Let's Have The Poor Pay For Bush's Spending

[No Limit]

Here, No Limit tries to think he knows better than the CBO, and that SS and disablity payments somehow don't count.

Now I ask you, what kind of crap is that? Is he not trying to spin facts by saying SS doesn't count? What is going on here?

For ****sake, do you not understand simple math. The summery you just posted proves my point, not yours.

The government is making $300 billion on SS; that is why I subtracted $400 billion from that trillion total. HOW THE **** DO YOU NOT SEE THIS?

 

[Bodacious]

IF YOU LOOK AT THE ****ING MATH I GAVE YOU THIS IS THE CASE. YOU JUST SAID WE AREN'T LOSING ANY MONEY ON SS. THAT IS THE ENTIRE ****ING POINT MEANING WE ARE SPENDING MORE ON IRAQ THAN WE ARE ON THE WELFARE OF OUR PEOPLE because you have to subtract SS from the trillion some dollars you gave.

The CBO says you are wrong, don't look at me. CBO says we spend 1 trillion more on the the people than we do on Iraq, a measly 200 billion, compared to 1 trillion.

 

[No Limit]

The CBO says you are wrong, don't look at me. CBO says we spend 1 trillion more on the the people than we do on Iraq, a measly 200 billion, compared to 1 trillion.

You are still doging me and making an ass of yourself. Reply to the post on the top of this page. By your stupid reasoning the government is actually losing $400 billion not earning 300 billion on ss. You just said this wasn't the case so you are now contradicting yourself.

And the CBO says I'm right.

 

[Bodacious]

For ****sake, do you not understand simple math. The summery you just posted proves my point, not yours.

The government is making $300 billion on SS; that is why I subtracted $400 billion from that trillion total. HOW THE **** DO YOU NOT SEE THIS?

Its not my fault you can't read a table. The CBO says SS expenditures in 2004 was 492 billion dollars. The gov pays out 492 billion of taxpayer collected money on SS payments. What difference does it make what it says on your paycheck? The gov also spends 192 billion on taxpayer collected money on foodstapmps and other welfare payments. Why is SS differnt? It is al an expenditure of taxpayer collected money.

 

[No Limit]

Look at the attachment.

This is your reasoning. If a business charges you 700 billion for a product and it costs them 400 billion to make it you are saying they are losing 400 billion when in reality they are making 300 billion.

So if they are making 300 billion they cant possibly be losing 400 billion at the same time. They are not making money from Iraq, they are losing money.

 

[Bodacious]

You are still doging me and making an ass of yourself. Reply to the post on the top of this page. By your stupid reasoning the government is actually losing $400 billion not earning 300 billion on ss. You just said this wasn't the case so you are now contradicting yourself.

And the CBO says I'm right.

All we are talking about is expenditures, at least that is what I have been taling about. I never talked about anything else. If you want to talke about revenues, I can post that, too.

Tax revenues in 2004 were 1.88 trillion dollars. SS insurance taxes were 733 billion. So they spent(paid out)492 billion and put 241 billion into the SS trust fund.

Quote me where I have said otherwise. The lines above this are the first time I have said that and I know I have said nothing other than that. So, quote me where I contradict myself.

 

[No Limit]

All we are talking about is expenditures, at least that is what I have been taling about. I never talked about anything else. If you want to talke about revenues, I can post that, too.

Tax revenues in 2004 were 1.88 trillion dollars. SS insurance taxes were 733 billion. So they spent(paid out)492 billion and put 241 billion into the SS trust fund.

Quote me where I have said otherwise. The lines above this are the first time I have said that and I know I have said nothing other than that. So, quote me where I contradict myself.

Yes, it goes to a trust fund because SS is different from taxes. Which exactly proves my math. Are you still saying I am twisting facts? Sounds more like you are doing a little spinning.

 

[Bodacious]

Look at the attachment.

This is your reasoning. If a business charges you 700 billion for a product and it costs them 400 billion to make it you are saying they are losing 400 billion when in reality they are making 300 billion.

So if they are making 300 billion they cant possibly be losing 400 billion at the same time. They are not making money from Iraq, they are losing money.

I never commented on them making money. I said they spent 492 billion.

Show me where I have said they havn't made money? The 492 billion is an expenditure, something that was paid out to the people.

 

[No Limit]

I never commented on them making money. I said they spent 492 billion.

Show me where I have said they havn't made money? The 492 billion is an expenditure, something that was paid out to the people.

Something the PEOPLE PAID FOR! You can not add 400 billion to your trillion total because that money is there for social security only; something the people pay for. This means I was right; Iraq is costing about the same as what the US is paying to its people on welfare.

 

[Bodacious]

Yes, it goes to a trust fund because SS is different from taxes. Which exactly proves my math. Are you still saying I am twisting facts? Sounds more like you are doing a little spinning.

You are the one that said:

Ok, lets start with your 1.237 trillion figure. First off the people pay for Social Security, not the government. So lets remove that from your total, 1.237 - 492 = 745 Billion.

That 492 billion is money, collected by taxes, that wasy paid to the pepole. Why remove it from the 1.237 trillion in mandatory spending? Because the gov put 241 billion in a trust fund? That doesnt make sense.

 

[Bodacious]

Something the PEOPLE PAID FOR! You can not add 400 billion to your trillion total because that money is there for social security only; something the people pay for. This means I was right; Iraq is costing about the same as what the US is paying to its people on welfare.

But the people also pay for welfare from their federal witholding. Their federal withholding is for governemnt expenditures. That includes welfare. So why make the differntation for SS, but not the rest of portions of federal w/h meant for welfare?

SS monies are still pad out as a goverment benefit.

 

[jondy]

Sorry buddy, didn't mean to patronize, but you didn't answer his question. Plus, you sit on a high, high horse.

edit: wow, that many posts in half an hour? It's like text-sex, without the eroticism :thumbs:

 

[No Limit]

That 492 billion is money, collected by taxes, that wasy paid to the pepole. Why remove it from the 1.237 trillion in mandatory spending? Because the gov put 241 billion in a trust fund? That doesnt make sense.

You do understand that if we didn't have social security the government wouldn't be making 700 billion and wouldn't be spending 400 billion at the same time, right? If you understand that I don't know how this logic escapes you so let me try again:

It makes perfect sense. Social security is money the government can't spend it is only there for SOCIAL SECURITY, nothing else. This is what you pay on each check and it totals to 700 billion and that money belongs to you (the american people).

Now out of that the government PAYS YOU BACK 400 billion and puts the rest in a trust fund. This is not tax money and this money DOES NOT BELONG TO THE GOVERNMENT, it belongs to you (the american people).

Tax money, money used for Iraq, welfare, etc, does belong to the government. In my math I took out the money that doesn't belong to the government but instead belongs to the people and left only what belongs to the government (I actually gave them 300 billion). How do you not understand this?

 

[Bodacious]

Sorry buddy, didn't mean to patronize, but you didn't answer his question. Plus, you sit on a high, high horse.

edit: wow, that many posts in half an hour? It's like text-sex, without the eroticism :thumbs:

What question have I not answered? Why didn't you answer this when I asked it before?

 

[No Limit]

What question have I not answered? Why didn't you answer this when I asked it before?

You didn't get to my clear example of how the administration lied but forget that for now please, lets get this SS thing sorted out and then I want you to address my long post on Iraq.

 

[jondy]

The one right before my other post, which is now buried deep under political rhetoric.

But don't worry. You're obviously busy. And lack a sense of humour.

 

[Bodacious]

You do understand that if we didn't have social security the government wouldn't be making 700 billion and wouldn't be spending 400 billion at the same time, right? If you understand that I don't know how this logic escapes you so let me try again:

It makes perfect sense. Social security is money the government can't spend it is only there for SOCIAL SECURITY, nothing else. This is what you pay on each check and it totals to 700 billion.

Now out of that the government PAYS YOU BACK 400 billion and puts the rest in a trust fund. This is not tax money and this money DOES NOT BELONG TO THE GOVERNMENT.

Tax money, money used for Iraq, welfare, etc, does belong to the government. In my math I took out the money that doesn't belong to the government but instead belongs to the people (I actually gave them 300 billion). How do you not understand this?

That is the first time you have siad the money doesn't belong to the government.

How about this. Source? What makes you think that money doesn't belong to the government?

Seeing as how they are the ones who says who gets what and how much, and the people really have no control over that besides sending a letter or their congressman, the people don't own it either. The gov has control over it. You don't own something you have no control over.

 

[No Limit]

That is the first time you have siad the money doesn't belong to the government.

How about this. Source? What makes you think that money doesn't belong to the government?

This is not what I am talking about, please stop trying to spin this. If the government is making a profit of $300 billion on social security (in reality they aren't as SS goes to a trust fund) they can't possibly be losing 400 billion at the same time.

And the money really doesn't belong to the government; when the government spends this money they are borrowing it with a promise that they will pay it back. However, this has nothing to do with it so leave it out of here.

 

[Bodacious]

You didn't get to my clear example of how the administration lied but forget that for now please, lets get this SS thing sorted out and then I want you to address my long post on Iraq.

As far as I am concerned you need to start a new thread. Also, you know my answer already. What difference does all that crap make? We are in Iraq and we will get out when Iraq's military is built.

 

[No Limit]

As far as I am concerned you need to start a new thread. Also, you know my answer already. What difference does all that crap make? We are in Iraq and we will get out when Iraq's military is built.

It makes a huge difference and I will point out how, first lets get this social security thing out of the way as I need you to understand this basic concept.

 

[Bodacious]

This is not what I am talking about, please stop trying to spin this. If the government is making a profit of $300 billion on social security (in reality they aren't as SS goes to a trust fund) they can't possibly be losing 400 billion at the same time.

The gov receives 700 billion in taxes. Of those taxes it puts 300 billion into the trust and gives the people in need of benefits 400 billion. That is the way I see it.

 

[No Limit]

The gov receives 700 billion in taxes. Of those taxes it puts 300 billion into the trust and gives the people in need of benefits 400 billion. That is the way I see it.

That is because that's how it is. However, you can not throw social security in the same category as other taxes because that money doesn't belong to the government, you just said this and you are correct. Right? Taxes on the other hand do belong to the government, right?

 

[Bodacious]

The one right before my other post, which is now buried deep under political rhetoric.

But don't worry. You're obviously busy. And lack a sense of humour.

Your post right before this one is:

Well, it's not burning me. Perhaps if I stand closer. *shuffles forward*

*sizzling* Ah, yes.

No question mark exists in that quote.

What was the question?

 

[No Limit]

Whenever you are finally willing to admit I am right please go to the following thread and ignore what I posted here about Iraq:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1236282

Like I said, I am going to end this crap about you saying I am lying about facts when you can't respond to it today.

 

[Bodacious]

That is because that's how it is. However, you can not throw social security in the same category as other taxes because that money doesn't belong to the government, you just said this and you are correct. Right? Taxes on the other hand do belong to the government, right?

Define ownership.

The gov says who gets paid benefits and how much. Once the money leaves your paycheck, it is under the gov's control.

I will use what you said earlier. The payments into SS taken from your check are essentialy a loan given to the government that the gov promises to pay back, correct?

Well, the bank gives you a loan to buy a car. You buy the car. Does the bank really own that car? They might have the title, but all they "own" is the loan, or the note, whatever you want to call it. The car isn't registered under the bank's name.

Same can be said here. Once you give the gov the money, it is out of your hands. All you have is your SS card as a promise from the gov that they will pay you or your relatives back. You own the promise, not the money.

That is the way I see ot.

 

[No Limit]

Define ownership.

The gov says who gets paid benefits and how much. Once the money leaves your paycheck, it is under the gov's control.

I will use what you said earlier. The payments into SS taken from your check are essentialy a loan given to the government that the gov promises to pay back, correct?

Well, the bank gives you a loan to buy a car. You buy the car. Does the bank really own that car? They might have the title, but all they "own" is the loan, or the note, whatever you want to call it. The car isn't registered under the bank's name.

Same can be said here. Once you give the gov the money, it is out of your hands. All you have is your SS card as a promise from the gov that they will pay you or your relatives back. You own the promise, not the money.

That is the way I see ot.

Yeah, but if I have a credit card with my bank and a car loan the bank keeps them seperate. So if I pay $300 over on my credit card bill and the bank pays that $300 back to me they can't say that this was an expense on the car loan they are giving me.

 

[Bodacious]

Whenever you are finally willing to admit I am right please go to the following thread and ignore what I posted here about Iraq:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1236282

Thanks

Like I said, I am going to end this crap about you saying I am lying about facts when you can't respond to it today.

I don't think you lied about the facts. I think you don't want to acknowledge what they are. That SS payments are monies paid to the people, to the tune of 492 billion. 292 billion more than the speculated cost fo the Iraq war.

 

[No Limit]

Same can be said here. Once you give the gov the money, it is out of your hands. All you have is your SS card as a promise from the gov that they will pay you or your relatives back. You own the promise, not the money.

That's not what the constitution says:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

- Amendment XIV

 

[No Limit]

I don't think you lied about the facts. I think you don't want to acknowledge what they are. That SS payments are monies paid to the people, to the tune of 492 billion. 292 billion more than the speculated cost fo the Iraq war.

No, you simply don't understand how this works and I am getting tired of explaining it. Look at the constitution quote I made. This says the government MUST pay back all the debt. That money belongs to the people, simple as that.

 

[Bodacious]

Yeah, but if I have a credit card with my bank and a car loan the bank keeps them seperate. So if I pay $300 over on my credit card bill and the bank pays that $300 back to me they can't say that this was an expense on the car loan they are giving me.

Yeah but, Yeah but.

Ok, you have a credit card, and a car loan. Two seperate things.

You pay 300 on your credit card bill. How does the bank pay that $300 back to you? I am lost there. Since you paid on the credit card they wouldn't pay on the loan, that wound't make sense either, I understand this.

How does any of this relate to saying that the gov doesn't own the money people pay into SS?

 

[No Limit]

Ok, you have a credit card, and a car loan. Two seperate things.

You pay 300 on your credit card bill. How does the bank pay that $300 back to you? I am lost there. Since you paid on the credit card they wouldn't pay on the loan, that wound't make sense either, I understand this.

How does any of this relate to saying that the gov doesn't own the money people pay into SS?

If I overpay the bank $300 they have to give me that money back because that money doesn't belong to them. Forget it though, I already showed you in the constitution how that money doesn't belong to the government.

 

[Bodacious]

No, you simply don't understand how this works and I am getting tired of explaining it. Look at the constitution quote I made. This says the government MUST pay back all the debt. That money belongs to the people, simple as that.

How am I disputing that? I don't disagree. Just because the gov is bound by the constitution to pay the debt back doesn't mean the people own the money. That says nothing about ownership, it says the the money has to be paid back.

Once the money leaves your check it is in the governmen't possesion to do with as they please as long as it is paid out in SS benefits and is paid back.

Like I said, define ownership.

 

[jondy]

Your post right before this one is:

No question mark exists in that quote.

What was the question?

Ah, no, you went too far back. There's another of my posts just after that one. But well done for identifying that my statement wasn't a question.

In fact, I never had a question. You're getting tangled up.

Heh.

 

[No Limit]

How am I disputing that? I don't disagree. Just because the gov is bound by the constitution to pay the debt back doesn't mean the people own the money. That says nothing about ownership, it says the the money has to be paid back.

Once the money leaves your check it is in the governmen't possesion to do with as they please as long as it is paid out in SS benefits and is paid back.

Like I said, define ownership.

Who gets SS benefits and who pays for those benefits? The people. This means that money came from the people and it belongs to the people. The CONSTITUTION says that the government can't do what they please with it; they must do what is promised.

 

[No Limit]

Also, an example of how you are spinning this. This is what you said:

That is the first time you have siad the money doesn't belong to the government.

How about this. Source? What makes you think that money doesn't belong to the government?

I just showed you in the constitution how that doesn't belong to the government meaning I am proved right and my entire post about that was right (that the 400 needs to be subtacted from the trillion total).

 

[Bodacious]

Also, an example of how you are spinning this. This is what you said:


I just showed you in the constitution how that doesn't belong to the government meaning I am proved right and my entire post about that was right (that the 400 needs to be subtacted from the trillion total).

Ok you are bluring the lines then.

Of course the government doesn't "own" money. But the government has bank accounts in which money resideds and that money, wich is in those bank accounts, is the property of the government.

No, the money doesn't need to be subtracted becaue the govern,ent owns that money. What you quoted just says that the money has to be paid back, not that the money is not owned by the government.

 

[No Limit]

I am not good with anologies but lets try this as I think this is the only way to argue with someone that doesn't understand it.

I have a friend who works for me and I pay him a certain amount each month in wages (taxes), this money is his. In addition I give my friend $700 to go donate to poor people (social security). I make him sign a contract that he will do this and anything left over he will put in a fund that will be used to pay other poor people. My friend does this and is left over with $300. That $300 clearly doesn't belong to him; however, any money I give him for working for me does. (income tax belongs to government, social security doesn't).

So on his tax return he can not specify that he gave $400 to charity and $300 profit as that money isn't his. This is what the CBO is doing in that table, it is claiming money that doesn't belong to the government. It is not wrong to do but when you are looking at how much they are spending on welfare you have to take that in to account and subtract that $400 billion as that money doesn't belong to the government; it belongs to us and it is designed to pay for social security (we are paying for social security, not the government while we don't pay for things like the war, the government does).

 

[No Limit]

Of course the government doesn't "own" money. But the government has bank accounts in which money resideds and that money, wich is in those bank accounts, is the property of the government.

You are again ignoring what I am telling you. You say the government doesn't 'own' this money and then later in the same sentece you say it is the property of the government.

No, THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT MONEY IS THE PROPERTY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. This does not apply to federal income tax (federal income tax is not the same thing as social security which is a loan). Get it?

 

[Bodacious]

You are again ignoring what I am telling you. You say the government doesn't 'own' this money and then later in the same sentece you say it is the property of the government.

No, THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT MONEY IS THE PROPERTY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. This does not apply to federal income tax (federal income tax is not the same thing as social security which is a loan). Get it?

You don't understand at all.

Let me clarify.

The government doesn't own "Money." In this sense of the term, "Money" is what people receive in their paychecks, the bills in people's wallets, the coins being put into the soda machines. The govenment does not own "Money." Understand?

Now then. The government has accounts. Bank accounts. In those bank accounts is money. The government has control over those moneies that are in thsoe bank accounts. The gov owns the money in those bank accounts.

Understand?

 

[jondy]

No, the government has no control over the moneys in those accounts, since it is constitutionally promised to the people.