Anyway, enough about that. About this.

While this thread does make something of positive swing towards a decent discussion about the issues in the later pages, I must point out that at or soon after its inception this thread was little more than another chapter in our favorite ongoing soap opera.

The Flameboard is not a venue for making a serialized pissing match public. This isn't to say that what Jeff posted was utterly reprehensible garbage, because I find it quite an engrossing snapshot of Omega and Jeff's views on a legitimate issue. Had the thread, *gasp* been posted with the clear intention of being about the shrinking surplus first and the width of Omega's mother's ass second, then I'd have no qualms with it, but I think we can all agree that somewhere along the line it veered well off a legitimate exercise in public discourse and into the equivalent of locking James Carville and Jesse Helms in a steel ball with Anne Robinson and rolling it down a hill.

Anyway, thankfully while Tom was driving through Glenwood Springs, Colorado the thread managed to reassert itself as a near-decent piece of public discource, and it should continue on as such.

End pontification. Resume screaming match.
 

Part of which reads:

quote:

---

Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world....

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

---

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly on 16 December 1966 clarified that somewhat. The Preamble of which reads:

quote:

---

PREAMBLE

The States Parties to the present Covenant, Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,

Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant....

---

Human rights are inherent (existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic) and inalienable (incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another) part of humanity.

Now I'm not so sure that that would mean so much to a Neanderthal or someone sitting in the Dark Ages without a candle to read with. But humanity is equipped reason and conscience and what those have so gloriously helped us to achieved is culture and civilization and to a discernment understanding of inherent rights.

[ August 27, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

*boingboingboing*

-It's just been revoked!
 

quote:

---

bringing in an "arbolist" to find out the names of the trees

---

Hm. Whose error IS that? an "arborist" is a person who specializes in the care of trees. So did Bush stutter, the article writer mishear (or miswrite), or the printer make a typo?

Poopie.
 

Honestly, people, if you can't come up with a real objection to this president, why even try?
 

quote:

---

Or maybe W actually said "arbalest", and was simply getting two obscure words mixed up.

---

Well, gee, yet someone else who needs to check their facts before saying something. Remind you of the person who posted the previous ... well, post?

quote:

---

Honestly, people, if you can't come up with a real objection to this president, why even try?

---

Having an idiot for a president is a real objection. There are other arguments as well, but since your basic arguement against a politician is always "they're lying scum" (and refusing to apologize about said comment when you're proved to be the "lying, un-fact checking scum") I don't see why I should have to elaborate further.

[ August 28, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- This year's federal budget surplus has plunged to $153 billion because of the nation's economic doldrums and the Bush administration's tax cut, meaning the federal government will have to cover $9 billion of spending by dipping into Social Security, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday.

The new estimate for the federal surplus is sharply lower -- off by 44 percent --- from the $275 billion figure the CBO was predicting just three months ago. The reduction means that President Bush and congressional lawmakers will be hard pressed to keep their pledge not to use Social Security funds for any other government spending, save for a planned, steady retirement of the government's outstanding debt.

The CBO projected Tuesday that, if current spending habits aren't changed, the Social Security surplus would be dipped into again in 2003, for $18 billion, and in 2004, for $3 billion. The congressional accounting office projects a return to overall budget surpluses large enough to spare the Social Security fund in later years.

What's in a 'surplus'?
The U.S. figures its annual bottom line by including all tax revenues - including taxes that can only be used to pay Social Security benefits. If revenues fall short, the government has customarily borrowed from Social Security.

Here's the math behind the Congressional Budget Office prediction:

$153 billion = Total budget surplus
$162 billion = Off-budget surpluses*
$9 billion = Shortfall

*Includes Social Security trust funds as well as the net cash flow of the Postal Service

What's the impact?
If Congressional Budget Office estimates are correct and the government needs to borrow from the Social Security trust fund, here are the effects of the move:

Social Security benefits are not affected.

Money taken out of the trust fund would be credited to the Social Security account.

It could slow down the pace of paying off long-term debt.

For the 10-year period from 2002 to 2011, the CBO calculates the nation will have a total surplus of $3.4 trillion -- three-quarters of which would be made up of excess monies in the Social Security trust fund. That number, however, is $2.2 trillion less than was projected just last May, and the reason for most of that drop is the $1.35 trillion tax cut championed by President Bush.

The new numbers offer a dimmer view of the federal budget than that provided by the White House Office of Management and Budget last week. The Bush administration has pointed out that the overall surplus is the second largest in the nation's history, and argues it is just big enough this fiscal year -- which ends September 30 -- to barely avoid use of Social Security funds.

That is politically significant because both Bush and congressional lawmakers from both parties have pledged to avoid dipping into the retirement fund reserve. So, although the surplus remains large by historical standards, the pledge makes most of it off-limits, because it is made up of Social Security receipts.

In past years, before the recent spate of robust surpluses, the federal government routinely dipped into the Social Security surplus for additional spending money. But in recent years, in light of questions about the viability of the retirement program in the coming decades, both Democrats and Republicans vowed to leave the fund alone, and only use that money to pay off the national debt.

Social Security's future
Should the new CBO estimates be borne out, the $9 billion taken from the Social Security Trust Fund will not have an immediate effect on disbursement of benefit checks. Money will continue to flow to beneficiaries every month, and the program will continue to take in more than it pays out annually.

But, Social Security won't stay flush with the looming retirement of the nation's 76 million "baby boomers." In the course of the next decade, more people will be drawing benefit checks, and fewer will be paying into the system. Social Security is at risk of running a deficit.

Many lawmakers of both parties -- and interest groups representing sectors of the population that expect Social Security to be available to them later in this century -- are concerned that continued use of the Social Security surplus for other government spending will jeopardize their retirement security.

President Bush has suggested his campaign proposal to allow individuals to invest some of their Social Security payroll taxes in the stock market could allay some of these fears. He has convened his Commission to Strengthen Social Security to deliberate over suggestions for modernization.

Shrinking federal surplus estimates, meanwhile, have prompted fears that the United States will not be able to pay down its long-term debt in the same time period.

The new CBO numbers project it will now be 2010 before the debt can be retired. In May, that was expected to happen in 2006.

Dems blame tax cut
Democrats have been quick to use the new budget numbers as backing for a claim they have been making for months -- that the Bush tax cut is too costly, especially in tandem with the administration's proposals to increase spending for defense, education and other programs.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, who is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, cautioned that the CBO projections do not include Bush's proposed spending over the next decade on items such as defense and education.

"When you put those together, what you find is that the invasion of the trust funds is far more serious than has been reported so far, far more serious," Conrad said on Tuesday.

"This is their spending plan. This is their tax plan. They have created this problem," he said of Bush and Republicans in Congress. "They have an obligation to tell us -- for example, when the president asks for $18 billion more for defense next year -- how is he going to pay for it?"

But administration officials and congressional Republicans have defended their priorities and last week's OMB numbers, and say the president's plan will continue to protect the Social Security surplus. GOP lawmakers have said over the past few weeks, as news of the dwindling surplus surfaced, that the tax cut will help to stimulate the economy, and the biggest threat to the surplus is too much spending by Congress.

"The budget is tight, and that is exactly where we want it to be and where we need it to be," said Rep. Jim Nussle, the Iowa Republican who is the House Budget Committee chairman. Nussle noted that much of the surplus was used for tax relief, to put money back in the hands of the taxpayers. He said Congress should be able to garner savings by going after excessive government spending.

Nussle stressed the new numbers are only projections, which he noted are often wrong, as they were in May. "The books aren't closed," he said. "This is a weather report. You've got to wait for the weather to happen."

Rough road ahead
The debate over the dwindling surplus and the budget will likely be the main order of business when both the White House and Congress return from their far-flung vacation destinations next week.

At the top of Congress's 'to do' list in the coming weeks will be completion of the 13 yearly appropriations bills, which will determine how the nation's $2 trillion, fiscal 2002 budget will be spent. The new budget numbers are bound to be a critical factor in the budget battles over that new spending. Already, Democrats have questioned whether the nation can afford some of Bush's spending priorities, in particular the proposed boost for defense spending.

Part of the difference in the estimates between the CBO and the OMB is accounted for by differences in economic forecasts. Last week, OMB predicted the national economy would rebound at the end of this year -- or the beginning of the next -- and grow at a healthy clip of 3.6 percent next year.

The CBO is predicting that the nation will avoid falling into a recession, but its prediction for economic growth next year is considerably lower, just 2.6 percent.

-- CNN's Manuel Perez-Rivas and Ian Christopher McCaleb contributed to this report.

[ August 28, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]

CBO projections are worthless. According to earlier projections, we should be running a massive deficit right now. But of course, they were going on the assumption that Clinton's policies would be continued when they said that, so...

This year's federal budget surplus has plunged to $153 billion because of the nation's economic doldrums and the Bush administration's tax cut, meaning the federal government will have to cover $9 billion of spending by dipping into Social Security, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday.

I fail to see how anyone can not see the inherent stupidity in this paragraph. Why, if we're running a massive surplus, would we possibly need to take money from one program to use it somewhere else?

The U.S. figures its annual bottom line by including all tax revenues - including taxes that can only be used to pay Social Security benefits. If revenues fall short, the government has customarily borrowed from Social Security.

There's a confusing, poorly written paragraph.

Democrats have been quick to use the new budget numbers as backing for a claim they have been making for months -- that the Bush tax cut is too costly, especially in tandem with the administration's proposals to increase spending for defense, education and other programs.

Yet more evidence that they're lying scum. The Bush budget won't go into effect until October. We're operating off of Clinton's last budget. Blame him. And I would point out that the tax cut has a total effect of $40 billion this year, which is only a minor portion of the decrease in the surplus. Under any circumstances, Dachele wanted $60 billion. Gephardt wanted $80 billion. So why are they complaining? Their tax cuts would have had a "worse" effect on this year's surplus.

"They have an obligation to tell us -- for example, when the president asks for $18 billion more for defense next year -- how is he going to pay for it?"

With the massive surplus, perhaps?

Already, Democrats have questioned whether the nation can afford some of Bush's spending priorities, in particular the proposed boost for defense spending.

I will say this one more time.

We. Have. A. Frikin'. Surplus.

A. MASSIVE. Frikin' Surplus.

Yes, it's shrinking, but that's the idea! A surplus is, by definition, unbugeted money. "Oh, but we can't fund XXX existing program without the surplus!" Yes, you CAN! The budget pays for it. The surplus is EXTRA.
 

quote:

---

Yet more evidence that they're lying scum.

---

I fail to see how you can make this claim, given that you lied about the existance of a Social Security trust.
 

B) Your post makes no logical sense. How do you proceed from the demostrably false premise that I lied to the conclusion that I can not say that someone else lied?

C) You have yet to show that there is a trust fund. You showed that there's something refered to as a trust fund refered to in a law related to Social Security, but you did not show that there was any money therein, and thus a fund.

D) You didn't respond to a single point I made. Do so, please.

[ August 28, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]

A well-run, efficient government has zero surplus and zero deficit, much like a well-run, efficient household, once spending and savings are taken care of. A government which has a deficit is spending too much. A government which has a surplus is taxing too much.

Any excess money should be returned whence it came, that it might be used for more practical purposes by the people who earned it in the FIRST place.

The government's money is not their money, it is MY and YOUR money. We earned it, we deserve it back in proportion to how much we gave.

Let me make my OWN "Trust Fund." Let me put it in the bank, where I know it is more likely to still be there, with interest, in 35 years.

The fruits of my labor should be my own.
 

Oh, and Ommie/Jeffie... you're um, well, you know...
 

quote:

---

C) You have yet to show that there is a trust fund. You showed that there's something refered to as a trust fund refered to in a law related to Social Security, but you did not show that there was any money therein, and thus a fund.

---

Social Security Act, Title II, SEC. 201. [42 U.S.C. 401]

quote:

---

(a) There is hereby created on the books of the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the "Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund". The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund shall consist of the securities held by the Secretary of the Treasury for the Old-Age Reserve Account and the amount standing to the credit of the Old-Age Reserve Account on the books of the Treasury on January 1, 1940, which securities and amount the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to transfer to the Federal Old-Age
and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, and, in addition, such gifts and bequests as may be made as provided in subsection (i)(1), and such amounts as may be appropriated to, or deposited in, the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund as hereinafter provided.

---

Reactionary Boy, star of The Conservatism of the Criminally Insane Show likes to have others do the research because he can't be bothered. Rumor has it that he hates being bothered to look this up when he can just post things that just aren't true.

It's so much easier. Conservatism doesn't need to be bogged down by all those weighty facts.

Want to see how money is allocated to the Trust Fund by law without doing the research for yourself? Good, then you have come to the right place. Go here

And in the next episode of The Conservatism of the Criminally Insane Show, we deal with "National Debt: Yes It Really Is As Bad As A Bad Hair Day. Maybe Even Worse."

[ August 28, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

Who do we owe the national debt to... ourselves?

Hey, man, I owe me 50 bucks! When am I gonna pay up?
 

As for First of Two, who are you and what have you done with Rob?
 

Seriously, what is your point? There is a Social Security trust fund but no money in the trurst fund. Which makes the people currently getting from Social Security invisible and the checks delivered by ferries.

Your point (the one your are dead in the water with) and now stuck with (painting you ever greater with the brush of a loud mouth who hasn't a clue) is so incrediblly dumb.

quote:

---

Table III.A1.--Operations of the OASI Trust Fund, Fiscal Year 2000 [In thousands]

Total assets, September 30, 1999: $762,170,038

....

Total assets, September 30, 2000: 893,002,527

---

quote:

---

Who do we owe the national debt to... ourselves?

---

What are you, doing down at Omega's level of stupidity.

Do you not think that the big old bad government borrows money for private organizations and persons from all over the world? Those private people who invest in big bad old government bonds?
 

Okay, I can see how the interest on govt. bonds would be counted as deficit, although the bonds themselves should be counted as income when they're purchased, and not as deficit until they're paid back.

However, I find it difficult to buy that the entire federal deficit is made up of government bonds.

Incidentally, my Almanac says that there was a surplus in 1998, 1999, and 2000, as well. Whered's this surplus go?
 

The surplus is still over $150 billion dollars, even after the tax cut of only $40 billion, and that's far more than any surplus under Clinton. If you don't know these things, then you're not paying attention, and shouldn't be posting in this thread.

As for you, Jay, if you look, you'll find that all social security taxes go straight to the general fund, with all other taxes, and all SS payments come out of it. So where does the supposed money in the trust fund come from? And what is it doing there, if it doesn't get spent? As I said earleir in this thread, the money is a sham. The trust fund was raided, I'd guess to create the supposed surpluses of the Clinton administration, and Congress simply re-recorded the money as an asset. Just because I claim to have money doesn't mean that I do.
 

quote:

---

So where does the supposed money in the trust fund come from?

---

Supposed money? Oh my dear little boy. Ask you not these foolish questions lest not you should look so dumb. All you really need to do is read the previously posted link.

Never fear, I'll post the information for you.

The Law reads:

quote:

---

The amounts appropriated by clauses (3) and (4) shall be transferred from time to time from the general fund in the Treasury to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, and the amounts appropriated by clauses (1) and (2) of subsection (b) shall be transferred from time to time from the general fund in the Treasury to the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, such amounts to be determined on the basis of estimates by the Secretary of the Treasury of the taxes, specified in clauses (3) and (4) of this subsection, paid to or deposited into the Treasury; and proper adjustments shall be made in amounts subsequently transferred to the extent prior estimates were in excess of or were less than the taxes specified in such clauses (3) and (4) of this subsection.

---

There. No need now to bother with that nasty research problem.

quote:

---

As I said earleir in this thread, the money is a sham. The trust fund was raided, I'd guess to create the supposed surpluses of the Clinton administration, and Congress simply re-recorded the money as an asset. Just because I claim to have money doesn't mean that I do.

---

How does one argue with this? The only conclusion I can reach is that you think that the whole of the Social Security Administration is LYING when they post about assets! Every single person who works there.

quote:

---

The OASI Trust Fund was credited with interest netting $53.5 billion which consisted of (1) interest earned on the investments of the trust fund, (2) interest on transfers between the trust fund and the general fund account for the Supplemental Security Income program due to adjustments in the allocation of administrative expenses, (3) interest arising from the revised allocation of administrative expenses among the trust funds, and (4) interest on reimbursements to the trust fund for costs associated with union activities and pension reform. The remaining $475,351 of receipts consisted of gifts received under the provisions authorizing the deposit of money gifts or bequests in the trust funds.

---

Those fibbing bastards!

Those OASDI Trustees can claim money on those damnable "Financial Operations Of The Trust Funds And Leglislative Changes In The Last Year" reports...$53.5 billion in interest alone but we know that that is just a lie! Toss the lot in jail!!

Should we use facts? Dear Lord Vishnu, no. Make something up and blame it on Clinton!

A long time ago, I went to Washington D.C. Had a good time, visited the monuments ect. Now I've not been back in years. I've seen no physical evidence of its existance before my very eyes. It therefore can not exist. That's a very interesting philosophy you've got there. Simon the Solipcist would love it.

There is no supposed money, no alleged money...there is money in a Social Security Trust Fund.

quote:

---

Assets of the OASI Trust Fund, End of Fiscal Years 1999-2000:

September 30, 1999: 762,170,038,441.29
September 30, 2000: 893,002,527,155.96

---

Say that with me now. There is money in a Social Security Trust Fund.

893,002,527,155 dollars worth.

And 96 cents.

Will the facts of the law be good enough? Probably not. How about the factual statement of the assets in the Trust Fund? *shrug*

Facts? Cold hearted facts is what he pretends to want. Is there a Trust Fund. Yes. Is it an aligation? No. It is a real thing. Am I presenting new information? Not at all. Both the "Total assets" fact and the factal text of the law came from two previous links I posted.

Did he read them before posting? Obviously not.

Someone conservative mouthpiece somewhere said there is no Social Security Trust Fund and Omega can't believe otherwise. Regardless of the facts, he remains convinced that day is night and night is day. He'll even post his unsustained beliefs IN. BIG. BOLD. LETTERS.

Omega is wrong, has posted misinformation, and spewed forth a distortion of the truth.

Will he retract THAT. BIG. BOLD. STATEMENT. the same way? Now way. It might be a wimper in the middle of some otherwise mindless post.

[ August 30, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

So basically, this says that the Congress took a frikin' lot of money out of the SS trust fund, and is recording that they're paying interest as they give SS just enough money to work with for that year out of the general fund.

The amounts appropriated by clauses (3) and (4) shall be transferred from time to time from the general fund in the Treasury to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, and the amounts appropriated by clauses (1) and (2) of subsection (b) shall be transferred from time to time from the general fund in the Treasury to the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, such amounts to be determined on the basis of estimates by the Secretary of the Treasury of the taxes, specified in clauses (3) and (4) of this subsection, paid to or deposited into the Treasury; and proper adjustments shall be made in amounts subsequently transferred to the extent prior estimates were in excess of or were less than the taxes specified in such clauses (3) and (4) of this subsection.

OK, so the money in the SS budget comes straight out of the general fund. Exactly what I've been saying. Your SS taxes don't go into some mystical bank account. They go straight to the general fund with every other tax. Further, if that's the case, then there would be no money for SS to work with if the Congress didn't give it some from the general fund. Meaning there is no real trust fund, but simply a division of the federal budget called such.

If it gets paid out every year based on that year's income, it isn't a trust fund. It's wealth redistribution, socialism, and that's a totally different concept.

Thanks for all your help, Jay.
 

cooo-cooo.
 

Actually, Sol, I think the link that Jordan provided us with a couple of weeks ago is even more hard core.

[Edit: added a warning so that no more unsuspecting souls accidentally see and read something they don't want to.]

[ September 03, 2001: Message edited by: Siegfried ]