debt because he had a budget surplus. And if he was using the SS surplus to pay down the debt, why didn't he just exhaust the Trust right away and pay off a large chunk of the debt in one shot, if what you're saying is true? Why did he wait until 1998 before doing that? Why didn't he start doing it in 1993, when he took office?

And there was most definitely a budget surplus...even without SS, the government ran a surplus in 1999 and 2000.

You. Know. Nothing. Just what you glean off other message board posters. You don't actually think for yourself.

Are you brain damaged? There never was a "surplus"! Borrowing from a flush Social Security Fund (pumped up from the Dot Com Boom) to run the government instead of running a deficit doesn't mean you had a surplus! It simply means you transferred the debt to a different place. Social Security isn't revenue...it's money that's owed.

Let me put it this way. If you were given a thousand dollars to hold for your friend until next year and you spent half of that money to pay your rent instead of taking it out of your checking account...that doesn't mean you have a "surplus"! You still owe your friend the thousand dollars.

You have a surplus when you bring in more money than you send out. Social Security taxes are taxes. The government brings them in. We ran a surplus because we took more money in than we sent out. Or do you believe like Al Gore, that Social Security taxes go in some lockbox.

Social Security isn't revenue, Winston! It's money that the government owes...not money that it's taken in as revenue. The fact that you two can't seem to grasp this concept BAFFLES me!

 

[danielpalos]

Let's end the drug war to pay for health care.

 

[Winston]

You really aren't that bright...are you, Derp? The ONLY reason that Clinton was able to pay down the Public Debt was because he increased Intragovernmental debt by an even larger amount! That isn't a real surplus...it's budget "sleight of hand"! The only people who think there was a REAL surplus during the Clinton years are people who can't do simple eighth grade math.

You blithering moron, he was only able to increase intragovernmental debt because he had a budget surplus. And if he was using the SS surplus to pay down the debt, why didn't he just exhaust the Trust right away and pay off a large chunk of the debt in one shot, if what you're saying is true? Why did he wait until 1998 before doing that? Why didn't he start doing it in 1993, when he took office?

And there was most definitely a budget surplus...even without SS, the government ran a surplus in 1999 and 2000.

You. Know. Nothing. Just what you glean off other message board posters. You don't actually think for yourself.

Are you brain damaged? There never was a "surplus"! Borrowing from a flush Social Security Fund (pumped up from the Dot Com Boom) to run the government instead of running a deficit doesn't mean you had a surplus! It simply means you transferred the debt to a different place. Social Security isn't revenue...it's money that's owed.

Let me put it this way. If you were given a thousand dollars to hold for your friend until next year and you spent half of that money to pay your rent instead of taking it out of your checking account...that doesn't mean you have a "surplus"! You still owe your friend the thousand dollars.

You have a surplus when you bring in more money than you send out. Social Security taxes are taxes. The government brings them in. We ran a surplus because we took more money in than we sent out. Or do you believe like Al Gore, that Social Security taxes go in some lockbox.

Social Security isn't revenue, Winston! It's money that the government owes...not money that it's taken in as revenue. The fact that you two can't seem to grasp this concept BAFFLES me!

You conservatives are a hypocritical bunch aren't you. You count Social Security taxes as revenue when it serves your purpose. And you count it as a liability when it serves your purpose. You might want to remember that it was Ronald Reagan that started the practice of raiding Social Security receipts. And it was also Ronald Reagan that significantly expanded both the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax and the rates collected. In fact, the income subject to Social Security taxes will go up again next year thanks to Ronald Reagan.

The difference is simple. The government can borrow money on the public market, that is called Treasury bonds. Or the government can borrow money from itself. As I have explained already, it is like the difference in borrowing money from a bank or borrowing money from your life insurance policy.

 

[Oldstyle]

What is wrong with you two? Seriously...the only thing dumber than thinking the Social Security fund is the same as money is thinking that California is in the best shape of any other State in the nation fiscally!

Conservatives have been balancing budgets at the State level for a long time, Derp

No they haven't. That's a lie. Kansas was just in the situation where their tax cuts erased a surplus and created record deficits (sounds familiar), and had to repeal trickle down economics this year because it failed to deliver on the promises made of it and spiked their debt.

The only way red states "balance their budgets" is by raiding the welfare block grant. So Conservatives quite literally use welfare to pay for tax cuts. Which would make you the real welfare queens here. Without that welfare block grant, red states would have to raise their artificially low tax rates, which would drive businesses out of undesirable states.

You're welcome for that welfare, by the way. It's letting you perpetuate the fantasy that tax cuts are good for anything.

...it's why the people overwhelmingly elect Republicans to run their local governments! Show me a State run by Democrats for a long time and I'll show you a bankrupt, corrupt as hell mess!

California is in better shape than every Conservative state there is. Minnesota as well.

State Fiscal Rankings

 

[Oldstyle]

You really aren't that bright...are you, Derp? The ONLY reason that Clinton was able to pay down the Public Debt was because he increased Intragovernmental debt by an even larger amount! That isn't a real surplus...it's budget "sleight of hand"! The only people who think there was a REAL surplus during the Clinton years are people who can't do simple eighth grade math.

You blithering moron, he was only able to increase intragovernmental debt because he had a budget surplus. And if he was using the SS surplus to pay down the debt, why didn't he just exhaust the Trust right away and pay off a large chunk of the debt in one shot, if what you're saying is true? Why did he wait until 1998 before doing that? Why didn't he start doing it in 1993, when he took office?

And there was most definitely a budget surplus...even without SS, the government ran a surplus in 1999 and 2000.

You. Know. Nothing. Just what you glean off other message board posters. You don't actually think for yourself.

Are you brain damaged? There never was a "surplus"! Borrowing from a flush Social Security Fund (pumped up from the Dot Com Boom) to run the government instead of running a deficit doesn't mean you had a surplus! It simply means you transferred the debt to a different place. Social Security isn't revenue...it's money that's owed.

Let me put it this way. If you were given a thousand dollars to hold for your friend until next year and you spent half of that money to pay your rent instead of taking it out of your checking account...that doesn't mean you have a "surplus"! You still owe your friend the thousand dollars.

You have a surplus when you bring in more money than you send out. Social Security taxes are taxes. The government brings them in. We ran a surplus because we took more money in than we sent out. Or do you believe like Al Gore, that Social Security taxes go in some lockbox.

Social Security isn't revenue, Winston! It's money that the government owes...not money that it's taken in as revenue. The fact that you two can't seem to grasp this concept BAFFLES me!

You conservatives are a hypocritical bunch aren't you. You count Social Security taxes as revenue when it serves your purpose. And you count it as a liability when it serves your purpose. You might want to remember that it was Ronald Reagan that started the practice of raiding Social Security receipts. And it was also Ronald Reagan that significantly expanded both the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax and the rates collected. In fact, the income subject to Social Security taxes will go up again next year thanks to Ronald Reagan.

The difference is simple. The government can borrow money on the public market, that is called Treasury bonds. Or the government can borrow money from itself. As I have explained already, it is like the difference in borrowing money from a bank or borrowing money from your life insurance policy.

I've NEVER counted the Social Security Fund as "revenue", Winston and anyone who does is a raving IDIOT!!! For the last time...you can't consider money that you owe as a surplus...it simply isn't!

 

[danielpalos]

It should be a federal doctrine, to simply Tax the rich whenever we have US Debt.

In that manner, they can influence Congress to manage our economy better.

 

[Oldstyle]

You really aren't that bright...are you, Derp? The ONLY reason that Clinton was able to pay down the Public Debt was because he increased Intragovernmental debt by an even larger amount! That isn't a real surplus...it's budget "sleight of hand"! The only people who think there was a REAL surplus during the Clinton years are people who can't do simple eighth grade math.

You blithering moron, he was only able to increase intragovernmental debt because he had a budget surplus. And if he was using the SS surplus to pay down the debt, why didn't he just exhaust the Trust right away and pay off a large chunk of the debt in one shot, if what you're saying is true? Why did he wait until 1998 before doing that? Why didn't he start doing it in 1993, when he took office?

And there was most definitely a budget surplus...even without SS, the government ran a surplus in 1999 and 2000.

You. Know. Nothing. Just what you glean off other message board posters. You don't actually think for yourself.

Are you brain damaged? There never was a "surplus"! Borrowing from a flush Social Security Fund (pumped up from the Dot Com Boom) to run the government instead of running a deficit doesn't mean you had a surplus! It simply means you transferred the debt to a different place. Social Security isn't revenue...it's money that's owed.

Let me put it this way. If you were given a thousand dollars to hold for your friend until next year and you spent half of that money to pay your rent instead of taking it out of your checking account...that doesn't mean you have a "surplus"! You still owe your friend the thousand dollars.

You have a surplus when you bring in more money than you send out. Social Security taxes are taxes. The government brings them in. We ran a surplus because we took more money in than we sent out. Or do you believe like Al Gore, that Social Security taxes go in some lockbox.

Social Security isn't revenue, Winston! It's money that the government owes...not money that it's taken in as revenue. The fact that you two can't seem to grasp this concept BAFFLES me!

You conservatives are a hypocritical bunch aren't you. You count Social Security taxes as revenue when it serves your purpose. And you count it as a liability when it serves your purpose. You might want to remember that it was Ronald Reagan that started the practice of raiding Social Security receipts. And it was also Ronald Reagan that significantly expanded both the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax and the rates collected. In fact, the income subject to Social Security taxes will go up again next year thanks to Ronald Reagan.

The difference is simple. The government can borrow money on the public market, that is called Treasury bonds. Or the government can borrow money from itself. As I have explained already, it is like the difference in borrowing money from a bank or borrowing money from your life insurance policy.

For your information it was LBJ that was the first US President to raid the Social Security fund. That took place back in 1968 to help pay for the Vietnam war.

 

[The Derp]

Whew, you are really slow. Perhaps if you didn't go through all the crap that no one said, you would be faster. The democrats are paying the economists to have them shill for them. It's not very difficult to follow. Independent... about as independent as the average far left regressive, ROFL!

So by providing funding to public schools, Democrats are secretly paying economists to produce conclusions that satisfy their ideology and Conservative economists, who are bankrolled by the wealthy, aren't?

Come on.

 

[The Derp]

The derp continues to prove he is a moron.

The average profit -not revenue, but profit- for small businesses according to the IRS is $100K. Which doesn't even come close to the top tax rate on income above $400K:

So to pretend that raising taxes on the wealthy hurts small businesses is bullshit sophistry.

 

[danielpalos]

You blithering moron, he was only able to increase intragovernmental debt because he had a budget surplus. And if he was using the SS surplus to pay down the debt, why didn't he just exhaust the Trust right away and pay off a large chunk of the debt in one shot, if what you're saying is true? Why did he wait until 1998 before doing that? Why didn't he start doing it in 1993, when he took office?

And there was most definitely a budget surplus...even without SS, the government ran a surplus in 1999 and 2000.

You. Know. Nothing. Just what you glean off other message board posters. You don't actually think for yourself.

Are you brain damaged? There never was a "surplus"! Borrowing from a flush Social Security Fund (pumped up from the Dot Com Boom) to run the government instead of running a deficit doesn't mean you had a surplus! It simply means you transferred the debt to a different place. Social Security isn't revenue...it's money that's owed.

Let me put it this way. If you were given a thousand dollars to hold for your friend until next year and you spent half of that money to pay your rent instead of taking it out of your checking account...that doesn't mean you have a "surplus"! You still owe your friend the thousand dollars.

You have a surplus when you bring in more money than you send out. Social Security taxes are taxes. The government brings them in. We ran a surplus because we took more money in than we sent out. Or do you believe like Al Gore, that Social Security taxes go in some lockbox.

Social Security isn't revenue, Winston! It's money that the government owes...not money that it's taken in as revenue. The fact that you two can't seem to grasp this concept BAFFLES me!

You conservatives are a hypocritical bunch aren't you. You count Social Security taxes as revenue when it serves your purpose. And you count it as a liability when it serves your purpose. You might want to remember that it was Ronald Reagan that started the practice of raiding Social Security receipts. And it was also Ronald Reagan that significantly expanded both the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax and the rates collected. In fact, the income subject to Social Security taxes will go up again next year thanks to Ronald Reagan.

The difference is simple. The government can borrow money on the public market, that is called Treasury bonds. Or the government can borrow money from itself. As I have explained already, it is like the difference in borrowing money from a bank or borrowing money from your life insurance policy.

For your information it was LBJ that was the first US President to raid the Social Security fund. That took place back in 1968 to help pay for the Vietnam war.

That war should have required, Standing Army tax rates plus, a "foreign operations surcharge tax".

 

[The Derp]

Are you brain damaged? There never was a "surplus"!

Yes. There. Was. All your screeching doesn't change that. Public debt can only be paid down if there is a budget surplus, which there was from 1998-2001. During that period, the Public Debt was reduced. SS taxes notwithstanding, there existed four consecutive budget surpluses in a row.

If Clinton was simply using SS to pay down the debt, why did he start in 1998 and not 1993 when he took office?

 

[The Derp]

Let me put it this way. If you were given a thousand dollars to hold for your friend until next year and you spent half of that money to pay your rent instead of taking it out of your checking account...that doesn't mean you have a "surplus"! You still owe your friend the thousand dollars.

Sigh...

OK, try looking at it another way...

When you refinance your home, what is it you are actually doing?

 

[The Derp]

Oh, please! Talk about using statistics to obscure the truth! Barack Obama oversaw the worst recovery from a recession in modern economic history

Well, it was the second worst economic collapse in modern history, and Conservatives refused to do anything to help recovery. They opposed everything Obama proposed, not because of the economics, but because they were embarrassed by their legacy so they did everything in their power to tarnish Obama's...all so your shit policies don't look as bad as they actually are. Conservatives had to pay two Harvard economists to write a non-peer-reviewed paper arguing that austerity and tax cuts will lead to growth. That paper, which served as the basis for Conservative policy from 2010-today, was a load of bullshit that was rife with "spreadsheet errors" and data omissions. It just so happened that the spreadsheet errors and data omissions ended up producing the conclusion they wanted. So Conservatives lied about their policy, then used those lies to hamper economic recovery.

..the worst recovery since The Great Depression! During those 84 consecutive months of job creation that you're so proud of the number of jobs created were pathetically small.

Wrong. Obama created over 11,000,000 net private sector jobs which is more than Bush the Dumber and Bush the Elder combined. Obama also reduced the unemployment rate to near full employment, whereas both Bushes increased it.

I know you're math challenged but what's better...84 months of gaining 1,000 jobs a month...or 84 months of alternating losing 500 jobs and gaining 2000?

First of all, the average monthly rate of job growth under Obama was higher than even that of Reagan. Obama not only created over 11,000,000 net private sector jobs from January 2009, but because there were about 8.7 million private sector jobs lost as a result of the Bush Recession, he created about 22 million jobs gross...which is more than Reagan.

And no, it wasn't alternativing months of job loss and job gain...it was just job gain. No job loss:

So as usual, you're wrong.

The reason the Democrats lost in the 2010 midterms is because they ignored what the people wanted and passed the ACA. It had nothing to do with "low turnout and Conservative lies..."!

Conservatives said Obamacare would cut Medicare. They lied. It was 2010's lie of the year.

 

[Oldstyle]

Let me put it this way. If you were given a thousand dollars to hold for your friend until next year and you spent half of that money to pay your rent instead of taking it out of your checking account...that doesn't mean you have a "surplus"! You still owe your friend the thousand dollars.

Sigh...

OK, try looking at it another way...

When you refinance your home, what is it you are actually doing?

How is refinancing your home IN ANY WAY like thinking money you've borrowed is a "surplus"? You keep talking about Clinton being able to pay down the Public Debt because he had a budget surplus which is total nonsense! Clinton was able to pay down the Public Debt because he borrowed money from the Social Security Fund to do so. That doesn't mean he had a surplus which is OBVIOUS when you note that the National Debt went up during each year from 1998 through 2001!

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh, please! Talk about using statistics to obscure the truth! Barack Obama oversaw the worst recovery from a recession in modern economic history

Well, it was the second worst economic collapse in modern history, and Conservatives refused to do anything to help recovery. They opposed everything Obama proposed, not because of the economics, but because they were embarrassed by their legacy so they did everything in their power to tarnish Obama's...all so your shit policies don't look as bad as they actually are. Conservatives had to pay two Harvard economists to write a non-peer-reviewed paper arguing that austerity and tax cuts will lead to growth. That paper, which served as the basis for Conservative policy from 2010-today, was a load of bullshit that was rife with "spreadsheet errors" and data omissions. It just so happened that the spreadsheet errors and data omissions ended up producing the conclusion they wanted. So Conservatives lied about their policy, then used those lies to hamper economic recovery.

..the worst recovery since The Great Depression! During those 84 consecutive months of job creation that you're so proud of the number of jobs created were pathetically small.

Wrong. Obama created over 11,000,000 net private sector jobs which is more than Bush the Dumber and Bush the Elder combined. Obama also reduced the unemployment rate to near full employment, whereas both Bushes increased it.

I know you're math challenged but what's better...84 months of gaining 1,000 jobs a month...or 84 months of alternating losing 500 jobs and gaining 2000?

First of all, the average monthly rate of job growth under Obama was higher than even that of Reagan. Obama not only created over 11,000,000 net private sector jobs from January 2009, but because there were about 8.7 million private sector jobs lost as a result of the Bush Recession, he created about 22 million jobs gross...which is more than Reagan.

And no, it wasn't alternativing months of job loss and job gain...it was just job gain. No job loss:

So as usual, you're wrong.

The reason the Democrats lost in the 2010 midterms is because they ignored what the people wanted and passed the ACA. It had nothing to do with "low turnout and Conservative lies..."!

Conservatives said Obamacare would cut Medicare. They lied. It was 2010's lie of the year.

Republicans refused to do anything about the financial collapse? Did you really just make that claim? Does the term TARP mean anything to you?

 

[Winston]

You blithering moron, he was only able to increase intragovernmental debt because he had a budget surplus. And if he was using the SS surplus to pay down the debt, why didn't he just exhaust the Trust right away and pay off a large chunk of the debt in one shot, if what you're saying is true? Why did he wait until 1998 before doing that? Why didn't he start doing it in 1993, when he took office?

And there was most definitely a budget surplus...even without SS, the government ran a surplus in 1999 and 2000.

You. Know. Nothing. Just what you glean off other message board posters. You don't actually think for yourself.

Are you brain damaged? There never was a "surplus"! Borrowing from a flush Social Security Fund (pumped up from the Dot Com Boom) to run the government instead of running a deficit doesn't mean you had a surplus! It simply means you transferred the debt to a different place. Social Security isn't revenue...it's money that's owed.

Let me put it this way. If you were given a thousand dollars to hold for your friend until next year and you spent half of that money to pay your rent instead of taking it out of your checking account...that doesn't mean you have a "surplus"! You still owe your friend the thousand dollars.

You have a surplus when you bring in more money than you send out. Social Security taxes are taxes. The government brings them in. We ran a surplus because we took more money in than we sent out. Or do you believe like Al Gore, that Social Security taxes go in some lockbox.

Social Security isn't revenue, Winston! It's money that the government owes...not money that it's taken in as revenue. The fact that you two can't seem to grasp this concept BAFFLES me!

You conservatives are a hypocritical bunch aren't you. You count Social Security taxes as revenue when it serves your purpose. And you count it as a liability when it serves your purpose. You might want to remember that it was Ronald Reagan that started the practice of raiding Social Security receipts. And it was also Ronald Reagan that significantly expanded both the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax and the rates collected. In fact, the income subject to Social Security taxes will go up again next year thanks to Ronald Reagan.

The difference is simple. The government can borrow money on the public market, that is called Treasury bonds. Or the government can borrow money from itself. As I have explained already, it is like the difference in borrowing money from a bank or borrowing money from your life insurance policy.

For your information it was LBJ that was the first US President to raid the Social Security fund. That took place back in 1968 to help pay for the Vietnam war.

But what Reagan did was nothing less than a total con job. He promised to cut taxes, and he did on the wealthy. But what he did to the poor and middle class was beyond the pale. In fact, until Obama came along Reagan was the only president to cut taxes on the wealthy while simultaneously increasing them on the poor. Trump is slated to do the very same thing.

Reagan's administration completely revamped Social Security, increasing both the rate of the tax and the income subject to that tax. I remember it well. Everyone got a little bit of a raise on their check and then, a couple of weeks later, it magically disappeared. It went to Social Security. And Reagan's reasoning to do so was to shore up the "reserves" for the coming retirement of the boomers. Then he promptly raided every damn penny of the additional revenue for the General Fund.

The whole right wing agenda of cutting taxes can be boiled down to one simple statement. The rich figured out it was better to loan the government money at interest than pay the government taxes.

 

[Oldstyle]

Are you brain damaged? There never was a "surplus"! Borrowing from a flush Social Security Fund (pumped up from the Dot Com Boom) to run the government instead of running a deficit doesn't mean you had a surplus! It simply means you transferred the debt to a different place. Social Security isn't revenue...it's money that's owed.

Let me put it this way. If you were given a thousand dollars to hold for your friend until next year and you spent half of that money to pay your rent instead of taking it out of your checking account...that doesn't mean you have a "surplus"! You still owe your friend the thousand dollars.

You have a surplus when you bring in more money than you send out. Social Security taxes are taxes. The government brings them in. We ran a surplus because we took more money in than we sent out. Or do you believe like Al Gore, that Social Security taxes go in some lockbox.

Social Security isn't revenue, Winston! It's money that the government owes...not money that it's taken in as revenue. The fact that you two can't seem to grasp this concept BAFFLES me!

You conservatives are a hypocritical bunch aren't you. You count Social Security taxes as revenue when it serves your purpose. And you count it as a liability when it serves your purpose. You might want to remember that it was Ronald Reagan that started the practice of raiding Social Security receipts. And it was also Ronald Reagan that significantly expanded both the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax and the rates collected. In fact, the income subject to Social Security taxes will go up again next year thanks to Ronald Reagan.

The difference is simple. The government can borrow money on the public market, that is called Treasury bonds. Or the government can borrow money from itself. As I have explained already, it is like the difference in borrowing money from a bank or borrowing money from your life insurance policy.

For your information it was LBJ that was the first US President to raid the Social Security fund. That took place back in 1968 to help pay for the Vietnam war.

But what Reagan did was nothing less than a total con job. He promised to cut taxes, and he did on the wealthy. But what he did to the poor and middle class was beyond the pale. In fact, until Obama came along Reagan was the only president to cut taxes on the wealthy while simultaneously increasing them on the poor. Trump is slated to do the very same thing.

Reagan's administration completely revamped Social Security, increasing both the rate of the tax and the income subject to that tax. I remember it well. Everyone got a little bit of a raise on their check and then, a couple of weeks later, it magically disappeared. It went to Social Security. And Reagan's reasoning to do so was to shore up the "reserves" for the coming retirement of the boomers. Then he promptly raided every damn penny of the additional revenue for the General Fund.

The whole right wing agenda of cutting taxes can be boiled down to one simple statement. The rich figured out it was better to loan the government money at interest than pay the government taxes.

Did you want to admit that you were dead wrong when you accused Reagan of being the first President to raid the Social Security fund, Winston?

 

[Winston]

You have a surplus when you bring in more money than you send out. Social Security taxes are taxes. The government brings them in. We ran a surplus because we took more money in than we sent out. Or do you believe like Al Gore, that Social Security taxes go in some lockbox.

Social Security isn't revenue, Winston! It's money that the government owes...not money that it's taken in as revenue. The fact that you two can't seem to grasp this concept BAFFLES me!

You conservatives are a hypocritical bunch aren't you. You count Social Security taxes as revenue when it serves your purpose. And you count it as a liability when it serves your purpose. You might want to remember that it was Ronald Reagan that started the practice of raiding Social Security receipts. And it was also Ronald Reagan that significantly expanded both the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax and the rates collected. In fact, the income subject to Social Security taxes will go up again next year thanks to Ronald Reagan.

The difference is simple. The government can borrow money on the public market, that is called Treasury bonds. Or the government can borrow money from itself. As I have explained already, it is like the difference in borrowing money from a bank or borrowing money from your life insurance policy.

For your information it was LBJ that was the first US President to raid the Social Security fund. That took place back in 1968 to help pay for the Vietnam war.

But what Reagan did was nothing less than a total con job. He promised to cut taxes, and he did on the wealthy. But what he did to the poor and middle class was beyond the pale. In fact, until Obama came along Reagan was the only president to cut taxes on the wealthy while simultaneously increasing them on the poor. Trump is slated to do the very same thing.

Reagan's administration completely revamped Social Security, increasing both the rate of the tax and the income subject to that tax. I remember it well. Everyone got a little bit of a raise on their check and then, a couple of weeks later, it magically disappeared. It went to Social Security. And Reagan's reasoning to do so was to shore up the "reserves" for the coming retirement of the boomers. Then he promptly raided every damn penny of the additional revenue for the General Fund.

The whole right wing agenda of cutting taxes can be boiled down to one simple statement. The rich figured out it was better to loan the government money at interest than pay the government taxes.

Did you want to admit that you were dead wrong when you accused Reagan of being the first President to raid the Social Security fund, Winston?

Sure, and you can admit that what Johnson did with the Social Security Trust fund--putting it "on-budget" contradicts the claim that you are attempting to make here, that Social Security taxes can not be included in calculating the Clinton surplus.

 

[The Derp]

What is wrong with you two? Seriously...the only thing dumber than thinking the Social Security fund is the same as money is thinking that California is in the best shape of any other State in the nation fiscally!

it just seems like you're jumping all over the place because you don't have a clear, articulate thought about anything. CA is in much better fiscal shape than most red states, despite Conservatives predicting CA's demise after it hiked taxes in 2013. Since that time, CA has led the nation in job and business creation and reduced its deficit. None of the Conservative predictions about CA came to pass. NONE OF THEM.