The deficit is below projections. (Wait till you see why.)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Oct 1, 2006.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #1
    Is there nothing, nothing the government won't lie about??

    McClatchy Washington Bureau link (My bold.)

    So the Republicans are spending money like...like...well, what they claim Democrats spend it like. And they can't even blame it on national security.

    I don't know about you, and I know there are social programs to be paid for, but when I hear them say "discretionary spending", I think "pork barrel".
     
  2. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #2
    The current Republican Congress has made the old democratic Congress look thrifty , like fiscal conservative's. Spin from the republicans so they can point to all the wonderful things they wish they would have accomplished. Its interesting how they just discovered we have a border 6 weeks before elections. Its entertaining to hear the daily lies coming out of our own Govt.
     
  3. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #3
    Where is all this money going to? We had a surplus, now we have an unimaginable deficit. Again. Same happened when Reagan was Pres, but this time they can't blame it on a Democratic Congress or defense spending.

    Remind me again why they still call themselves conservative. :confused:
     
  4. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #4
    Does this mean we're a little bit less bankrupt? :confused:
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    No.
     
  6. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #6
    remember gore's lockbox? seems the bush administration has picked it open.
     
  7. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #7
    Enron accounting at its best.

    Maybe the next trick is to open a shell nation to absorb our debt, bankrupt said nation and wipe the US books clean.
     
  8. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #8
    I'd have to say that they used "Shock and Awe" to open it.
     
  9. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    Great. Now all we have to do is transfer 8 trillion dollars of our debt into Iraq's official ledger and we're all set.
     
  10. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #10
    Works for me!


    The administration did say that revenues from Iraqi oil would cover all the expenses.
     
  11. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #11
    I've been reading the FAQ's from lost horizon's tax site and came across
    just a few tidbits of info that most people don't know about.

    http://www.losthorizons.com/IncomeTaxSiteMap.htm

    "Congress could end Social Security payouts tomorrow, and no matter how many quarters of payments someone may have made, he or she would have no legal recourse by which to demand benefits. No one has an account at the Social Security Administration, in the sense of a reserved or claimable interest in any benefit. That the administration (or Congress) has elected to use "quarters of payments" as the nominal qualifier for receiving payments from the program is just the scheme de jure-- it could as easily be any thing else, and with just as much relationship to the benefit (from a legal standpoint) as the current scheme-- that is, none whatsoever. The designers of this tax simply settled on marketing it as though it were an insurance program, both to make it more immediately palatable, and to help create a constituency which would defend it in the future with the vigor attendant upon an imagined “ownership” interest.

    (Social Security numbers are merely a creative element of this scheme, by the way-- being nothing more than a number under which qualifying "quarters" are recorded, but suggesting to the gullible the existence of a personally-owned numbered "account" financed by the FICA tax "contributions" extracted. However, as noted above, having such a number associated with oneself creates no ownership interest in any future benefits, nor does it have any legal affect on the character of one’s earnings-- that is, it does not make earnings, which otherwise are not, into either 26 USC 3121 “wages” or 26 USC 3401 "wages".)


    A VERY interesting site indeed!
     
  12. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #12
    Ever since the Los Angeles Times was taken over by the Tribune Corporation, they've been running two right-wing comic strips, "Mallard Fillmore" and "Prickly City" (in the interest of "balance" I suppose). Both of these strips are also notable for being remarkably consistent in lacking even the merest hint of humor, but that's not the point. Last week, Prickly City was a bunch of strips about the "Republicrats" in Congress -- Republicans spending like Democrats, naturally.

    This in case we didn't already know, is the current political spin on why the Republicans can't exercise any fiscal discipline -- they've been under the pernicious influence of the Democrats for too long (presumably, producing a trance-like spell which causes even the most frugal and responsible Republicans to throw money around like tipsy sailors). I suppose we are meant to forget that the largest deficits the country had ever amassed before Bush were the created by the Reagan budgets, and the only time the budget was in surplus was during the Clinton years.

    So whatever those Republicans are smoking, they need to pass it around because some of us aren't giggly enough yet. Or groggy. Or blind. Or whatever it takes to believe stuff that obviously is not true.
     
  13. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #13
    Republi-kool-aid. Coulter and O'Reilly swim in a vat of it before breakfast. Limbaugh uses it to wash down his pills.

    ;)
     
  14. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #14
    Very interesting indeed.

    I know I'd feel a lot "securer" about my Social Security if I knew there was an actual amount reserved for each contributor. But then, that would mean the government would actually be making me a promise that it would have to keep, and we all know how likely that is.
     
  15. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #15
    I would too, given that I'm still fairly young (30). The supposed silver lining to be had here, though, is that no politician in their right mind wants to do anything that might potentially screw with SS beyond talking about "fixing" it whenever an election rears its ugly head. Doing so would anger a massive block of voters that's only going to get bigger as the country ages, and if they don't remember anything else, they'll remember that he was the guy in office that took away their checks.

    I don't care for how long they say SS will be solvent - plan your retirement as though you won't get it. If it's still around, you'll get a nice bonus. If not, no surprises.
     
  16. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #16
    Maybe no politician in their right mind wants to touch it, but if things continue as they are it's unavoidable. We can't run trade and fiscal deficits forever.
     
  17. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #17
    The lost horizon site is the first I've seen where people are actually standing up to
    the DOJ and the IRS about tax withholdings and payments for those working in the private sector.

    If you have the discipline to save for yourself and especially if you have a private sector company match savings fund, if I understand it right you have the right to opt out.
    http://www.losthorizons.com/tax/TheDOJFolds.htm

    For the second and third time now, the U.S. Department of Justice has withdrawn its support from IRS efforts to suppress 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America'. Earlier this week, U.S. attorneys representing the department formally abandoned efforts to enforce two IRS summonses issued as part of a desperate effort by the agency to keep this transformational book out of the hands of the American public. Even though the IRS won't face the reality that it has no legal means to accomplish this goal, the DOJ hasn't any choice.

    The awkward reality that the IRS does face is that it has no legitimate dispute with the information in 'Cracking the Code-...'. Indeed, the government has been routinely acknowledging the accuracy of that information for well over a year now in the most telling possible fashion, by responding to readers who act upon what they learn with refunds of every penny withheld for federal taxes, including Social Security 'contributions'; the cancellation of liens and levies; and the wiping of even decades-old 'liabilities' off the books. As these responses, though required by law, are inconvenient to the agency's primary objective (which is to maximize the revenue taken into the federal treasury, period) the IRS is engaged in a protracted effort to hamper, discourage, and, if possible, forcibly halt my distribution of the book and the posting of related information on my website, losthorizons.com. At the same time, the 'service' has been seeking to secure the names of Americans who have purchased the book. Presumably, this is so these readers can be directly targeted with a scare campaign intended to intimidate them into not acting upon what they have learned-- because as noted above, once those readers HAVE acted, it's too late to thwart their lawful behavior and "close the barn door".
     
  18. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #18
    Wasn't it around 1976 that the present accounting system and the changes in nomenclature of the Social Security program began? Anyhow, thie referenced accounting system which shows a lower deficit is the same system that showed a surplus during the 1990s.

    CPAs like to point out that if a corporation used the same accounting system as FedGov, folks would go to jail.

    IJ, a question: If a politician supports any form of spending which benefits some targeted group of voters, isn't that "buying votes", regardless of the intent of the politician? For example, if you call for some farm subsidy, won't that then persuade that group of farmers to vote for you? (I don't seeit as being of importance whether it's ADM or some poor bastard with 40 acres and a mule; the emotional response would be the same.)

    I submit that these last 70 years have seen vast increases in social spending by the federal government, predominantly proposed by Democrats. The areas of major receipt have voted largely Democrat. Okay, fine. That's neither good nor bad, from the standpoint of my thesis: I'm just looking at what sways voters.

    Since "buying votes" has proven successful, and the name of the Beltway game is Power, it's logical that the once-conservative Republicans enter the game en masse. Re-election as the majority party means control of the all-important federal budget. I see no other goal for candidates from either party.

    Separately: I've never thought of Bush as a conservative politician in the older usage of the word. He grew up as the son of a permanent government employee, in LBJ's Great Society. He's doing the same guns'n'butter policy now as LBJ did during his tenure with the Vietnamese war. Folks better expect a similar outcome: Rising rates of inflation for the next couple of presidential terms.

    And I'm in agreement with Corvus about how one plans for retirement...

    'Rat
     
  19. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    I don't understand the point of your question. My point was that Republicans are trying to blame their lack of fiscal discipline on Democrats, in an obviously ridiculous effort to deflect attention from the true culprits, themselves. Historically they have no real defense from the charge that Republicans are even less fiscally responsible than Democrats. Given the opportunity, they spend just as much if not more -- on different things perhaps, but that's hardly the issue.
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    And then they go around saying Democrats are fiscally irresponsible, while they are the very model of fiscal integrity.

    It's bollocks.

    It's almost funny to watch conservatives stand up these days and declare that they've suddenly discovered that Bush isn't really a conservative. No **** Sherlock, you don't say? But you guys were the ones who bought that line of crap, not me.

    The argument, by logical extension, is designed to imply that Bush is really more of a liberal than a conservative -- which is completely false.
     
  21. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    The part I find truly creepy is the implication that it's the very existence of Democrats that causes Republicans to lose control. It doesn't matter that the Democrats don't run any part of the federal government -- the very fact that they're even around (spreading bad liberal vibes, apparently) is enough.
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    Yeah, so much for personal accountability, eh? "The Democrats made me do it."

    The sick part is, the Rush Limbaugh contingent of the right will totally see it that way. "We could be better if only those pesky Democrats didn't exist..."
     
  23. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #23
    And in the event that some don't believe it...

    [​IMG]
     
  24. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #24
    if the GOP declared one-party rule, deposed all dems holding office, and outlawed the party, not only would they still blame the dems and liberals for all our woes, but 33% of the population would still buy it.

    i blame the Whigs.
     
  25. XNine macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #25
    So... When Clinton was in office, it was 3 Trillion and coming down. Sicne Dubbaya has been in office, it's like 5.5 trillion? WTF are they spending all this money on?!
     

Share This Page