What do liberals want the US to be?

[Listening]

So then you admit the social security trust fund is a lie. Which if you read my argument through the thread, these can not both be true.

1) Clinton ran surpluses

2) There is a social security trust fund.

You cannot count revenue both as inflow into the general treasury and savings. If you have $100 you can spend it, or you can save it. You cannot spend it then also count it as savings.

Social Security History

Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

------------​

7 Myths You Probably Believe About Social Security - Forbes

Myth #2) Social Security won’t be there for young Americans.

Have you seen the statistic that more young Americans believe in UFOs than believe they’ll see a dime from Social Security? First, let’s start with the bad news. The Social Security trustees project that the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by 2033. At that point, there won’t be enough money in the system to pay all the promised benefits. That’s what people generally mean when they say the program is going “bankrupt.”

Now, here’s the good news. There will still be taxpayers paying into the system. (Bad news for them but good news for you if you’re collecting.) The trustees project there should be enough to pay between 75-80% of the benefits.

What does all this mean for you? You don’t have to assume Social Security won’t be there (which is practically politically impossible) but don’t assume you’ll get more than 75% of your projected benefits either. If the government ends up raising taxes, or increasing the retirement age, or reducing benefits more for higher-income people, you may end up with more than 75%, but it’s always better to err on the safe side.

------------​

and finally -- Social Security Benefits Myths Fears Facts - AARP The Magazine

What Dante posted has nothing to do with kaz's point.

contributions of facts hardly ever have anything to do with what kaz posts. Dante agress

Dante spends too much time arguing on playgrounds.

Kaz pointed out that the same money can not be both an asset and spent. Dante did not address that. Dante talked about whether government can pay the checks in the future. Whether the government can or not has nothing to do with kaz's point.

Like economics accounting is a form of voodoo

Not sure I get that one.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Social Security History

Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

------------​

7 Myths You Probably Believe About Social Security - Forbes

Myth #2) Social Security won’t be there for young Americans.

Have you seen the statistic that more young Americans believe in UFOs than believe they’ll see a dime from Social Security? First, let’s start with the bad news. The Social Security trustees project that the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by 2033. At that point, there won’t be enough money in the system to pay all the promised benefits. That’s what people generally mean when they say the program is going “bankrupt.”

Now, here’s the good news. There will still be taxpayers paying into the system. (Bad news for them but good news for you if you’re collecting.) The trustees project there should be enough to pay between 75-80% of the benefits.

What does all this mean for you? You don’t have to assume Social Security won’t be there (which is practically politically impossible) but don’t assume you’ll get more than 75% of your projected benefits either. If the government ends up raising taxes, or increasing the retirement age, or reducing benefits more for higher-income people, you may end up with more than 75%, but it’s always better to err on the safe side.

------------​

and finally -- Social Security Benefits Myths Fears Facts - AARP The Magazine

What Dante posted has nothing to do with kaz's point.

contributions of facts hardly ever have anything to do with what kaz posts. Dante agress

Dante spends too much time arguing on playgrounds.

Kaz pointed out that the same money can not be both an asset and spent. Dante did not address that. Dante talked about whether government can pay the checks in the future. Whether the government can or not has nothing to do with kaz's point.

Like economics accounting is a form of voodoo

Not sure I get that one.

The origin of the term “voodoo accounting” probably lies in the fact that once the accounting gimmicks come to light, the purported profits disappear like magic.

----

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/paul-krugman-voodoo-economics-the-next-generation.html
The New York Times
Oct 5, 2014 - The 1990s, however, were bad news for voodoo. Conservatives confidently predicted economic disaster after Bill Clinton's 1993 tax hike.

 

[kaz]

So then you admit the social security trust fund is a lie. Which if you read my argument through the thread, these can not both be true.

1) Clinton ran surpluses

2) There is a social security trust fund.

You cannot count revenue both as inflow into the general treasury and savings. If you have $100 you can spend it, or you can save it. You cannot spend it then also count it as savings.

Social Security History

Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

------------​

7 Myths You Probably Believe About Social Security - Forbes

Myth #2) Social Security won’t be there for young Americans.

Have you seen the statistic that more young Americans believe in UFOs than believe they’ll see a dime from Social Security? First, let’s start with the bad news. The Social Security trustees project that the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by 2033. At that point, there won’t be enough money in the system to pay all the promised benefits. That’s what people generally mean when they say the program is going “bankrupt.”

Now, here’s the good news. There will still be taxpayers paying into the system. (Bad news for them but good news for you if you’re collecting.) The trustees project there should be enough to pay between 75-80% of the benefits.

What does all this mean for you? You don’t have to assume Social Security won’t be there (which is practically politically impossible) but don’t assume you’ll get more than 75% of your projected benefits either. If the government ends up raising taxes, or increasing the retirement age, or reducing benefits more for higher-income people, you may end up with more than 75%, but it’s always better to err on the safe side.

------------​

and finally -- Social Security Benefits Myths Fears Facts - AARP The Magazine

What Dante posted has nothing to do with kaz's point.

contributions of facts hardly ever have anything to do with what kaz posts. Dante agress

Dante spends too much time arguing on playgrounds.

Kaz pointed out that the same money can not be both an asset and spent. Dante did not address that. Dante talked about whether government can pay the checks in the future. Whether the government can or not has nothing to do with kaz's point.

Like economics accounting is a form of voodoo

No one is allowed to do what government does because government recognizes it's bogus, any CEO would go to prison for running his company the way government runs it's budget. The same reason why government runs it's budget the way it does. It can. Whats sad is liberals running around slurping up the lies and justifying government committing fraud against it's own people.

 

[kaz]

I'm not reading your link and explaining to you what it says, you're going to have to read it yourself and explain what your point is. My post was pretty clear, and if you know anything about the Federal government true. So just answer the question, don't say, gee, here's a link.

How can the government spend $100 and count that same $100 as savings? It is a ... wait for it ... lie.

Sorry, your original question was,

How can you have a budget surplus and the National Debt Still rise....?

and this link explains such...the Budget, which is what Congress and the President work with, is NOT the ONLY function/thing that affects the National Debt,...Intragovernmental Holdings also affect the National Debt.

The budget is calculated as it has always been calculated since LBJ included Social Security in the total budget, there were no Social Security surpluses back then, because SS was pay as you go, until Reagan when SS taxes were raised, (doubled) to collect a surplus in SS off of the boomers so that when they retired there would be enough SS surplus taxes collected to pay their own retirement for a while.

So if your point is that Clinton used SS surpluses in the total budget AS ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS did BEFORE HIM to call it a balanced budget or a budget surplus, then the answer is YES, of course he did, BECAUSE this is how the Federal Budget is calculated.

As example, just as President Bush 2nd, calculated the budget with the SS surpluses in there...so when he showed a $500,000,000,000 (billion dollar) deficit in a year, it was truly more like a $750 billion dollar deficit....if you included the SS funds that were in surplus(and borrowed on)...BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS SAID, when he was President...what was said, is precisely what was true, that he had a $500 billion dollar Budget Deficit such and such year....and the truth is that Clinton had a SURPLUS when calculating the Budget according to the RULES/Laws ON THE BOOKS.

You can't change the rules midstream just for Clinton... the rules are the rules, period. And these rules for how a Federal Budget is calculated should be consistent year after year in order to have a way to compare and analyze them, apples to apples, year after year, president after President, decade against decade etc...

Ah, politicians have always lied, so it makes what Clinton did truth when he lied because he is a politician and they lie. I'm convinced now. Not.

Do you even understand my point? I am starting do doubt it. If Clinton counted the money as surplus, then he can't say he saved it in a trust fund and there was no surplus. If he said it was an asset saved by social security, then he can't say there was a surplus, government borrowed the money. It's not that complicated. Even FooledByEveryone gets it. He's claiming government can double count the revenue, which is ridiculous, but at least that's a grasp of the point. You have not demonstrated a grasp of the point.

The correct answer by the way is there was a surplus and there is no trust fund. No money was saved. But my point is that liberals make both arguments, which are contradictory. I'm pointing out that contradiction.

Did you ever read or did you contribute to writing this:

Alan Greenspan, who was worth his weight in gold as an advisor to Reagan, came to the rescue. He pointed out that there was a way to get more revenue without touching the income tax cuts.

Greenspan told Reagan that they could raise payroll taxes, and say they were doing it to strengthen Social Security. Then they could use the surplus revenue just like income- tax revenue.

It was a clever plan.

The surplus Social Security revenue from the payroll-tax increase wouldn’t be needed to pay actual benefits for 30 more years. Why not just put the money in the general fund, for now, and let future presidents worry about replacing it.

It probably didn’t seem like such and evil deed to Reagan and Greenspan at the time. After all, they were only “borrowing” the money. Hopefully some future president would repay it.

But the real effect of their action was to take money from working baby boomers, in the form of increased payroll taxes, and give that money to some of the richest Americans in the form of big income tax cuts. The Looting of Social Security

add this: Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist FedSmith.com

Is Dante aware that kaz is a libertarian, not a Republican? Kaz also believes in what is so and doesn't defend politicians who are wrong when they are wrong. Reagan was wrong. He should not have done that. And Greenspan was no friend of liberty. The fed is a criminal organization which steals from the American people and Greenspan was it's don and ran it as the criminal empire that it is.

Greenspan was hailed as a libertarian until people like you threw him under the proverbial bus.

Your rant is as as it gets.

Greenspan hailed as a "libertarian?" Who said that? Authoritarian leftist liberals? That's insane, he wasn't libertarian at all.

 

[kaz]

What Dante posted has nothing to do with kaz's point.

contributions of facts hardly ever have anything to do with what kaz posts. Dante agress

Dante spends too much time arguing on playgrounds.

Kaz pointed out that the same money can not be both an asset and spent. Dante did not address that. Dante talked about whether government can pay the checks in the future. Whether the government can or not has nothing to do with kaz's point.

Like economics accounting is a form of voodoo

Not sure I get that one.

The origin of the term “voodoo accounting” probably lies in the fact that once the accounting gimmicks come to light, the purported profits disappear like magic.

----

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/paul-krugman-voodoo-economics-the-next-generation.html
The New York Times
Oct 5, 2014 - The 1990s, however, were bad news for voodoo. Conservatives confidently predicted economic disaster after Bill Clinton's 1993 tax hike.

Dante doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[sealybobo]

Clinton DID NOT create NAFTA, he did not negotiate with other countries and other country Presidents on NAFTA, and he did not persuade these other countries to sign the NAFTA Treaty....

ALL of this was done BEFORE Clinton even announced his running for President, by President Bush 1....

HOWEVER, from the moment Clinton began running for President, he told the public and the media that he would HONOR President Bush's Treaty with these other Nations, and would sign it.

He did not speak out against it. At the time, he thought President Bush's Treaty was good for the USA...

That's how I remember it...

NAFTA has been changed/altered/messed with/manipulated several times since Bush took over in 2000. We all know the GOP deregulated just about everything in those 6 years from 2000 to 2006 when they ran the government and we all know they caused the Great Recession of 2007. That's how I remember it.

 

[sealybobo]

Sorry, your original question was,

How can you have a budget surplus and the National Debt Still rise....?

and this link explains such...the Budget, which is what Congress and the President work with, is NOT the ONLY function/thing that affects the National Debt,...Intragovernmental Holdings also affect the National Debt.

The budget is calculated as it has always been calculated since LBJ included Social Security in the total budget, there were no Social Security surpluses back then, because SS was pay as you go, until Reagan when SS taxes were raised, (doubled) to collect a surplus in SS off of the boomers so that when they retired there would be enough SS surplus taxes collected to pay their own retirement for a while.

So if your point is that Clinton used SS surpluses in the total budget AS ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS did BEFORE HIM to call it a balanced budget or a budget surplus, then the answer is YES, of course he did, BECAUSE this is how the Federal Budget is calculated.

As example, just as President Bush 2nd, calculated the budget with the SS surpluses in there...so when he showed a $500,000,000,000 (billion dollar) deficit in a year, it was truly more like a $750 billion dollar deficit....if you included the SS funds that were in surplus(and borrowed on)...BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS SAID, when he was President...what was said, is precisely what was true, that he had a $500 billion dollar Budget Deficit such and such year....and the truth is that Clinton had a SURPLUS when calculating the Budget according to the RULES/Laws ON THE BOOKS.

You can't change the rules midstream just for Clinton... the rules are the rules, period. And these rules for how a Federal Budget is calculated should be consistent year after year in order to have a way to compare and analyze them, apples to apples, year after year, president after President, decade against decade etc...

Ah, politicians have always lied, so it makes what Clinton did truth when he lied because he is a politician and they lie. I'm convinced now. Not.

Do you even understand my point? I am starting do doubt it. If Clinton counted the money as surplus, then he can't say he saved it in a trust fund and there was no surplus. If he said it was an asset saved by social security, then he can't say there was a surplus, government borrowed the money. It's not that complicated. Even FooledByEveryone gets it. He's claiming government can double count the revenue, which is ridiculous, but at least that's a grasp of the point. You have not demonstrated a grasp of the point.

The correct answer by the way is there was a surplus and there is no trust fund. No money was saved. But my point is that liberals make both arguments, which are contradictory. I'm pointing out that contradiction.

Did you ever read or did you contribute to writing this:

Alan Greenspan, who was worth his weight in gold as an advisor to Reagan, came to the rescue. He pointed out that there was a way to get more revenue without touching the income tax cuts.

Greenspan told Reagan that they could raise payroll taxes, and say they were doing it to strengthen Social Security. Then they could use the surplus revenue just like income- tax revenue.

It was a clever plan.

The surplus Social Security revenue from the payroll-tax increase wouldn’t be needed to pay actual benefits for 30 more years. Why not just put the money in the general fund, for now, and let future presidents worry about replacing it.

It probably didn’t seem like such and evil deed to Reagan and Greenspan at the time. After all, they were only “borrowing” the money. Hopefully some future president would repay it.

But the real effect of their action was to take money from working baby boomers, in the form of increased payroll taxes, and give that money to some of the richest Americans in the form of big income tax cuts. The Looting of Social Security

add this: Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist FedSmith.com

Is Dante aware that kaz is a libertarian, not a Republican? Kaz also believes in what is so and doesn't defend politicians who are wrong when they are wrong. Reagan was wrong. He should not have done that. And Greenspan was no friend of liberty. The fed is a criminal organization which steals from the American people and Greenspan was it's don and ran it as the criminal empire that it is.

Greenspan was hailed as a libertarian until people like you threw him under the proverbial bus.

Your rant is as as it gets.

Greenspan hailed as a "libertarian?" Who said that? Authoritarian leftist liberals? That's insane, he wasn't libertarian at all.

Or liberal.

 

[sealybobo]

Same reason Bush should have only given his rich buddies a little tax break and not the one he gave that helped put us in a Great Recession. Moderation.

So there is a negative impact potential when you mandate wage changes?

There could be if you go too far. But also consider that when the people have more money, they are buying more of your product.

Do you think the low gas prices was chance or do you think they are manipulating the prices to fuck with Russia? So governments and corporations do practice economic engineering? Isn't that the kind of stuff Greenspan, Bernanke and Yellen do? They don't raise interest rates or they do raise them to make sure the market runs right? Well that's the same thing we do with the minimum wage. Every once in awhile we have to raise it or you guys would have people working for $3 hr still.

 

[Mathbud1]

Right, bandwidth, lol



The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view.

...In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.



However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.

The Museum of Broadcast Communications - Encyclopedia of Television - Fairness Doctrine


WEIRD, ABOUT 27 YEARS LATER WE HAVE A 'NEWS' NETWORK ARGUING IT HAS A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO LIE. AND YOU, APPARENTLY SUPPORT IT, LOL
Fox News admits they lie and distort the news so why so pissy

Have you considered signing up for some reading comprehension courses at your local community college? If you like, I can help you search for some that will fit your schedule.

Your source as well as the Wikipedia article both state "This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available..." i.e. radio frequency bandwidth limitations. (Bandwidth is the difference between the upper and lower frequencies in a continuous set of frequencies. - Bandwidth signal processing - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)

Also from your link: "Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming."

As for your oh-so-reliable closing link: is that bias I smell, or is it B.S.

Hard to tell the two apart sometimes.

The case cited did not involve Fox News. It involved 1 (one) of their subsidiary stations, WTVT, in Florida, and did not address whether the station had the right to lie or distort the news. The final decision in the case revolved around the question of whether the plaintiff in the case had the right to sue the station under the state's whistle-blower statute. The court decided that she did not. The decision did not address whether the station violated the FCC's news distortion policy, and does not have anything at all to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/2D01-529.pdf

FYI, the news distortion policy of the FCC is still in effect:

"What Responsibilities Do Broadcasters Have?
As public trustees, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. Broadcasters are responsible for deciding what their stations present to the public, and the FCC has stated publicly that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The FCC may act to protect the public interest when it has received documented evidence of such rigging or slanting. This kind of evidence could include testimony, in writing or otherwise, from “insiders” or persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence about orders from station management to falsify the news. Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene."

Complaints About Broadcast Journalism FCC.gov

"The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted above, the Commission generally will not intervene in such cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own."

The Public and Broadcasting - July 2008 FCC.gov

Got it, you'll stick with going with the ability to lie and hide behind the 1st. And YES, THE SUBSIDIARY ACTUALLY ARGUED THEY HAD THE RIGHT TO LIE!

It is irrelevant what the subsidiary argued. The case was not decided on their "right to lie."

They have no right to distort the truth in their news broadcasts. The FCC rules clearly state that they will investigate claims of such distortion where the claimant can provide actual evidence of knowing distortion of the truth in news broadcasting. "Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene."

I fully support the FCC's news distortion policy, and would suggest that anyone who has evidence that any network is deliberately distorting the news should contact the FCC and initiate a formal investigation. When evidence is absent, the FCC should not intervene because frivolous complaints would keep them running around "investigating" every news network on a non-stop basis.

I also fully support the right of the news broadcasters to be free of government control as long as they are truthful in their broadcasts. Would you prefer that the government control all messages that the media can broadcast?

And again, the news distortion policy has nothing at all to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

But don't you think the net effect of the ruling was that this Station could lie and distort the news...? Because who more than the employees themselves would know that the Station is intentionally distorting and lying, and without giving these employees whistle blower protection... this means, one thing and one thing only.....that when a citizen, who happens to be an employee, goes to the FCC to report their Stations dishonesty and distortions given to the public, they can and will be fired, thus taking away their ability to report such instances of the Station breaking the Law, if they need their job's income to survive.

You could argue that that is the case, but consider also that there is already a natural disincentive in place to prevent employees from blowing the whistle: If their whistle-blowing leads to the closure of the station, they will be out of a job anyway. If the whistle-blowing leads to fines that place an economic burden on the station and they have to fire someone else because of it, the known whistle-blower is going to face hostility from the other employees impacted. Whistle-blowing will always carry risks, and I doubt highly that anyone who does blow the whistle would be able to continue with any company for very long even if they are protected from being fired.

I read through the case files. There is no documentation that the station ever asked the reporters to distort the truth, and the case papers contain nothing that argues that the station should have the right to distort the truth. All of the documentation points to the reporters being extremely uncooperative and belligerent and unwilling to work with station personnel to produce a truthful version of the story.

You can find all of the papers here: foxBGHsuit

It is a lot of reading though.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Social Security History

Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

------------​

7 Myths You Probably Believe About Social Security - Forbes

Myth #2) Social Security won’t be there for young Americans.

Have you seen the statistic that more young Americans believe in UFOs than believe they’ll see a dime from Social Security? First, let’s start with the bad news. The Social Security trustees project that the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by 2033. At that point, there won’t be enough money in the system to pay all the promised benefits. That’s what people generally mean when they say the program is going “bankrupt.”

Now, here’s the good news. There will still be taxpayers paying into the system. (Bad news for them but good news for you if you’re collecting.) The trustees project there should be enough to pay between 75-80% of the benefits.

What does all this mean for you? You don’t have to assume Social Security won’t be there (which is practically politically impossible) but don’t assume you’ll get more than 75% of your projected benefits either. If the government ends up raising taxes, or increasing the retirement age, or reducing benefits more for higher-income people, you may end up with more than 75%, but it’s always better to err on the safe side.

------------​

and finally -- Social Security Benefits Myths Fears Facts - AARP The Magazine

What Dante posted has nothing to do with kaz's point.

contributions of facts hardly ever have anything to do with what kaz posts. Dante agress

Dante spends too much time arguing on playgrounds.

Kaz pointed out that the same money can not be both an asset and spent. Dante did not address that. Dante talked about whether government can pay the checks in the future. Whether the government can or not has nothing to do with kaz's point.

Like economics accounting is a form of voodoo

No one is allowed to do what government does because government recognizes it's bogus, any CEO would go to prison for running his company the way government runs it's budget. The same reason why government runs it's budget the way it does. It can. Whats sad is liberals running around slurping up the lies and justifying government committing fraud against it's own people.

clue: government is NOT a business

clue: taxes are NOT theft

clue: you are acting demented

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sorry, your original question was,

How can you have a budget surplus and the National Debt Still rise....?

and this link explains such...the Budget, which is what Congress and the President work with, is NOT the ONLY function/thing that affects the National Debt,...Intragovernmental Holdings also affect the National Debt.

The budget is calculated as it has always been calculated since LBJ included Social Security in the total budget, there were no Social Security surpluses back then, because SS was pay as you go, until Reagan when SS taxes were raised, (doubled) to collect a surplus in SS off of the boomers so that when they retired there would be enough SS surplus taxes collected to pay their own retirement for a while.

So if your point is that Clinton used SS surpluses in the total budget AS ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS did BEFORE HIM to call it a balanced budget or a budget surplus, then the answer is YES, of course he did, BECAUSE this is how the Federal Budget is calculated.

As example, just as President Bush 2nd, calculated the budget with the SS surpluses in there...so when he showed a $500,000,000,000 (billion dollar) deficit in a year, it was truly more like a $750 billion dollar deficit....if you included the SS funds that were in surplus(and borrowed on)...BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS SAID, when he was President...what was said, is precisely what was true, that he had a $500 billion dollar Budget Deficit such and such year....and the truth is that Clinton had a SURPLUS when calculating the Budget according to the RULES/Laws ON THE BOOKS.

You can't change the rules midstream just for Clinton... the rules are the rules, period. And these rules for how a Federal Budget is calculated should be consistent year after year in order to have a way to compare and analyze them, apples to apples, year after year, president after President, decade against decade etc...

Ah, politicians have always lied, so it makes what Clinton did truth when he lied because he is a politician and they lie. I'm convinced now. Not.

Do you even understand my point? I am starting do doubt it. If Clinton counted the money as surplus, then he can't say he saved it in a trust fund and there was no surplus. If he said it was an asset saved by social security, then he can't say there was a surplus, government borrowed the money. It's not that complicated. Even FooledByEveryone gets it. He's claiming government can double count the revenue, which is ridiculous, but at least that's a grasp of the point. You have not demonstrated a grasp of the point.

The correct answer by the way is there was a surplus and there is no trust fund. No money was saved. But my point is that liberals make both arguments, which are contradictory. I'm pointing out that contradiction.

Did you ever read or did you contribute to writing this:

Alan Greenspan, who was worth his weight in gold as an advisor to Reagan, came to the rescue. He pointed out that there was a way to get more revenue without touching the income tax cuts.

Greenspan told Reagan that they could raise payroll taxes, and say they were doing it to strengthen Social Security. Then they could use the surplus revenue just like income- tax revenue.

It was a clever plan.

The surplus Social Security revenue from the payroll-tax increase wouldn’t be needed to pay actual benefits for 30 more years. Why not just put the money in the general fund, for now, and let future presidents worry about replacing it.

It probably didn’t seem like such and evil deed to Reagan and Greenspan at the time. After all, they were only “borrowing” the money. Hopefully some future president would repay it.

But the real effect of their action was to take money from working baby boomers, in the form of increased payroll taxes, and give that money to some of the richest Americans in the form of big income tax cuts. The Looting of Social Security

add this: Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist FedSmith.com

Is Dante aware that kaz is a libertarian, not a Republican? Kaz also believes in what is so and doesn't defend politicians who are wrong when they are wrong. Reagan was wrong. He should not have done that. And Greenspan was no friend of liberty. The fed is a criminal organization which steals from the American people and Greenspan was it's don and ran it as the criminal empire that it is.

Greenspan was hailed as a libertarian until people like you threw him under the proverbial bus.

Your rant is as as it gets.

Greenspan hailed as a "libertarian?" Who said that? Authoritarian leftist liberals? That's insane, he wasn't libertarian at all.

Greenspan describes himself as a "lifelong libertarian Republican". that is how and why he was appointed by Ronald Reagan

Crazy old Murray Rothbard had this to say: 45 Years 45 Days Murray Rothbard on Alan Greenspan - Hit Run Reason.com

excerpt: Writing in Reason’s October 1974 issue, economist Murray Rothbard weighed the pros and cons of President Richard Nixon appointing Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. “Since Greenspan is a one-time contributor to The Objectivist, was–and perhaps still is–a leader of the Ayn Rand movement, and has written on behalf of the free market,” Rothbard wrote, “the Greenspan appointment was hailed in conservative and libertarian circles as a highly significant move on behalf of the free market and sound economics by the Nixon Administration. But is it; are hosannas really in order?”

The Greenspan Nomination - Reason.com
​

Alan Greenspan Was a Libertarian to the Crony Capitalists: Alan Greenspan believed that regulations should not get in the way from all manner of deregulated financial products, from insurance swaps to CDO's.

Read more: Alan Greenspan Was a Libertarian to the Crony Capitalists - Business Insider


Read more: Alan Greenspan Was a Libertarian to the Crony Capitalists - Business Insider

 

[Dad2three]

The Elasticity of Labor Demand and the Minimum Wage
http://ftp.iza.org/dp3150.pdf



Increase min wage 10% you might get a 2% 'help' to the poor. Increase it 150% you might get 1%... LABOR DEMAND FOR MIN WAGE JOBS, IS NOT ELASTIC BUT SET. INCREASE WAGES AND IT HELPS. TO MUCH AND THEIR IS A POSSIBILITY OF HURTING



According to Cooper’s analysis, almost 70 percent of the benefits go to families with incomes of less than $60,000. More than half go to families with incomes below $40,000. Not quite one fourth, to families with incomes below $20,000.

Dube’s new paper, however, goes further. He measures what actually happened to family incomes after federal and state minimum wage increases between 1990 and 2012 –including any changes in the level or the composition of employment in response to the minimum wage.

Dube finds that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated, on average, with a 1.2 to 3.7 percent decrease in the federal poverty rate.

Minimum Wage and Poverty CEPR Blog



A GOOD LOOK AT IT HERE

The minimum wage and elasticity of labor demand


The minimum wage and elasticity of labor demand Jonathan Malesic Ph.D.

Interesting reading.

I wish I had the time to spend going through the math to really understand it all.

The big standout from all of the articles is the word "if."

There were a lot of "what if this" and "if we assume this..."

All of the sources seem to agree that there will be job losses as a result of an increase, but that the increased spending power of those still employed should offset that in the overall economy.

In other words, some people will be hurt by it, but others will benefit from it.

It's all very uncertain and guessing-game-like.

Weird the US has lifted min wage DOZENS of times at state and national level, ALL it has ever done is increase spending by those at the bottom creating more economic activity overall.

CBO said there COULD be up to 500,000 jobs lost BUT net effect is increasing the floor at the bottom for about 16+ million workers IF the $10.10 was passed

"Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged." - Adam Smith

 

[Dad2three]

Save us your libertarian logic

Contributing to the society from which you benefit is not a confiscation of property. Our wealthy are paying at one of the lowest levels in our history and laughing all the way to the bank

Confiscation of one's property is confiscation. Contributions are those things given without penalty.

And just as an FYI: That evil confiscates less at one time or more at another, is irrelevant... DUMBASS!

Taxation is the way society pays for itself. We have one of the lowest levels of taxation of any industrialized country
Stop with the confiscation of property bullshit

you mean one of the highest corporate tax rates....

Yes, ANOTHER wingnutter not knowing the diff with EFFECTIVE versus marginal. The US tax BURDEN on Corps is ONLY lower in Mexico and Chile in the developed world. Low teens is horrible right?

Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

“Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness,” Buffett explained, even bringing a chart to prove his point:
The interesting thing about the corporate rate is that corporate profits, as a percentage of GDP last year were the highest or just about the highest in the last 50 years. They were ten and a fraction percent of GDP. That’s higher than we’ve seen in 50 years. The corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP were 1.2 percent, $180 billion. That’s just about the lowest we’ve seen. So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it…Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.

Yet all of Berkshire acquisition are structured as non-taxable stock swaps

weird

You mean a Corp tried to save money? Shocking

 

[Dad2three]

Right, bandwidth, lol



The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view.

...In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.



However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.

The Museum of Broadcast Communications - Encyclopedia of Television - Fairness Doctrine


WEIRD, ABOUT 27 YEARS LATER WE HAVE A 'NEWS' NETWORK ARGUING IT HAS A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO LIE. AND YOU, APPARENTLY SUPPORT IT, LOL
Fox News admits they lie and distort the news so why so pissy

Have you considered signing up for some reading comprehension courses at your local community college? If you like, I can help you search for some that will fit your schedule.

Your source as well as the Wikipedia article both state "This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available..." i.e. radio frequency bandwidth limitations. (Bandwidth is the difference between the upper and lower frequencies in a continuous set of frequencies. - Bandwidth signal processing - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)

Also from your link: "Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming."

As for your oh-so-reliable closing link: is that bias I smell, or is it B.S.

Hard to tell the two apart sometimes.

The case cited did not involve Fox News. It involved 1 (one) of their subsidiary stations, WTVT, in Florida, and did not address whether the station had the right to lie or distort the news. The final decision in the case revolved around the question of whether the plaintiff in the case had the right to sue the station under the state's whistle-blower statute. The court decided that she did not. The decision did not address whether the station violated the FCC's news distortion policy, and does not have anything at all to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/2D01-529.pdf

FYI, the news distortion policy of the FCC is still in effect:

"What Responsibilities Do Broadcasters Have?
As public trustees, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. Broadcasters are responsible for deciding what their stations present to the public, and the FCC has stated publicly that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The FCC may act to protect the public interest when it has received documented evidence of such rigging or slanting. This kind of evidence could include testimony, in writing or otherwise, from “insiders” or persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence about orders from station management to falsify the news. Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene."

Complaints About Broadcast Journalism FCC.gov

"The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted above, the Commission generally will not intervene in such cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own."

The Public and Broadcasting - July 2008 FCC.gov

Got it, you'll stick with going with the ability to lie and hide behind the 1st. And YES, THE SUBSIDIARY ACTUALLY ARGUED THEY HAD THE RIGHT TO LIE!

It is irrelevant what the subsidiary argued. The case was not decided on their "right to lie."

They have no right to distort the truth in their news broadcasts. The FCC rules clearly state that they will investigate claims of such distortion where the claimant can provide actual evidence of knowing distortion of the truth in news broadcasting. "Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene."

I fully support the FCC's news distortion policy, and would suggest that anyone who has evidence that any network is deliberately distorting the news should contact the FCC and initiate a formal investigation. When evidence is absent, the FCC should not intervene because frivolous complaints would keep them running around "investigating" every news network on a non-stop basis.

I also fully support the right of the news broadcasters to be free of government control as long as they are truthful in their broadcasts. Would you prefer that the government control all messages that the media can broadcast?

And again, the news distortion policy has nothing at all to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

"The case was not decided on their "right to lie."


DID A FOX AFFILIATE ARGUE THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO LIE????



" The FCC rules clearly state that they will investigate claims of such distortion where the claimant can provide actual evidence of knowing distortion of the truth in news broadcasting. "Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene."

FOX 'NEWS' LIES:



John Stossel
"There is no good data showing secondhand smoke kills people."


Bill O'Reilly
"In 2012, 123 African-Americans were shot dead by police. ... Same year, 326 whites were killed by police."

Anna Kooiman
"There would be tens of thousands of jobs created" if President Barack Obama approved the Keystone XL pipeline.


Brit Hume
"It is senior citizens, not Hispanics, who are the fastest-growing demographic in this country."

Megyn Kelly
A new Colorado law "literally allows residents to print ballots from their home computers, then encourages them to turn ballots over to ‘collectors.’


Brit Hume
Says President Barack Obama is "sending a much larger (force) " to deal with Ebola "than ISIS is getting."


Lou Dobbs
Because of President Barack Obama’s failure to "push job creation," the black unemployment rate in Ferguson, Mo., is three times higher than the white unemployment rate.


Tucker Carlson
"Far more children died last year drowning in their bathtubs than were killed accidentally by guns."

 

[Dad2three]

"Inflating the cost of labor without increasing the value of labor doesn't help anything. It only creates an unrealistic situation that can't continue to exist. The situation will adjust to compensate."


lol, Wing nutter alert


Rule of thumb: right wingers almost always come out on the wrong side of history.



"It is not the actual greatness of national wealth, but its continual increase, which occasions a rise in the wages of labour. It is not, accordingly, in the richest countries, but in the most thriving, or in those which are growing rich the fastest, that the wages of labour are highest. England is certainly, in the present times, a much richer country than any part of North America. The wages of labour, however, are much higher in North America than in any part of England."
Adam Smith



"We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit of reasonable saving for old age."
President Theodore Roosevelt


"Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged." - Adam Smith

What is it about the quotes you posted that addresses what I posted?

"Inflating the cost of labor without increasing the value of labor doesn't help anything. It only creates an unrealistic situation that can't continue to exist. The situation will adjust to compensate."




People making such a fuss over this Minimum wage thing like it will destroy the very fabric of our society. It ain't that big a deal.

Good Business people deal with it. They deal with cost increases all the time. They adjust.

Costs of doing business go up all the time. Gas goes up. Raw Materials go up. Transportation goes up. Insurance goes up. Nothing ever goes down. The cost of business always goes up. And, guess what, the businesses survive. Good business people adjust.

"Get Over It"

 

[Dad2three]

Sure Bubba, You are to dense to understand since Clinton signed NAFTA, I opposed NAFTA, since that, I must LOVE Clinton, the best conservative Prez since Ike. You are nothing but a bigoted, right winger. Call yourself whatever you want. Believe in fairy tales, I love the spaghetti monster in the sky myself. You wing nutters who want to hold onto 'tradition and custom', lets get a few slaves for you and make sure you strike your wife to make sure she puts you on the pedestal right?

Funny how you can't just simply answer the question: Q - Do you oppose Clinton in signing NAFTA? A - Yes I do.

Simple.

See.

Instead you post gibberish: Q - Do you oppose Clinton in signing NAFTA? A - What do you think? I love spaghetti monsters!

I guess you didn't follow the posts.. Sorry for you Bubba

I followed them fine. You avoided answering directly as hard as you could. Instead you gave gibberish and indirect answers. Which, I've noticed, is common for you.

You mean a wingnutter can't figure out persons position? Shocking

Whether I could decipher your position or not is irrelevant. That I had to decipher your position is the point.

And I care why?

 

[Dad2three]

SERIOUSLY? You don't know paying off interest due on debt can still cause debt to increase? You SERIOUSLY went to college and can't understand what a yearly budget is? LOL. You are a disingenuous POS. I'm shocked. I linked you to investipedia already Bubba

You do know almost $1 trillion of PUBLIC debt WAS paid down under Clinton right? That excess PAYROLL taxes were put into bonds? lol AS REQUIRED BY LAW? WHAT DOES THAT DO BUBBA?

Um...you didn't know that interest is an expense? Read any company's annual report. You just admitted the surplus was a lie.

Wow, YOU need to grow a brain Bubba. In the Gov't world, excess taxes via payroll are put into BONDS that that is debt. You are a sham Bubba. YES, CLINTON HAD 4 SURPLUSES (MORE MONEY COMING IN THAN GOING OUT)... Of course 3 of them were AFTER Clinton vetoed the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut after BJ Bill's first surplus

So then you admit the social security trust fund is a lie. Which if you read my argument through the thread, these can not both be true.

1) Clinton ran surpluses

2) There is a social security trust fund.

You cannot count revenue both as inflow into the general treasury and savings. If you have $100 you can spend it, or you can save it. You cannot spend it then also count it as savings.

Weird YOU kept arguing there was no surplus. NOW you want to argue there was no surplus IF there is no 'lock box' on SS funds? You do know the difference right? AND that even without SS taxes, Clinton had a surplus?

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton


Yes, SS trust fund is IOU's. Why do you think Reagan increased taxes by 60% on SS to hide the TRUE costs of his tax cuts for the rich?

Well, fooled by everyone. The point is your contradiction. If it's not deficit spending when government collects taxes, then you are admitting there is no trust fund. Else, you are saying money spent is money saved. I am pointing out the contradiction in your claims. Is there a literal ring in your nose that Democrats lead you by?

Got it, you'll stick with the right wings usual MO

False premises, Distortions and LIES

OK WING NUTTER. CLINTON HAD 4 SURPLUSES, OF COURSE THE GOP HATED THAT AND DUBYA/GOP QUICKLY TOOK CARE OF IT!!

 

[Dad2three]

I think you are looking at or have looked at GROSS National debt and not NET National debt Kaz...?
i'll quote an in depth response of another member here...Toro

Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do you know why this happened? I've been curious if anyone will get it. There is a specific reason behind the lie that Clinton ran a surplus. Toro gives data but doesn't explain the big source of the lie. Dad2Three is clueless.

One of these is a lie.

- Clinton ran a surplus

- There is a Social Security trust fund.

For both of those statements to be true, you have to double count revenue. So do you get now what's happening? Toro interestingly gave completely accurate data without getting that his data is double counting revenue. I actually made it easy to get to the underlying lie if you get what I am referring to.

BTW, the Gross versus Net debt part was ridiculous. Without a lie, for Gross debt to go down, net debt would have to be negative.

Maybe this will help you understand?

Government - Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Debt

I'm not reading your link and explaining to you what it says, you're going to have to read it yourself and explain what your point is. My post was pretty clear, and if you know anything about the Federal government true. So just answer the question, don't say, gee, here's a link.

How can the government spend $100 and count that same $100 as savings? It is a ... wait for it ... lie.

Sorry, your original question was,

How can you have a budget surplus and the National Debt Still rise....?

and this link explains such...the Budget, which is what Congress and the President work with, is NOT the ONLY function/thing that affects the National Debt,...Intragovernmental Holdings also affect the National Debt.

The budget is calculated as it has always been calculated since LBJ included Social Security in the total budget, there were no Social Security surpluses back then, because SS was pay as you go, until Reagan when SS taxes were raised, (doubled) to collect a surplus in SS off of the boomers so that when they retired there would be enough SS surplus taxes collected to pay their own retirement for a while.

So if your point is that Clinton used SS surpluses in the total budget AS ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS did BEFORE HIM to call it a balanced budget or a budget surplus, then the answer is YES, of course he did, BECAUSE this is how the Federal Budget is calculated.

As example, just as President Bush 2nd, calculated the budget with the SS surpluses in there...so when he showed a $500,000,000,000 (billion dollar) deficit in a year, it was truly more like a $750 billion dollar deficit....if you included the SS funds that were in surplus(and borrowed on)...BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS SAID, when he was President...what was said, is precisely what was true, that he had a $500 billion dollar Budget Deficit such and such year....and the truth is that Clinton had a SURPLUS when calculating the Budget according to the RULES/Laws ON THE BOOKS.

You can't change the rules midstream just for Clinton... the rules are the rules, period. And these rules for how a Federal Budget is calculated should be consistent year after year in order to have a way to compare and analyze them, apples to apples, year after year, president after President, decade against decade etc...

Ah, politicians have always lied, so it makes what Clinton did truth when he lied because he is a politician and they lie. I'm convinced now. Not.

Do you even understand my point? I am starting do doubt it. If Clinton counted the money as surplus, then he can't say he saved it in a trust fund and there was no surplus. If he said it was an asset saved by social security, then he can't say there was a surplus, government borrowed the money. It's not that complicated. Even FooledByEveryone gets it. He's claiming government can double count the revenue, which is ridiculous, but at least that's a grasp of the point. You have not demonstrated a grasp of the point.

The correct answer by the way is there was a surplus and there is no trust fund. No money was saved. But my point is that liberals make both arguments, which are contradictory. I'm pointing out that contradiction.

"If Clinton counted the money as surplus, then he can't say he saved it in a trust fund and there was no surplus"


ANSWER:

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

 

[Dad2three]

Sorry, your original question was,

How can you have a budget surplus and the National Debt Still rise....?

and this link explains such...the Budget, which is what Congress and the President work with, is NOT the ONLY function/thing that affects the National Debt,...Intragovernmental Holdings also affect the National Debt.

The budget is calculated as it has always been calculated since LBJ included Social Security in the total budget, there were no Social Security surpluses back then, because SS was pay as you go, until Reagan when SS taxes were raised, (doubled) to collect a surplus in SS off of the boomers so that when they retired there would be enough SS surplus taxes collected to pay their own retirement for a while.

So if your point is that Clinton used SS surpluses in the total budget AS ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS did BEFORE HIM to call it a balanced budget or a budget surplus, then the answer is YES, of course he did, BECAUSE this is how the Federal Budget is calculated.

As example, just as President Bush 2nd, calculated the budget with the SS surpluses in there...so when he showed a $500,000,000,000 (billion dollar) deficit in a year, it was truly more like a $750 billion dollar deficit....if you included the SS funds that were in surplus(and borrowed on)...BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS SAID, when he was President...what was said, is precisely what was true, that he had a $500 billion dollar Budget Deficit such and such year....and the truth is that Clinton had a SURPLUS when calculating the Budget according to the RULES/Laws ON THE BOOKS.

You can't change the rules midstream just for Clinton... the rules are the rules, period. And these rules for how a Federal Budget is calculated should be consistent year after year in order to have a way to compare and analyze them, apples to apples, year after year, president after President, decade against decade etc...

Ah, politicians have always lied, so it makes what Clinton did truth when he lied because he is a politician and they lie. I'm convinced now. Not.

Do you even understand my point? I am starting do doubt it. If Clinton counted the money as surplus, then he can't say he saved it in a trust fund and there was no surplus. If he said it was an asset saved by social security, then he can't say there was a surplus, government borrowed the money. It's not that complicated. Even FooledByEveryone gets it. He's claiming government can double count the revenue, which is ridiculous, but at least that's a grasp of the point. You have not demonstrated a grasp of the point.

The correct answer by the way is there was a surplus and there is no trust fund. No money was saved. But my point is that liberals make both arguments, which are contradictory. I'm pointing out that contradiction.

Did you ever read or did you contribute to writing this:

Alan Greenspan, who was worth his weight in gold as an advisor to Reagan, came to the rescue. He pointed out that there was a way to get more revenue without touching the income tax cuts.

Greenspan told Reagan that they could raise payroll taxes, and say they were doing it to strengthen Social Security. Then they could use the surplus revenue just like income- tax revenue.

It was a clever plan.

The surplus Social Security revenue from the payroll-tax increase wouldn’t be needed to pay actual benefits for 30 more years. Why not just put the money in the general fund, for now, and let future presidents worry about replacing it.

It probably didn’t seem like such and evil deed to Reagan and Greenspan at the time. After all, they were only “borrowing” the money. Hopefully some future president would repay it.

But the real effect of their action was to take money from working baby boomers, in the form of increased payroll taxes, and give that money to some of the richest Americans in the form of big income tax cuts. The Looting of Social Security

add this: Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist FedSmith.com

Is Dante aware that kaz is a libertarian, not a Republican? Kaz also believes in what is so and doesn't defend politicians who are wrong when they are wrong. Reagan was wrong. He should not have done that. And Greenspan was no friend of liberty. The fed is a criminal organization which steals from the American people and Greenspan was it's don and ran it as the criminal empire that it is.

Greenspan was hailed as a libertarian until people like you threw him under the proverbial bus.

Your rant is as as it gets.

Greenspan hailed as a "libertarian?" Who said that? Authoritarian leftist liberals? That's insane, he wasn't libertarian at all.

Nah, Greenspan was just an Ayn Rand disciple, lol

 

[Dad2three]

Right, bandwidth, lol



The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view.

...In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.



However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.

The Museum of Broadcast Communications - Encyclopedia of Television - Fairness Doctrine


WEIRD, ABOUT 27 YEARS LATER WE HAVE A 'NEWS' NETWORK ARGUING IT HAS A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO LIE. AND YOU, APPARENTLY SUPPORT IT, LOL
Fox News admits they lie and distort the news so why so pissy

Have you considered signing up for some reading comprehension courses at your local community college? If you like, I can help you search for some that will fit your schedule.

Your source as well as the Wikipedia article both state "This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available..." i.e. radio frequency bandwidth limitations. (Bandwidth is the difference between the upper and lower frequencies in a continuous set of frequencies. - Bandwidth signal processing - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)

Also from your link: "Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming."

As for your oh-so-reliable closing link: is that bias I smell, or is it B.S.

Hard to tell the two apart sometimes.

The case cited did not involve Fox News. It involved 1 (one) of their subsidiary stations, WTVT, in Florida, and did not address whether the station had the right to lie or distort the news. The final decision in the case revolved around the question of whether the plaintiff in the case had the right to sue the station under the state's whistle-blower statute. The court decided that she did not. The decision did not address whether the station violated the FCC's news distortion policy, and does not have anything at all to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/2D01-529.pdf

FYI, the news distortion policy of the FCC is still in effect:

"What Responsibilities Do Broadcasters Have?
As public trustees, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. Broadcasters are responsible for deciding what their stations present to the public, and the FCC has stated publicly that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The FCC may act to protect the public interest when it has received documented evidence of such rigging or slanting. This kind of evidence could include testimony, in writing or otherwise, from “insiders” or persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence about orders from station management to falsify the news. Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene."

Complaints About Broadcast Journalism FCC.gov

"The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted above, the Commission generally will not intervene in such cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own."

The Public and Broadcasting - July 2008 FCC.gov

Got it, you'll stick with going with the ability to lie and hide behind the 1st. And YES, THE SUBSIDIARY ACTUALLY ARGUED THEY HAD THE RIGHT TO LIE!

It is irrelevant what the subsidiary argued. The case was not decided on their "right to lie."

They have no right to distort the truth in their news broadcasts. The FCC rules clearly state that they will investigate claims of such distortion where the claimant can provide actual evidence of knowing distortion of the truth in news broadcasting. "Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene."

I fully support the FCC's news distortion policy, and would suggest that anyone who has evidence that any network is deliberately distorting the news should contact the FCC and initiate a formal investigation. When evidence is absent, the FCC should not intervene because frivolous complaints would keep them running around "investigating" every news network on a non-stop basis.

I also fully support the right of the news broadcasters to be free of government control as long as they are truthful in their broadcasts. Would you prefer that the government control all messages that the media can broadcast?

And again, the news distortion policy has nothing at all to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

But don't you think the net effect of the ruling was that this Station could lie and distort the news...? Because who more than the employees themselves would know that the Station is intentionally distorting and lying, and without giving these employees whistle blower protection... this means, one thing and one thing only.....that when a citizen, who happens to be an employee, goes to the FCC to report their Stations dishonesty and distortions given to the public, they can and will be fired, thus taking away their ability to report such instances of the Station breaking the Law, if they need their job's income to survive.

You could argue that that is the case, but consider also that there is already a natural disincentive in place to prevent employees from blowing the whistle: If their whistle-blowing leads to the closure of the station, they will be out of a job anyway. If the whistle-blowing leads to fines that place an economic burden on the station and they have to fire someone else because of it, the known whistle-blower is going to face hostility from the other employees impacted. Whistle-blowing will always carry risks, and I doubt highly that anyone who does blow the whistle would be able to continue with any company for very long even if they are protected from being fired.

I read through the case files. There is no documentation that the station ever asked the reporters to distort the truth, and the case papers contain nothing that argues that the station should have the right to distort the truth. All of the documentation points to the reporters being extremely uncooperative and belligerent and unwilling to work with station personnel to produce a truthful version of the story.

You can find all of the papers here: foxBGHsuit

It is a lot of reading though.

Your link:

"
After a five-week trial and six hours of deliberation which ended August 18, 2000, a Florida state court jury unanimously determined that Fox "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news reporting on BGH." In that decision, the jury also found that Jane's threat to blow the whistle on Fox's misconduct to the FCC was the sole reason for the termination... and the jury awarded $425,000 in damages which makes her eligible to apply for reimbursement for all court costs, expenses and legal fees.

Fox appealed and prevailed February 14, 2003 when an appeals court issued a ruling reversing the jury, accepting a defense argument that had been rejected by three other judges on at least six separate occasions."

The whistle-blowing journalists, twice refused Fox offers of big-money deals to keep quiet about what they knew,

foxBGHsuit