Hypocrisy

I guess there is not argument with this Blog!

If I had a dime for every time you have been caught lying, misrepresenting another’s statements, or claiming facts of a statement that later turn out to be wrong I could buy the state of Texas by buy the land one parcel at a time.

Lowering federal spending is not a republican agenda as you try to suggest. It is a conservative agenda. Ignorance looks good on you only because you wrap yourself in it so well. Mr. Bush is not a conservative, neither was his father. This is the reason he is having so much trouble keeping the party under control.
You as a political hack should know and understand this but you either choose to be ignorant or refuse to learn the facts before posting an article like this one. Reducing spending, reducing federal control over business, reducing federal control over our lives, finding the perfect balance between government and citizen is simple to a conservative, for every 100k of population there should be one civilian federal employee. Moderates believe that the government should grow as necessary and liberals think that all citizens should be federal employees or in a union and stupid liberals believe that all citizens should be both a federal employee and in a union and preferably a member of the Soviet Union.
Mr. Bush is a moderate republican who has more in common with moderate democrats than conservative republicans or democrats.
You would know this if you spend a little time in research and less time trying to prove to yourself that Mr. Bush is like you.

Paladin77

Well the Congress which passed the Bush tax cuts, budgets and the Iraq war is controlled by the GOP which in turn is controlled by the conservatives. Then please explain how a Congress controlled by so called conservatives added $3 Trillion in debt and has increased spending per year on interest by $150 Billion and the Iraq war by $125 Billion?

You have NEVER shown ANYTHING I have posted was not true. All you have to do to validate the increase in the Interest and Iraq war cost is look at the budget in 2000 and compare it with the 2007 budget!

Because the GOP is not controlled by the conservatives if it were then they would have own the elections in 2006. To show their displeasure they stayed away from the polls and let the Democrats win. Wars cost money when the nation choose to go to war it was with the idea of wining the war. Unlike the democrats the desire of the Republicans protect and defend the nation. It seems the desire of the Democrats is to win elections without a care of the ramifications. The same strategy used when Mr. Nixon was president causing 20 years of nations distrusting us, lost of respect around the world and the deaths of thousands of American servicemen in Vietnam and it looks like they are going to repeat the strategy again. For local politics this is fine but to play this game on the international stage is most dangerous. In every war money is spent to win. In every war this nation spent more money than it had to win. Only in Vietnam did we lose everything we had gained internationally and domestically over the past 50 years. It took Ronald Reagan to start rebuilding the trust of the world leaders. It was once believed that if America set its mind on achieving something it would reach that goal no matter what got in the way. we went to the moon, protected Europe in two world wars and the cold war against all odds. The world believed that we as a nation my by hard and cold when crossed but helpful when asked for any assistance. Since the Soviets took over Russia in the early 20th century they had failed to feed their people in any 3 consecutive years out of the 70 they were in control yet the US sold them grain every year no matter how bad relations were with them. While at the same time we battled them on every other front. We can do anything we set our minds to because we are America. The only thing we can’t do is win against ourselves. President Lincoln said that a nation divided against its self can not stand. Our petty political arguments of left and right is great domestically but internationally it hurts the nation not just the president which is why we have always had the policy of politics stopping at the waters edge. Except on two occasions the first in Vietnam and the second happening now. as I pointed out the first time we had serious and long ranging problems and the second is shaping up to do the same only worse. Thanks for thinking that winning in politics is better than keeping us safe at home. Shortsightedness has been the shortcoming of the democratic party You can’t win in the arena of ideas so you try to win by destroying the nation. You call the President an idiot, a dunce, a frat boy, a party guy. I understand the strategy behind the thinking is once your people are in charge you will fix it and make everything right again. The problem is that it doesn’t work. The last time it was tried the American people were demoralized and believed that we were losers, the military was ripped to pieces and useless when the Democrat President needed them. The CIA was destroyed and even now is unable to do what it was supposed to do, you know like stop the terrorist before they strike. The FBI was castrated and just as useless because everyone on your side wants to defend your rights that have not been bent on the chance that they might be. So it is proven that your way of doing things does not work and will only weaken our position around the world. While devastating the American people at home.
Spend the money and win then we can cut the deficit after like we did in every war we have ever had.



I and others have proven you wrong on almost every article you have written. You choose to ignore the facts when presented to you and failed to reesearch anything that was presented you just repeat your line over and over and when you can't refute the facts you just stop posting to that article and write another restating the same crap in the last one. That is proof that you print lies without having to dredge up all the articles you have written and the people that refuted them.

Paladin77

First, the American people are demoralized and bitterly divided as a result of GWB.

Second, you did not address the issue of this Blog- In 2000, 2002 and 2004 the conservatives elected a GOP President and a GOP controlled Congress. That Congress and president is responsible for the largest increase in federal spending on Interest, the Iraq war and Increased Pork. How then can the GOP, who was put into power by conservatives, be responsible for an unprecedented increase in government spending when they claim this is the action that are the most opposed to? There actions were repeated year after year over the past 6 years and that has continually increased spending on Interest, the Iraq war and Pork projects. The uses of earmarks begin to expend the FIRST year the GOP took over the control of Congress in 1994. It reached a peak in 2006. You are the one that does not do their research!

The American people have been bombarded by negative press for 4 years and it was not until 2006 did it start to take hold. Disloyal idiots who run around screaming that we are losing long before there was any evidence of the fact then pointing to every misstep as proof we are losing. The abu grab screw up was portrayed as systematic abuse from the top down in order to pin the problem on GWB. Funny how no one seems to remember that by the time the press discovered the problem the people involved had been arrested for three months and got their exclusive breaking news from the PAO in a press release. Funny how it was covered up according to the press. So yes, Americans are demoralized just as I explained in the last post how the Democrat party did the same thing in Vietnam and how successful that was for the nation.
I see you are proud of your part in helping America lose another war it was winning.




Then you need to learn to read. Republicans are not conservatives. Just like democrats are not liberal the moderate wing of the Republican Party is what is running the party and has been since GHWB took power. Since the democrats are leaning so far to the left that your party only has one conservative democrat it is hard to pass conservative legislation. That is the answer to your question. I figure I have to tell you so you won’t miss it again.

<---has never voted for a single GOP congressman or President, yet is accused of being Republican. Go figure.

Paladiun77

As a Republican for over 40 years and as a member of the local Republican Committee there were several principals that Republicans were committed to. One was restraint on government spending. Second was a BALANCED BUDGET. Third was NO NATION BUILDING. The GOP during the past 6 years has turned its back on all three of these principals. I have copied the point of this Blog for you to understand:

Every time a Republican complains about increased federal spending they need to look in the mirror and say I am the cause of the increased spending over the past 6 years.

If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a Democrat talk about raising taxes without cutting spending I guess I'd be a millionaire too.

You really are a great humor writer. I love satire.

MasonM

The Republicans have been in control for the past 6 years and took a balanced budget given to them by Clinton and turned it into a huge deficit. You better read the two articles I posted from the Comptroller General and see what he has to say about BUSH!

Bush and the GOP controlled Congress added more spending then ANY Democrat in modern history! $150 Billion in Interest. $125 Billion for Iraq war. Record high PORK and Earmarks. HYPOCRISY - That is what Republicans complaining about the free spending liberals are!

Once again you have ignored what I wrote to advance your blind beliefs. Conservatives want to limit government and cut wasteful spending. We are in a war so cutting spending is going to take a back seat to winning the war. the democrats now in power will not authorize the war money unless they get these necessary and much needed items. A sugar museum, a spinach research project, and tons of other pork. This is not to say that the republicans are pure as the driven snow, it is the politics of buying votes. It works for democrats because liberals want hand outs and not earn anything. Republicans made the mistake of trying to do the same thing and they were rejected by the grass roots GOP giving the power back to the democrats. Conservatives want limited government but politicians are committed to re-election. Because they ignored the people that put them in office they were removed from office. Don’t make the mistake that it means that the population embraces the Democratic Party’s way of thinking. Conservatives want and believe in limited government and when a republican says that is what he believes he will be elected and when he fails to do as desired he will be removed. On your side of the fence it is expected that your people will lie to get elected and left in power to fester and retard the growth of the nation for political gain.

col Gene, notice I use col in lower case because you have failed to act like a Colonel in the U.S. military and more like a political hack. I do the same with col John Glen former Senator. He was a politician that sold out for political gain. the same with General Zini who gave up the ideals of the military for political gain. Both are Marines I am ashamed to say. My father was a Marine on Iwo Jima during WWII and I have a deep and abiding respect and love for the Marine Corps. I also am a Marine, disabled and longing to be with my brothers and sisters in harms way. I don't pick on you because you were in the Army but because you are a political hack. you would rather lose a war to hurt the twice majority elected leader of our nation than demand we win the war. When Mr. Clinton was elected I had voted against him twice but supported him on all international afairs, no pun intended, not because I thought he was right but because the world need to see we are united as a nation and a people. Too bad you want to go back to the doom and gloom that helped destroy the nation for Vietnam. The Gulf war was "another Vietnam" from your side of the isle. when that failed this war on terror in Afghanistan was "another Vietnam" and the continuing battle in Iraq which is still part of the war on terror is "another Vietnam" your side of the the isle loves to lose. Bosnia was not a nother Vietnam because it was started by Mr. Clinton yet we are still mired down there 10 years later and 6 years after he left office.

Please name any group of Democrats that have ever advocated cutting spending.

You seem to forget that the balanced budget under the Clinton administration was accomplished by a Republican majority congress.

Congressman Murtha wants to cut spending so does Speaker Pelosi, and majority leader Reed. The spending they want to cut is for our troops while they want to spend money for a sugar museum, and spnich research.

See, Col, when you make salient points like this I agree with you. We're agreed on not liking the course the GOP is taking, it is the solutions where we disagree.

I complain about big government Republicans, though, and advocate for smaller government. You complain about big government Republicans and advocate for bigger government. I honestly don't understand it.

Hypocrisy is telling us about "big spending republicans" and then telling us welfare and entitlement programs are necessary.

Master stroke of titling. Nutshell if I ever saw one.

Nice graph, ID.

IslandDog

I am aware that there are shifting spending patterns. You sources have however not counted the interest on the debt paid to Medicare and Social security. There is little trick called NET interest. That only counts the interest paid to the debt held by the public and companies. However we also pay interest to the SS and Medicare Trust funds. If you count ALL the interest taxpayers are paying it MUCH higher then your graph. In fact the total interest is almost the same as defense spending. Thus if your graph used Total Interest the % paid to Interest would be about 17% compared with defense at 19%.

The second issue is Social Security. That is NOT a general Fund expense and is paid from the Social Security tax. Today the Social Security system is generating a surplus and in 2006 the Surplus from Social Security was almost $200 Billion and the Surplus from Medicare was about $26 Billion. Bush subtracts these two surpluses from that annual deficit to make the annual deficit appear much smaller. In 2006 Bush reported the annual deficit at $248 Billion but the Treasury shows the increase in the national Debt in 2006 as $574 Billion. That is the result of: $574 less the $226 Billion Surplus from SS and Medicare to arrive at the $248 billion. However we have issued IOU's to SS and Medicare upon which we pay interest and that distorts the deficit as reported by Bush the same as NET interest ignores all the debt held by SS and Medicare. As the Comptroller General said-- Smoke and Mirrors!

Just for the record there is no trust fund it was abolished in 1967 by the Congress in order to fund the LBJ great society which is the reason why SS is in so much trouble today.

Regardless of col trying to twist things the fact is America is already turning into a welfare state.

Paladin77

Where do you come up with this BS? There are two trust funds one for Social Security and one for Medicare. In fact about 6 months ago Bush toured the storage facility in VA where the IOU’s, issued by the Treasury that are the assets of the trust funds, are stored.

The issue is that what Bush has been doing is USING the surplus that BOTH SS and Medicare currently generates to fund his deficit and spending. Bush has used about a Trillion dollars of the SS and Medicare funds and issues Treasury IOU’s. When the day comes when the SS and Medicare NEED their money, the Treasury will be in a bit of a bind. They will be required to come up with the CASH to pay SS and Medicare to redeem those IOU’s. You are just about the most uninformed a person on this Blog site.

IslandDog

What I posted above is correct and has nothing to do with a welfare state!

The trustfunds have been abolished since the 60's too bad you don't bother to do any research, The money collected today does not go into a trust fund it goes to the treasury for disbursment with little left over. The funds that were in the trust fund were spent to pay for the Great Society and to pay for the Vietnam war. The congress issued IOU's that was supposed to be repaid after the vietnam war was over. The idea was to use the money saved from the war to repay the IOU's they used that money to pay for social programs. Congress never paid back the money, over the years the money hever found its way back into the no longer existing trust funds. Lots of fun pointing fingers at GWB but understand that the probelm started while democrats were in power both the house, senate and the white house. Only during Mr. Reagan had two years of slight control and that was it as far as control over all three branches of government. The rest of the time the republicans may have had the numbers but not the will to tell the other side that they were incharge. We missed our chance and the other side is in charge. FIx it!

Paladin 77

YOU ARE FULL OF BS. This is from the dept of the Treasury;



Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund
Updated November 21, 2005
Description of the fund The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund is a separate account in the United States Treasury. A fixed proportion (dependent on the allocation of tax rates by trust fund) of the taxes received under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act and the Self-Employment Contributions Act are deposited in the fund to the extent that such taxes are not needed immediately to pay expenses. Taxes are deposited in the fund on every business day.
The trust fund provides automatic spending authority to pay monthly benefits to retired-worker (old-age) beneficiaries and their spouses and children and to survivors of deceased insured workers. With such spending authority, the Social Security Administration does not need to periodically request money from the Congress to pay benefits.

Funds not withdrawn for current expenses (benefits, the financial interchange with the Railroad Retirement program, and administrative expenses) are invested in interest-bearing Federal securities, as required by law; the interest earned is also deposited in the trust fund.

Establishment of fund The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund was created pursuant to section 201 of the Social Security Act Amendments of 1939. These amendments also established a Board of Trustees. OASI became effective on January 1, 1940, and superseded the old-age reserve account established under the Social Security Act of 1935.
Trustees The Board of Trustees currently consists of 6 members, 4 of whom automatically serve by virtue of their positions in the Federal Government. These 4 are the
Secretary of the Treasury (the Managing Trustee),
Secretary of Labor,
Secretary of Health and Human Services, and
Commissioner of Social Security
The other 2 members are appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate, as required by the "Social Security Amendments of 1983." These 2 members serve 4-year terms.

Search


Statistical Tables
Trust Fund Data
Updated February 8, 2007

Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds, 1957-2006
[In millions] Assets
Calendar
year Total
receipts Total
expenditures Net increase
during year Assets at
end of year
1957 $8,090 $7,567 $523 $23,042
1958 9,108 8,907 201 23,243
1959 9,516 10,793 -1,277 21,966
1960 12,445 11,798 647 22,613
1961 12,937 13,388 -451 22,162
1962 13,699 15,156 -1,457 20,705
1963 16,227 16,217 10 20,715
1964 17,476 17,020 456 21,172
1965 17,857 19,187 -1,331 19,841
1966 23,381 20,913 2,467 22,308
1967 26,413 22,471 3,942 26,250
1968 28,493 26,015 2,479 28,729
1969 33,346 27,892 5,453 34,182
1970 36,993 33,108 3,886 38,068
1971 40,908 38,542 2,366 40,434
1972 45,622 43,281 2,341 42,775
1973 54,787 53,148 1,639 44,414
1974 62,066 60,593 1,472 45,886
1975 67,640 69,184 -1,544 44,342
1976 75,034 78,242 -3,209 41,133
1977 81,982 87,254 -5,272 35,861
1978 91,903 96,018 -4,115 31,746
1979 105,864 107,320 -1,456 30,291
1980 119,712 123,550 -3,838 26,453
1981 142,438 144,352 -1,914 24,539
1982 147,913 160,111 239 24,778
1983 171,266 171,177 89 24,867
1984 186,637 180,429 6,208 31,075
1985 203,540 190,628 11,088 42,163
1986 216,833 201,522 4,698 46,861
1987 231,039 209,093 21,946 68,807
1988 263,469 222,514 40,955 109,762
1989 289,448 236,242 53,206 162,968
1990 315,443 253,135 62,309 225,277
1991 329,676 274,205 55,471 280,747
1992 342,591 291,865 50,726 331,473
1993 355,578 308,766 46,812 378,285
1994 381,111 323,011 58,100 436,385
1995 399,497 339,815 59,683 496,068
1996 424,451 353,569 70,883 566,950
1997 457,668 369,108 88,560 655,510
1998 489,204 382,255 106,950 762,460
1999 526,582 392,908 133,673 896,133
2000 568,433 415,121 153,312 1,049,445
2001 602,003 438,916 163,088 1,212,533
2002 627,085 461,653 165,432 1,377,965
2003 631,886 479,086 152,799 1,530,764
2004 657,718 501,643 156,075 1,686,839
2005 701,758 529,938 171,821 1,858,660
2006 744,873 555,421 189,452 2,048,112 As of December 31, 2006 there is $2.048 Trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund in the form of U.S. Treasury Bonds!

>BR>
What Are the Trust Funds? The trust funds were created in the U.S. Treasury to account for all program income and disbursements. Social Security and Medicare taxes, premiums and other income are credited to the funds. Benefit payments and program administrative costs are the only purposes for which disbursements from the funds can be made.

Program revenues not needed in the current year to pay benefits and administrative costs are invested in special non-marketable securities of the U.S. Government on which a market rate of interest is credited. Thus, the trust funds represent the accumulated value, including interest, of all prior program annual surpluses and deficits, and provide automatic authority to pay benefits.

There are four separate trust funds. For Social Security, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund pays retirement and survivors benefits, and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund pays disability benefits. (The combined trust funds are described as OASDI.) For Medicare, the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund pays for inpatient hospital and related care. The Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund is composed of Part B, which pays for physician and outpatient services, and Part D, which provides the new prescription drug benefit. Medicare benefits are provided to most people age 65 and over and to most workers who are receiving Social Security disability benefits. Source Dept. of the Treasury!

Okay here is what I want you to do. Call the treasury and ask them how much money you have amassed in your social security account under your social security account number. Look at your card it says it is a social security account. The number is how they track your money. What they will tell you is how much money you will get per month and per year but not what was paid into the account. The reason why is because you will spend more than you have paid into the account if that is the case then the money paid you is not your money but someone else’s money. The trust fund still has the name trust fund but it is just a name not an actual fund where your money is kept.

What this means is the politicians have promised more money to you than you deserve in order to buy votes. They got the votes we get the shaft. At the same time the Congress years ago saw that the money paid into social security would not be enough to pay them they came up with the Thrift Savings Plan. I know becaue as a Government employee I am a member of the plan. Our President trying to fix the problem wants to offer the same program that Congress made for themselves and then offered to the rest of the government to the general public. It will stop the bleeding and because we have control over our money instead of the politicians that spent our savings on more social programs and a war they started then did not want to win, it would mean that money would be available for everyone. To do this all people age 50 an younger would be able to save enough money by age 65 to retire on. I know because that is what I am doing now. I can put up to 5000 extra a year. Great!

Paladin77

The trust funds are made up of Treasury Bonds. They are as much of an asset as any other Treasury obligations. If you buy an E-Bond or a Treasury bill what do you consider that to be? AN ASSET. It is true that when the Trustee of Medicare or Social Security comes to the Treasurer of the United States and needs to redeem these the treasury bonds that make up the trust funds, the Treasurer of the U.S. will either have to obtain the funds to redeem the bonds by selling new Treasury obligations to the public or there will have to be monies from tax revenue. If the funds come from taxes it would require a tax increase to provide the funds to redeem the bonds held in these trust funds.

That does not change the fact that there are trust funds made up of U.S. Treasury Bonds.