The Left is very good at fear mongering because the Left controls all Information outlets and have controlled them since before WW I; specifically, MSM/Press, Education, and Language. Since the 70's, this control over Information was expanded to the point of not even pretending to cover up the Leftist pro propaganda bias. Basically, over that time, 60 + years of indoctrination and brainwashing had dummed down enough of the American squeaky wheels to allow Information outlets to get away with a constant bombardment of overt misinformation and outright lies. When one stands for nothing one will fall for anything is now the status quot. A 100 years of Marxist infiltration, now in total control over Information, allows Obuma to climb behind his pedestal mounted podium and spew his lies at will with no fear of repudiation. Worse now is the overt confiscation of the American peoples freedoms via the confiscation thru taxes and regulation of the American peoples property further reducing any possible resistance to this tyrannical siege. Can any of this remain in doubt when after just getting more confiscation of wealth thru Congress the first response by the Leftists was to demand more confiscation without negotiation.
I applaud Ted Cruz - he appears to be a great addition to the 2012 Freshman Class. I hope he stays honorable.
The whole thing about Harry Reid blocking votes for solid, viable, sensible legislation that will help this country (especially legislation that already mirrors the Constitutional intent - why do they have even need a new law?)... so that they (the Rats) will be able to exploit the law not being place... is sickening. Harry Reid... man, he should be hauled away in chains.
And don't get me started on the GOP blocking conservatives...
The Social Security trust funds are part of the national debt. Taking an amount from these trust funds to pay Social Security would actually lower the total debt which would then allow the US to borrow this amount to pay benefits without increasing. Paying benefits from any trust fund has absolutely no impact on the debt ceiling.
Are not we already using IOU's, irregardless of source, as (fictional) collateral for borrowing more debt?
The trust funds are part of the national debt. Adding additional sums to the trust funds by collecting FICA taxes while not paying benefits would mean that the trust fund balances and thus the total debt would rise, violating the debt ceiling. Paying benefits using FICA taxes supplemented by trust funds outlays would have no effect on the total amount of debt, just on its bookkeeping allocation between trust funds totals and privately held debt..
Threatening to not pay benefits is a political ploy and is the same as threatening to ignore the debt ceiling..
Payroll deductions for social security go into the social security trust fund. Social security benefits are paid from this trust fund. When this fund has a surplus, Congress 'borrows' from it to spend on other things (leaving 'IOUs' in the form of special US government securities - treasury bonds). This is what adds to the national debt. This is also why the social security system is going bankrupt.
You cannot lower the debt by paying from this fund (especially if it has no surplus, due to Congress robbing from it). 'Paying benefits from any trust fund has absolutely no impact on the debt ceiling' is only true when you haven't stolen from it (borrowed) to pay other expenditures.
None of what you say even makes sense. Are you sure you don't work for the government. You can't pay with something that is only an IOU. And having done so, then say that the national debt was reduced by doing so, therefore you can now borrow to pay for those initial benefits, keeping the national debt the same.
It is a shell game. You're talking in a circle. You sound like Tim Geitner. I had to shake my head when I read your post.
This is subtle and I am sorry if you are having difficulty grasping it. Try to limit this discussion to one of the debt ceiling not on the fact that there are no assets in the trust funds. Admittedly, there have been no real assets backing our dollar since Nixon finished decoupling it from gold. You cannot argue against the misrepresentations that will be presented by the media unless you understand their perverted economics. For real economics, go visit mises.org.
The national debt is composed of Treasuries and trust funds. Payments from trust funds does not lower nor raise the debt but merely changes the allocation of the debt between the entities that comprises the debt.
My point is that threatening not to pay benefits, which is the ploy Obama used last time. is the same as threatening to ignore the debt ceiling. From a purely bookkeeping point of view, payments made from trust funds or using special taxes such as gasoline and FICA are the only expenditures the federal government could legally borrow to make once the debt ceiling is exceeded. Of course, since when does Obama care about the law.
My original common was based on that part of the Cruz-Levin discussion of the debt ceiling and "Washington Monument Games" that started around the 2 minutes mark . They brought up the threat to SS benefits. They made a request for conservatives to be prepared to offer arguments against the Obama-media propaganda storm which will ensue. I offered an argument why this would be illegal based on who trust funds work.
Being prepared to counter their scare tactics was the whole point of my discussion.
'Are you prepared to shine a cleansing light upon the gross propaganda Obama will spew and the media will lick up or will you let him win the argument by accepting his false premise and distorted vocabulary?'
This wasn't even our discussion point.
What Obama decides not to pay is divided into two classes: legal and illegal. Withholding payments from the trust funds is illegal because it increases the debt in violation of the ceiling. Withholding payments for federal workers or discretionary programs is legal because it does not increase the debt.
Are you prepared to shine a cleansing light upon the gross propaganda Obama will spew and the media will lick up or will you let him win the argument by accepting his false premise and distorted vocabulary?
Complete the following dialog in as many words as necessary:
Obama: I will not be able to pay SS benefits because we have reached the debt ceiling.
You: Barack, you ignorant slug, the path you are taking is illegal because...
Number one: the national debt increased when the SS funds were in surplus because Congress took (borrowed) that surplus for other uses. When it's not in surplus (ie, in deficit), then Congress once again needs to borrow to sustain it. I don't think I've said that enough, apparently.
Number two: What Obama decides to pay when we hit the debt ceiling is subjective. That was left open by Congress when they gave him the power to create debt (but only up to the debt ceiling, hence the creation of the debt ceiling). Congress needs to stipulate what needs to be paid out when the debt ceiling is reached and the government is shut down so that Obama won't be able to pick and choose for scare tactics.
I would think that was lucid enough for you, but apparently not.
Number one: the national debt increased whenever OASDI taxes were collected which were in excess of the amount of benefits paid if a like sum was not used to retire other debt. You will find that the national debt slowly grew during the years of the "Clinton" surpluses because these surpluses were less than the increases credited to the trust funds, We are no longer experiencing such trust fund looting since there is no longer a cash flow surplus wrt to SS,. Dispersing funds from the non-existent trust funds and issuing new debt to cover these amounts is neutral wrt to the total debt amount .
Number two: Obama WILL threaten to stop paying Social Security benefits and we must be prepared to demonstrate why this would be illegal because such actions would only cause the national debt to increase, further violating the ceiling.
I obviously gave an inadequate explanation of why this is so. My poorly stated premise was that the national debt would increase if Obama stopped payments for SS and would remain the same if he continued such payments. Please prepare a more lucid argument so that we will be prepared to show why Obama's threat would be illegal in the face of the debt ceiling limit.
Number one, I don't disagree, and never have, with the idea that Obama's plan to ignore the debt ceiling limit and his idea of not paying the SS benefits are both just ploys. That was obvious, as much as it had nothing to do with your original post.
Number two, the second half of your second paragraph is pure gibberish. To paraphrase you: Taking money out of the trust fund doesn't raise the debt (I agree, unless it's held with bogus paper which has to be funded), but putting money into it (which we already do by law) does? Hmmm...
Number three, I don't put much stock into circular reasoning. Obama plays that game way too much as it is. That is why I pointed out your Moebius strip of a comment originally.
The money collected from payroll deductions for SS benefits is placed in the SS trust funds, by buying special US treasury securities, in order for them to pay the benefits (the original lock-box concept would have been better). What causes the debt to rise, any debt, is the spending of money one does not have, which the government has done by robbing the SS trust fund. Everything has to be paid by something, whether it's transferred from another account or it's just plain printed (as in the QE1, 2, 3, and 4ever).
Your last paragraph, once again, is explaining to me something I don't dispute and which had absolutely nothing to do with your original post. I hope it's a little clearer to you now. If not, then please feel free to post again with unrelated information about your original post. I've got plenty of time.
BTW, we actually reached the debt ceiling on Dec 31st, just to let you know. It's more of the fake jockeying that Geithner does that lets them claim they haven't.
Obama will threaten to stop Social Security benefits if he does not get his way on the raising the debt ceiling. I would like to hear your argument for why, or why not, this threat is a legal one.
Mark Levin asked people to be prepared to counter the threats and false arguments that Obama and the media would use to force the raising of the debt ceiling without demanding deals on limiting future spending. We owe 16.4 trillions, 12.4 trillions in Treasuries and 4 trillion in non-existent trust fund balances. By law, trust funds cannot contain real assets. This is a bad law but it has been the law since LBJ, I would prefer at least some of OASDI taxes be invested in private accounts with rights of survivorship but that is not the case and is not part of the issue of raising the debt ceiling limit.
One of the threats used the last time the amount of the national debt reached the debt ceiling limit was to withhold Social Security benefits. I pointed out why this was a bogus threat purely from a bookkeeping point of view, To repeat: making a transfer from a trust fund balance to a Treasury balance would leave the total amount of national debt unchanged and thus would not push the total debt over the debt ceiling limit. Diverting current taxes from benefit payments into a trust fund would increase the amount of total debt and could breach the debt ceiling limit. Once the total national debt level reaches the debt ceiling limit, there will be only two expenditures which will be legal, ones for which we have current revenues and ones made from trust funds and taxes designated for trust funds.
My reasoning seems circular because I am dealing with a perverted economic system and sometimes use short hand. When I said "Paying benefits from any trust fund has absolutely no impact on the debt ceiling." I was poorly stating the fact that "Paying benefits from any trust fund has absolutely no effect on the amount of total national debt and thus would not, in and of itself, cause the amount of total national debt to exceed the debt ceiling limit."
If Obama threatens to stop Social Security payments, just say that that would be illegal..
I'm having no problem whatsoever grasping what you said. If you meant something other than what you said, then by all means say it the first time. You better learn the difference between national assets, the debt ceiling, the debt, and how we obtain that debt. I responded to what you said which was full of baloney. I explained why.
Your last paragraph had absolutely nothing to do with what you said in your first post, so telling me your point is something totally different than what you originally said is disingenuous, at best.
Once again, the SS trust fund is part of the debt only because the government borrows from it to spend elsewhere. The fact that it is a room full of IOUs is why the program is going bust. If it had been left alone, which I already said it hadn't, the SS program would still be viable and not a part of our national debt.
BTW, nothing is part of our debt ceiling. That is merely a number.
Ted Cruz will be the catalyst that will inspire Republicans to join him to stand firm against Obama, and to expose Obama's slick methods to advance his own agenda.
Personally, I am convinced Obama is out to destroy America, first, by economic suicide, and second, by rendering the military ineffective.
I think we have a traitor in the White House.
Regarding "gun control" - which, as you've learned from Piers Morgan, is a great thing to have and the UK is leading the way ... /sarc
Well, here's a very interesting report from Al Beeb: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20901612
"Illegal stun guns 20 times more powerful than police Tasers can be illegally imported into the UK with ease, a BBC investigation has found."
Surprised that criminals don't worry about laws?
Awww ... and then there's this:
"Reformed gang member Daryl James believes the growing appeal of stun guns for teenage gangs is a result of the crackdown on knife and gun crime.
He said: "You can't have all these youngers [young gang members] running about with stun guns - they'll stun everybody.
"As we move forward into knife bans, gun bans, people find alternatives."
Yep. Banning something doesn't mean criminals will not try and get the banned stuff by criminal means. It means law abiding citizens will be 'punished', by government and criminals.
Just saw a 24" machetes in Walmart with a scabard in Sporting Goods for about ten bucks. I'm thninking about buying a gross for swap meets after Feb 1,lol
Well, I couldn't believe my ears when Al Beeb touted this story on their early morning news. I hate having a jaw-hits-floor moment before I'm fully awake.
In 'gun-controlled' Britain, the criminals can stun and even kill with these stun guns, people being helpless. And no police around ...
In the USA, with concealed carry, such criminals might well wish they'd never got a stun gun in the first place ...
That is terrible. Thanks to the imbeciles who got the gun control laws passed in the first place, now Brits have a more menacing weapon to fear. As far as concealed carry goes here in the U.S., I'm glad we can keep the bad guys nervous. In my state, we don't need a permit to carry a concealed firearm anymore. For some reason, we don't have a rash of gun battles in broad daylight or wanton gun violence every day of the week. We still have robberies and home invasions, but they usually occur in places where a gun isn't allowed ("gun free" zone) or where it is known that the home owner or resident doesn't pack any heat or doesn't have the ability to defend him or herself. I find that extremely interesting, in light of current events.
He talks a good game. So far so good. Let's see how he does after he is exposed to the intimidation, corruption, and treachery of the D.C. Beltway for a few more months.
Advice to any Tea party representative entering congress: You're entering enemy territory. The natives will try to pervert your principles and subvert your loyalty to the people who elected you. Stay in regular contact with your constituents, and watch your back. You're there to change congress, not let congress change you.
Just loving being O/T tonight. This is a GREAT website and someone I follow on Twitter! This posting is on the libs rapid gun control. http://www.rethinksociety.com/government/gun-control-thou-shalt-not-infringe/
Okay O/T but extremely alarming. 2016 Dem Pres hopefully Cory Booker offers $1,000 for people to turn in gun owning neighbors. http://www.theconservativevoices.com/media/cat/second-amendment/nj-mayor-1000-to-turn-in-your-gun-owning-neighbors-r548
And here I thought I would be shunned by telling the gov't to offer $100 to turn in an illegal alien.
Oh boy, what an opportunity for havoc. Imagine thousands of anonymous bogus calls to 1-877-NWK-GUNS sending Newark police chasing around after alleged illegal gun carriers. I understand the intent is to get weapons out of the hands of street gangs and criminals, but this seems a sloppy way of doing it.
I love the guy. He speaks as clear as any Patriot who ever lived. I hope he remains in Washington and does great things. But he can never be President. Because just like Obama, he does not meet the requirements for the office.
Stand firm against future wasteful spending . Stand firm against extending the debt. Take the heat, don't care what the other side thinks. You've heard the same rhetoric before.
Ted Cruz is so fluent and clear that I don’t believe that there is one Senator even close to being as knowledgeable and as well-informed about the Constitution and the relationship between the citizen or the individual and the Government as Ted Cruz.
While I respect Rand Paul when he says he “might consider run for President.” Saying that he supports legalization of marijuana or illegal drugs is lacking in judgment and really substance. It’s easy to say that legalizing drugs is important because people should do what they want to do. Does that say that he has considered the consequences, whether intended or unintended, of legalization and what that does to civil society?
Ted Cruz is the missing link that is need right now.
Ted Cruz is the best of this crop of Senators. The only statesman with grit and right thinking for US at this time!
What do you mean of this crop? And who are you comparing him too, John McCain, Lindsey Gramm, McConnell or any of the other RINOs who got us in the position that we are in today? Please! I know that if Ted Cruz had been a Senator when Hegel was Senator he would not have been his friend given his stance and positions on Israel. And Hegel should ever have been a republican and people like McCain and Gramm welcomed him just like they did Scott Brown. So in my opinion there is only one other Senator who is even comparable to Ted Cruz and that is Mike Lee. But in my opinion he is exceptional.
Have you considered the intended or unintended consequences of prohibition? Like alcohol, prohibition of marijuana(only) saves so many lives in America /sarc off. Come down to the border and tell me its good for saving lives.
O/T (but Scoop mentioned above so I get a freebee) hehehehe ABC says not enough Dem support to confirm Hagel: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/abc-not-enough-democratic-support-confirm-hagel_693920.html
Okay more hehehehehe the libs are whining about the SS payroll tax holiday not being renewed by Barky Boy http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/6/obama-supporters-shocked-angry-new-tax-increases/#.UOo4wM1GNE8.twitter
Alcohol=/=illegal drug...unless you support bringing back Prohibition and making it illegal again as the progressives of the 20s got passed the first time.
The Bush twins got arrested for intoxication. Honestly, the drinking age should be 18 like the smoking age.
"The teenager was arrested by police and booked into the Mecklenburg County Jail, charged with three misdemeanors: underage consumption, disorderly conduct, and being intoxicated and disruptive."
What part of charged with crimes did you fail to comprehend?
Ease of accessibility of illegal drugs will continue to cause rise to judicial costs, lives lost and forever changed. We'll then have commonplace death by marijuana driver.
What part of alcohol=//= illegal drug don't you?
What about Bush's daughters getting drunk in public? I guess he was so moral even though he was a flaming progressive right? Miss him, right? He's moral, right, and his family?
Ron Paul actually raised his kids in a traditional manner. I saw Rand talk about that on an old C-SPAN a week ago.
The little drunkard is responsible for his own behavior. Clearly you are a typical libtard or libertarian that always blames someone else for your behavior. His daddy should have spent more time raising his brat than raising his political ladder. Yeah, the druggies are amongst us and it increases everyday because their parents were the first and second round addicts.
Who served young Mr. Rand on that flight? Obviously adults would be responsible for such consumption in flight. Has anyone on that flight crew been brought to task? You have a vivid imagination. Whether you knew it or not , you've been driving all this time with stoners on the road. The stats are the stats, including these people now. Nothing will change. Research might help you with facts instead of your pipe dreams,DOGMA 101!
So the question is, is Barack Obama nominating Hagel as a front to nominate a women or someone who is less well known than Hagel but has just as radical views as Hagel? Is he nominating him because he is a republican in the hopes of dividing the republicna party again as he thinks he did during the fiscal cliff debates. Let's not forget that everything in Barack Obama's world is about making the republicans look bad and taking political advantage.