+He killed roughly a million Iraqi civilians (mostly children)and scores of other people as well …the targeted bombing of one of the two pharmaceutical factories in the sudan will of course always hold a special place in my heart*…oh and later he wrote a book called ‘Giving – How Each of Us Can Change the World’..
And yeah, he did a lot of other evil things too.
j4ck’s reference website of letxa.com is like a cornucopia of rightwing nonsense including climate change denial, the usual tropes about minimum wage increases costing jobs, etc. ad nauseum.
just more nonsense j4ck. that site is full of all kinds of shit that’s just boiler plate republican asshattery. if that site writer posts a bunch of shit, it makes everything else he writes very suspect.
and the mises garbage isn’t evidence based, it’s theory based. they have ideas and they have ideas to explain their ideas, but they don’t have much actual data, just models that fall the way they happen to like. i have never read anything on mises that has made me say, gosh, you know, he has a point there.
the freedom works page is nonsense as well. there is no social security crisis. no matter how much you hear it, it simply isn’t so. minor tweaks in the ceiling of payroll taxation will pick up any slack and even under worst case scenarios as projected by the government, that’s all that is necessasry. so that stuff is just junk as well.
+lol climate change denial..that’s like holocaust denial right? Man i feel like a super villian..
i can’t even guess what that’s supposed to mean. climate change denial is the same as any well-supported fact denial. it’s like gravitational denial. it’s like holocaust denial. it’s proposing that there are thousands of people engaged in a multiyear scheme to defraud millions of people. tell me what successful conspiracy ever consisted of more than a handful of people…
‘President Clinton proposes to devote the entire Social Security surplus to reduce and finally eliminate the Treasury debt held by the public. He reasons that “creating a debt-free United States will eliminate debt service costs and result in substantial interest savings.”(The Budget for Fiscal Year 2001, p. 36). He obviously infers and wants us to believe that “debt shifting” is “debt reduction,” that the U.S. Treasury will be debt-free when the Social Security Administration holds all its debt, and that this shift will result in substantial interest savings.’
Well actually the mises people have been very good in forecasting all the major economical events – which you would know if you would actually read the stuff. (+ that an increase in minimum wage inceases employment is of course laughable..come on)
‘tell me what successful conspiracy ever consisted of more than a handful of people…’
Ever heard of the holocaust in Kosovo? http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0902-02.htm
And i don’t say it’s a conspiracy that’s nonsense..it’s just a (for many reasons) inflated theory.
lol i had to laugh about this one: ‘In 1977-81, when the minimum wage increased some 50 percent, there was a 9 percent increase in employment’
Oh yeah a 9 percent increase in employment |AFTER| a recession…yeah that MUST have been the minimum wage. Let’s pay everybody 10 Million bucks minimum…employment will rise 300%! I can’t believe what a fraud the NY times is. (well ok i can, i read sometimes their war ‘coverage’)
He reasons that “creating a debt-free United States will eliminate debt service costs and result in substantial interest savings.â€(The Budget for Fiscal Year 2001, p. 36).
ummm. What? There is no such thing as that cite. If you would like to make a cite to the Fiscal Year Budget of 2001 (FY2001) via the Executive Office of the United State, j4ck, you need to include what “volume” and which “header”/”db” (i.e. budgeting, spending, etc.) you are referring to. Otherwise, you’re just making shit up. (or, the site which you are citing is making shit up… and that’s just as bad, since it seems to say something that you’d like to agree with, so therefore you believe it. Typical asshattery.)
‘Extend Social Security Solvency through Debt Reduction: The President’s sustained commitment
to saving Social Security has led to an acceptance of the vital importance of protecting
the Social Security surplus. However, the next step in saving Social Security is to truly protect
Social Security by dedicating the resources needed to extend the solvency of the program.
The President proposes to devote the entire Social Security surplus to paying down and eliminating
the debt held by the public. Creating a debt-free United States will eliminate debt
service costs and result in substantial interest savings. Devoting Social Security surpluses to
debt reduction will reduce interest payments from $230 billion in 1999 to zero in 2013 and
will dedicate interest savings to extend Social Security solvency to 2050. Paying down the
publicly held debt will improve the Nation’s ability to respond to Social Security’s future
needs.’
Man you guys are really brainwashed into that left-right nonsense, aren’t you?
+(sorry english is not my native language and i was tired and a bit drunk when i wrote that)
It’s still an improper cite, although much clearer since you’ve added details.
the correct cite should specify that it is in section III, article 5 : The Budget Outlook ; “Saving Social Security”, as “page 36″ is not always page 36.
@niel
Do you see what i mean now? Bill Clinton just transfered the debt to the social security fund…and that’s why we can see now all those graphs where the democrats are the fiscal conservatives. Truth is that there is no such thing anymore. Both are big spenders on warfare and welfare.
Ben: Since Congress spends the money, wouldn’t it be more accurate to look at which party was in power in Congress, rather than the president, to make a partisan argument about the national debt?
Comments
23 Comments so far. Leave a comment below.Thanks for posting this. It is great.
From my local paper! =)
Taxes suck… agreed?
caseytrain – large deficits suck worse than taxes.
caseytrain – disagreed. I’ll civilization over spending money any time.
Of course this is nonsense. Clinton was just the better liar:
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
+He killed roughly a million Iraqi civilians (mostly children)and scores of other people as well …the targeted bombing of one of the two pharmaceutical factories in the sudan will of course always hold a special place in my heart*…oh and later he wrote a book called ‘Giving – How Each of Us Can Change the World’..
And yeah, he did a lot of other evil things too.
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory
j4ck’s reference website of letxa.com is like a cornucopia of rightwing nonsense including climate change denial, the usual tropes about minimum wage increases costing jobs, etc. ad nauseum.
I dont like the site either but that’s simply the truth. Find another source that is conform to your indoctrination.
http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=569
+lol climate change denial..that’s like holocaust denial right? Man i feel like a super villian..
(+ http://mises.org/story/2130 )
And again i don’t defend the site, the guy has weird positions. I just take what is true.
just more nonsense j4ck. that site is full of all kinds of shit that’s just boiler plate republican asshattery. if that site writer posts a bunch of shit, it makes everything else he writes very suspect.
and the mises garbage isn’t evidence based, it’s theory based. they have ideas and they have ideas to explain their ideas, but they don’t have much actual data, just models that fall the way they happen to like. i have never read anything on mises that has made me say, gosh, you know, he has a point there.
the freedom works page is nonsense as well. there is no social security crisis. no matter how much you hear it, it simply isn’t so. minor tweaks in the ceiling of payroll taxation will pick up any slack and even under worst case scenarios as projected by the government, that’s all that is necessasry. so that stuff is just junk as well.
historically too there is little to no support for this idea that minimum wages increases causes a rise in unemployment.
but nice try.
i can’t even guess what that’s supposed to mean. climate change denial is the same as any well-supported fact denial. it’s like gravitational denial. it’s like holocaust denial. it’s proposing that there are thousands of people engaged in a multiyear scheme to defraud millions of people. tell me what successful conspiracy ever consisted of more than a handful of people…
That’s good stuff: http://mises.org/story/542
‘President Clinton proposes to devote the entire Social Security surplus to reduce and finally eliminate the Treasury debt held by the public. He reasons that “creating a debt-free United States will eliminate debt service costs and result in substantial interest savings.”(The Budget for Fiscal Year 2001, p. 36). He obviously infers and wants us to believe that “debt shifting” is “debt reduction,” that the U.S. Treasury will be debt-free when the Social Security Administration holds all its debt, and that this shift will result in substantial interest savings.’
Well actually the mises people have been very good in forecasting all the major economical events – which you would know if you would actually read the stuff. (+ that an increase in minimum wage inceases employment is of course laughable..come on)
‘tell me what successful conspiracy ever consisted of more than a handful of people…’
Ever heard of the holocaust in Kosovo?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0902-02.htm
And i don’t say it’s a conspiracy that’s nonsense..it’s just a (for many reasons) inflated theory.
lol i had to laugh about this one: ‘In 1977-81, when the minimum wage increased some 50 percent, there was a 9 percent increase in employment’
Oh yeah a 9 percent increase in employment |AFTER| a recession…yeah that MUST have been the minimum wage. Let’s pay everybody 10 Million bucks minimum…employment will rise 300%! I can’t believe what a fraud the NY times is. (well ok i can, i read sometimes their war ‘coverage’)
Does that mean that Bush Jr. is running a surplus?
Where do you come from, j4ck?
j4ck:
ummm. What? There is no such thing as that cite. If you would like to make a cite to the Fiscal Year Budget of 2001 (FY2001) via the Executive Office of the United State, j4ck, you need to include what “volume” and which “header”/”db” (i.e. budgeting, spending, etc.) you are referring to. Otherwise, you’re just making shit up. (or, the site which you are citing is making shit up… and that’s just as bad, since it seems to say something that you’d like to agree with, so therefore you believe it. Typical asshattery.)
Barbwire:
My guess: http://www.freerepublic.com
Why don’t they include Carter?
@niel
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy01/pdf/budget.pdf
page 36 (’saving social security’ /the president’s plan)
‘Extend Social Security Solvency through Debt Reduction: The President’s sustained commitment
to saving Social Security has led to an acceptance of the vital importance of protecting
the Social Security surplus. However, the next step in saving Social Security is to truly protect
Social Security by dedicating the resources needed to extend the solvency of the program.
The President proposes to devote the entire Social Security surplus to paying down and eliminating
the debt held by the public. Creating a debt-free United States will eliminate debt
service costs and result in substantial interest savings. Devoting Social Security surpluses to
debt reduction will reduce interest payments from $230 billion in 1999 to zero in 2013 and
will dedicate interest savings to extend Social Security solvency to 2050. Paying down the
publicly held debt will improve the Nation’s ability to respond to Social Security’s future
needs.’
Man you guys are really brainwashed into that left-right nonsense, aren’t you?
+(sorry english is not my native language and i was tired and a bit drunk when i wrote that)
It’s still an improper cite, although much clearer since you’ve added details.
the correct cite should specify that it is in section III, article 5 : The Budget Outlook ; “Saving Social Security”, as “page 36″ is not always page 36.
Rick: Probably because a panel is only so wide.
I found this though:
http://www.headybrew.net/images/content/budget_deficit_or_surplus.gif
Here is one that goes back a bit farther:
http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart-August2006.gif
@niel
Do you see what i mean now? Bill Clinton just transfered the debt to the social security fund…and that’s why we can see now all those graphs where the democrats are the fiscal conservatives. Truth is that there is no such thing anymore. Both are big spenders on warfare and welfare.
Ben: Since Congress spends the money, wouldn’t it be more accurate to look at which party was in power in Congress, rather than the president, to make a partisan argument about the national debt?