Re: OT: Official 'Why Zarqawi and why now?' thread

You disappoint me William. I never said I supported the irresponsible spending of the Bush administration. Read what I actually said. Is spending on education not several times higher per student now than it was 30 years ago in terms of real dollars? Is the money that workers currently pay to social security not being spent by the government? If small amounts were invested instead, under the control of the individual, would that not be money invested and not spent? I know you can figure this out because I know that you have an I.Q. that cannot even be measured.

Here is a thought experiment for you William related to the so-call social security lockbox. Assume that there are two possible realities, one where the lock box exists and is full of these bonds that you say it has. Now consider another reality where the lock box does not exist, say it was destroyed in some fire and all the bonds are gone. Does the second reality change one bit the obligations of the federal government (or the taxpayers if you prefer) regarding the financial resources of the government and it's ability to pay what is promised to the intended recipients and the ultimate cost of these obligations to the population at large?

So tell me now William, is there a lock box or not? Thought so.

Cheers,
John Fish

William Coleman wrote:
"John A. Fish" <jrh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4488BFD8.1040002@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Yikes. How about: Our schools are
failing because they're underfunded, ...

Underfunded??? Far, far more money is spent in real dollars on education now than 30 years ago. It is not even close. Do some homework and get back to us. The Wilsonian did a nice study on it a while back. It may be on the web somewhere.


I don't suppose you recall those "private accounts" that your boy Bush was
touting not so long ago, Tilltard? You know, the accounts that would take your
social security contributions and turn them over to private fund managers?

As opposed to spending the money and increasing the national debt with the pyramid scheme that we now have?


Uhh, that is what Bush and the Republicans are doing. Clinton left Bush with a budget surplus of over $200 billion and a national debt at $5.8 trillion and shrinking. Now the budget deficit stands at $400 billion and rising; the national debt is at $8.3 trillion and rising, scheduled to reach $10 trillion by 2009. If the Clinton tax rates had been maintained, the national debt would be paid off or close to it by 2009.

Basically you idiot republicans morgaged the financial future of the country for generations to come so you rich greedy pigs can have tax cuts now.


You aren't foolish enough to think that there is a trust fund are you? (Hint: it contains I.O.U.s.)


Uhh, yes. And who signed those IOUs??? Are you saying that the full faith and trust of the U.S. government no longer means anything??? Those IOUs are U.S. government bonds, and they are better than those which are publicly traded. The SSA can trade its bond holdings at face value at any time for cash from the U.S. treasury. You can't do that with publicly traded bonds.

With regard to your bull*** claim that the Social Security Trust Fund does not exist, of course it exists. It contains trillions in government bonds. Those bonds represent a promise to pay interest and the full principal in the future. If the social security system did not exist, the national debt would still be exactly the same, because the bonds now held by the SS Trust Fund would be held by the public instead. Contrary to your ignorant assertion above that social security is a pyramid scheme which increases the national debt, it has zero effect on the national debt. And the true budget deficit is almost $200 billion larger than the reported deficit, because the social security surplus is subtracted from the true deficit to report the deficit on a cash flow basis.


You right-wing nutcases like to claim that there is no SS Trust Fund because the government owes the money to itself. No it doesn't. The money is owed to all those who have paid FICA taxes. Maybe you do not understand that when Reagan and the Democrats reformed Social Security, the FICA tax rates and benefits were deliberately set so FICA taxes would greatly exceed benefits paid for many years so the Trust Fund could be built up large enough to finance the retirement of the baby boomers, who are now starting to retire.

The government does not owe this money to itself. It is holding the money in trust for the baby boomers who have paid hundreds of billions of dollars in extra social security taxes so the Trust Fund would have enough money to pay their social security.

Now you right wing nutcases want to claim these trillions of dollars in Trust Fund assets do not exist, that this is just the government owing money to itself. Basically you want to stiff all the people who have built up this trust fund balance by paying a lot more in FICA taxes than necessary to pay current benefits.

Sorry, ***. The U.S. Government does not default on legal obligations and promises it makes.


William Coleman (ramashiva)


.