CBO predicts Social Security cash deficits in 2010-11

RightinNYC said:

I don't see how any of this is inconsistent with what I've said. The fact that actual bonds (albeit special, non-marketable ones) are being purchased doesn't change the fact that it's largely an accounting trick. If you owe yourself something, it doesn't really matter what form you pretend to owe it in.There is no pile of money sitting around, waiting for us to start drawing from it - just a stack of non-negotiable and non-marketable securities.



Again, this is an accounting method. On paper, we've promised to pay back that amount and are even keeping track of the interest that we're promising as well. However, it's absolutely undisputed that the excess funds are being spent. Look at any budget from the past 20 years, or hell, listen to Clinton's OMB:



Or a recent director of the CBO:



Or, if you still refuse to listen to that, we can turn to the Social Security Administration itself:

Click to expand...

You have quoted an excerpt on the CATO institutes Social Security Privatization case page, and a Republican CBO director who was also a special assistant to Reagan, who earlier in the testimony you quoted stated:

" The thing that the Director and Barry and I probably
disagree about the most is what you can do with trust fund
accounting.

Click to expand...

And he then goes on to give a non-standard explanation of trust fund accounting.


If you want to see what the SSA itself says, here you go:

Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.
Trust Fund FAQs

Click to expand...

As to your statement that actual bonds being purchased doesn't change the fact that it's largely an accounting a trick is simply false. They are legal debt obligations backed by the full faith and credit of the US Gov't. There is simply no economist or credit agency anywhere that believes that the US Gov't will default on its bonds.


Here is a Paul Krugman post taking apart the SS Privatization fear-mongerers who want the public to think the SSTF is a fiction:

(snip ... )

But the privatizers won’t take yes for an answer when it comes to the sustainability of Social Security. Their answer to the pretty good numbers is to say that the trust fund is meaningless, because it’s invested in U.S. government bonds. They aren’t really saying that government bonds are worthless; their point is that the whole notion of a separate budget for Social Security is a fiction. And if that’s true, the idea that one part of the government can have a positive trust fund while the government as a whole is in debt does become strange.

But there are two problems with their position.

more ...

About the Social Security trust fund - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

Click to expand...

RightinNYC said:

I know. Where did I say anything contradictory?



I know. Where did I say anything contradictory?

Rather than set up strawmen, why don't you try addressing my actual points?



Again, you're completely missing the point and talking about something that's relatively irrelevant. Regardless of the national debt, SS is still structurally unsound in the long term. That's what an unfunded liability is. This is really not disputable.



No, a decision to use ever increasing draws on general revenues to subsidize a program that was supposed to be self-contained is most certainly a structural failing. I can't believe I have to argue this.



Why don't you tally up that 25% cut and let me know what the net value of that is?



The fact that you don't see either of those scenarios as a huge problem is prima facie evidence that you don't understand what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

Social Security is not structurally unsound in the long term. Yes, some changes will have to be made, in terms of age and benefit levels, however expecting that no changes would ever be made is unreasonable.

There is no ever increasing draws on general funds to subsidize a program that is supposed to be self-sustaining, there is repayment of federal funds held in bonds by the funds.

You are the one setting up the strawman. You are building up the fact that the gov't will have to repay funds to the trust fund into an argument that the fund doesn't exist, and the program will be subsidized by general funds. It's false and dishonest .... unless you are just going to go with the statement that Reagan and Greenspan were dishonest when they sold the public on a highly regressive tax meant to fund future ss benefits when they never had any intention of having the dedicated tax fund anything but tax cuts for the rich and burgeoning deficits that 'fueled' voodoo supply side gimicks? Of course, this 'argument' also implicitly assumes that the US Congress will at some point in the future actually vote to default on the legal debt instruments held by the SSTF?

jackalope said:

You have quoted an excerpt on the CATO institutes Social Security Privatization case page, and a Republican CBO director who was also a special assistant to Reagan, who earlier in the testimony you quoted stated:

And he then goes on to give a non-standard explanation of trust fund accounting.

Click to expand...

And I also quoted Clinton's director of the OMB, but I note that you ignore that. Why is it that you choose to ignore the things you don't like and just focus on the sources of the others?

If you want to see what the SSA itself says, here you go:

As to your statement that actual bonds being purchased doesn't change the fact that it's largely an accounting a trick is simply false. They are legal debt obligations backed by the full faith and credit of the US Gov't. There is simply no economist or credit agency anywhere that believes that the US Gov't will default on its bonds.

Click to expand...

For the third (and hopefully last) time, I don't know why you think this is inconsistent with what I've been trying to explain to you.

Yes, the special bonds that the treasury is buying have "value" so long as the government intends to honor the SS obligations. Yes, the government will almost certainly honor those obligations. This value exists much in the same way that a promise to pay you $10 from a friend who always pays his money back is the equivalent of $10.

That's not the point.

-The very act of honoring those obligations will involve diverting general revenues to "pay back" the money.

-As a result, the intragovernmental debt that we've built up will simply be shifted over to public debt (unless you think we're running surpluses any times soon).

-Once that "debt" runs out, we're going to be stuck with a system with ever-increasing deficits and no cushion.

If you disagree with any of these facts, please explain why.

Here is a Paul Krugman post taking apart the SS Privatization fear-mongerers who want the public to think the SSTF is a fiction:

Click to expand...

Oh my. Please, please reread everything I've written and then reread the entire article you've linked. For the most part, Krugman is saying the exact same thing I've been saying since the beginning. The only real difference between us is that he doesn't see a problem with SS's rapidly increasing deficits eating up a large share of general revenue. I do, not because it's not "owed" to the SS program, but because it's simply bad news for the country. Furthermore, Krugman ignores the question of what we do after the fund is exhausted. This may simply be because he's overly optimistic:

The date at which the trust fund will run out, according to Social Security Administration projections, has receded steadily into the future: 10 years ago it was 2029, now it’s 2042.

Click to expand...

That didn't turn out the way he thought it would, did it?

Alternatively, it may be because he, like every other politician or political pundit dealing with this, will be dead and rotting by the time that my generation is left to wipe up the **** that his generation has left for us.

RightinNYC said:

And I also quoted Clinton's director of the OMB, but I note that you ignore that. Why is it that you choose to ignore the things you don't like and just focus on the sources of the others?



For the third (and hopefully last) time, I don't know why you think this is inconsistent with what I've been trying to explain to you.

Yes, the special bonds that the treasury is buying have "value" so long as the government intends to honor the SS obligations. Yes, the government will almost certainly honor those obligations. This value exists much in the same way that a promise to pay you $10 from a friend who always pays his money back is the equivalent of $10.

That's not the point.

-The very act of honoring those obligations will involve diverting general revenues to "pay back" the money.

-As a result, the intragovernmental debt that we've built up will simply be shifted over to public debt (unless you think we're running surpluses any times soon).

-Once that "debt" runs out, we're going to be stuck with a system with ever-increasing deficits and no cushion.

If you disagree with any of these facts, please explain why.



Oh my. Please, please reread everything I've written and then reread the entire article you've linked. For the most part, Krugman is saying the exact same thing I've been saying since the beginning. The only real difference between us is that he doesn't see a problem with SS's rapidly increasing deficits eating up a large share of general revenue. I do, not because it's not "owed" to the SS program, but because it's simply bad news for the country. Furthermore, Krugman ignores the question of what we do after the fund is exhausted. This may simply be because he's overly optimistic:



That didn't turn out the way he thought it would, did it?

Alternatively, it may be because he, like every other politician or political pundit dealing with this, will be dead and rotting by the time that my generation is left to wipe up the **** that his generation has left for us.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't ignore the quote the CATO org's SS Privatization page excerpted, I noted that it was excerpting quotes intended to support its position. The quotes on CATO's page do nothing to negate the fact that the SSTF exists, it holds legal debt instruments, and those debt instruments will be repaid.

As to diverting general funds to repay debts - we will eventually divert general funds to repay all debts, not just those held by the SSTF. We can start by taxing the rich and cutting defense spending, and someone in the thread suggested, and you dismissed. There is a long-term structural problem with the US Budget, but it is not in the SS funding, despite the many, unsuccessful attempts of the right to make it so.

Besides the fact that your argument rests on the fact that the Congress would actually have to authorize a debt instrument default (never gonna happen, and again no economist or rating agency believes that will happen), and the US Gov't will have a crisis of epic proportions (a default? are you serious?), the political fallout of such a scam being pulled (the 80-s era imposition of a much higher, highly regressive, dedicated tax to fund boomer SS benefits) would be epic as well.

Your arguments are dishonest, and pretend that we can actually just wave a magic wand and declare some debts will not be paid. Never gonna happen. And it shouldn't.

Frankly, the most dishonest aspect of the argument is that it is made at all. It is morally reprehensible to argue in favor of taking the surpluses built via regressive taxation, meant to be a dedicated funding source for social security, and declare they do not exist and those funds do not need to be repaid because we need the money to pay other debts instead (funded by ill-advised republican policies of funding tax cuts for the rich and war via deficit spending).

jackalope said:

No, I didn't ignore the quote the CATO org's SS Privatization page excerpted, I noted that it was excerpting quotes intended to support its position. The quotes on CATO's page do nothing to negate the fact that the SSTF exists, it holds legal debt instruments, and those debt instruments will be repaid.

As to diverting general funds to repay debts - we will eventually divert general funds to repay all debts, not just those held by the SSTF. We can start by taxing the rich and cutting defense spending, and someone in the thread suggested, and you dismissed. There is a long-term structural problem with the US Budget, but it is not in the SS funding, despite the many, unsuccessful attempts of the right to make it so.

Besides the fact that your argument rests on the fact that the Congress would actually have to authorize a debt instrument default (never gonna happen, and again no economist or rating agency believes that will happen), and the US Gov't will have a crisis of epic proportions (a default? are you serious?), the political fallout of such a scam being pulled (the 80-s era imposition of a much higher, highly regressive, dedicated tax to fund boomer SS benefits) would be epic as well.

Your arguments are dishonest, and pretend that we can actually just wave a magic wand and declare some debts will not be paid. Never gonna happen. And it shouldn't.

Click to expand...

Why do you continue to respond as if I'm talking about whether or not the US will default on this debt? I have never once suggested this, and I'm beginning to conclude that you just aren't understanding what I'm writing.

We will almost certainly dole out all of the money that the government has said it would, but it's that very act of paying it back that will be so problematic. The fact that you don't recognize this (not to mention your insistence that a $17,500,000,000,000 unfunded liability is "not a problem") means that you're just plain wrong.

edit:

re:

Frankly, the most dishonest aspect of the argument is that it is made at all. It is morally reprehensible to argue in favor of taking the surpluses built via regressive taxation, meant to be a dedicated funding source for social security, and declare they do not exist and those funds do not need to be repaid because we need the money to pay other debts instead (funded by ill-advised republican policies of funding tax cuts for the rich and war via deficit spending).

Click to expand...

Thanks, that's the confirmation that I needed to be sure that you have no clue what I'm talking about. Go back through my posts and see if you can find one place where I suggest this.

jackalope said:

Sorry, T-bonds are real investments. They earn interest every year. There is nothing imaginary about the Social Security Trust Fund.

Click to expand...

I hate to tell you this but the government doesn't invest that money into value based products and services.

No "profit" is generated to pay the interest on those loans it has made to itself.

jackalope said:

They are AAA rated.

Click to expand...

Yea and so were the all those mortgage backed securities that helped tank our economy.
Having a AAA rating doesn't mean squat anymore.

RightinNYC said:

Why do you continue to respond as if I'm talking about whether or not the US will default on this debt? I have never once suggested this, and I'm beginning to conclude that you just aren't understanding what I'm writing.

We will almost certainly dole out all of the money that the government has said it would, but it's that very act of paying it back that will be so problematic. The fact that you don't recognize this (not to mention your insistence that a $17,500,000,000,000 unfunded liability is "not a problem") means that you're just plain wrong.

edit:

re:



Thanks, that's the confirmation that I needed to be sure that you have no clue what I'm talking about. Go back through my posts and see if you can find one place where I suggest this.

Click to expand...

Here you go, posted by you on the first page of this thread, and argued by you elsewhere:

Please explain where this trust fund is located and how Congress will tap it. This should be amusing.

Click to expand...

You've stated that there are no assets being held, simply 'IOUs' that mean nothing.


Paying back those debts will not be problematic, if any credit agency thought so that fact would be reflected in a downgraded credit rating. It would further be reflected in the ongoing treasury auctions, which would demand junk bond interest levels b/c the risk of non-repayment would be high.

You are not arguing economics, or business, or even investment principles. You are making a purely political argument, implying that the SSTF does not exist, and there are no legal debt instruments, simply IOUs which will not be repaid.


You often finish your arguments with statements that the other person has no idea what the topic is about, or should not be taken seriously for this reason or that. Those statements and arguments diminish your own position, particularly since you fail to lay a sound foundation for your own argument. That has happened with posts of yours in economics, and in statistics. Because you find right-wing arguments and talking points compelling doesn't lend them logic.


The SSTF does exist. The Congress will never vote to default on the debt instruments held by the fund. The Congress *should* never vote to do so.

The structural problems with the US deficit do not lie in the SS program, they lie elsewhere. Addressing those problems, particularly with taxes on the rich, and most particularly with addressing the actual crisis - Medicare - is of paramount importance.

Acknowledging past Republican economic policy decision failures regarding funding tax cuts for the wealthy and funding wars with deficit spending is important. Those policy decisions should never be made again.

Apart from addressing the deficit, the debt must be addressed. The debt held by the SSTF eclipsed by the debt held by the public, and particularly debt held by foreign nations. This is of far greater concern, and stealing SSTF funds will not solve that problem.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I hate to tell you this but the government doesn't invest that money into value based products and services.

No "profit" is generated to pay the interest on those loans it has made to itself.



Yea and so were the all those mortgage backed securities that helped tank our economy.
Having a AAA rating doesn't mean squat anymore.

Click to expand...

Thank goodness, there was an ill-advised Republican push to privatize the SSTF. Baaddd freaking idea.

Sorry, mtge backed securities are not on par with treasuries. Corporate bonds are often priced in relation to treasuries. Holders of corporate bonds demand risk premiums not associated with treasuries.

Altho, there is no question that rating agencies did flub on those mtge backed securities.

jackalope said:

Thank goodness, there was an ill-advised Republican push to privatize the SSTF. Baaddd freaking idea.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with that mainly because Social Security is inherently discriminatory against some racial minorities and my private investments will forever out pace anything I put in or receive from SS.

If I have full access to my wages, I can earn exponentially more than I can now.

jackalope said:

Sorry, mtge backed securities are not on par with treasuries. Corporate bonds are often priced in relation to treasuries. Holders of corporate bonds demand risk premiums not associated with treasuries.

Altho, there is no question that rating agencies did flub on those mtge backed securities.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, the rating agencies labeled them as AAA.
I don't judge what is or is not a good investment based on arbitrary ratings, I dive right into the companies financial records.

If the U.S. government were a private company, I'd be highly skeptical of buying into it.

jackalope said:

Here you go, posted by you on the first page of this thread, and argued by you elsewhere:

You've stated that there are no assets being held, simply 'IOUs' that mean nothing.

Click to expand...

1) How the **** does that have anything to do with me saying we shouldn't/won't pay it back, which is your claim?

2) They are IOUs. Again, the fact that they gussied them up by issuing non-marketable securities doesn't mean that they're anything more than that. They are an asset on paper.

Paying back those debts will not be problematic, if any credit agency thought so that fact would be reflected in a downgraded credit rating.

It would further be reflected in the ongoing treasury auctions, which would demand junk bond interest levels b/c the risk of non-repayment would be high.

Click to expand...

Explain how you think this money will be paid back. Tell me exactly where you think the actual payments will come from.

If your answer is anything other than "general revenues," you're dead wrong. Again, this is not something that is up for discussion:

Why is Reform to Improve the Social Security and Medicare Financial Imbalances Needed?

Concern about the long-range financial outlook for Medicare and Social Security often focuses on the exhaustion dates for the HI and OASDI Trust Funds—the time when projected finances under current law would be insufficient to pay the full amount of scheduled benefits. A more immediate issue is the growing burden that the programs will place on the Federal budget well before the trust funds are exhausted.

The difference between the cost of scheduled benefits and tax income for the HI and OASDI Trust Funds is shown in Chart E, together with the Federal general fund revenues provided under current law for SMI. During 2009-17 for HI, general revenues (the red bars in the chart) must be used to cover the interest earnings and asset redemptions required to offset the shortfall of HI tax revenues. Similarly, general revenues cover these offsets for the OASDI deficits during 2016-37 (blue bars).

Click to expand...

Trustees Report Summary

You are not arguing economics, or business, or even investment principles. You are making a purely political argument, implying that the SSTF does not exist, and there are no legal debt instruments, simply IOUs which will not be repaid.

Click to expand...

HOLY ****, I did not say they will not be repaid. Read the words on your computer screen.

You often finish your arguments with statements that the other person has no idea what the topic is about, or should not be taken seriously for this reason or that. Those statements and arguments diminish your own position, particularly since you fail to lay a sound foundation for your own argument. That has happened with posts of yours in economics, and in statistics. Because you find right-wing arguments and talking points compelling doesn't lend them logic.

Click to expand...

It's hard not to point that out when you're so blatantly misreading everything I'm saying.

The SSTF does exist. The Congress will never vote to default on the debt instruments held by the fund. The Congress *should* never vote to do so.

Click to expand...

I didn't say they should. Read what's on your screen.

jackalope said:

You have quoted an excerpt on the CATO institutes Social Security Privatization case page, and a Republican CBO director who was also a special assistant to Reagan, who earlier in the testimony you quoted stated:

:

Click to expand...

Par for the course.

Here is his defense of torture using a cut-n-paste of an unspecified DOJ memo.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...427-c-i-double-jeopardy-3.html#post1058232014

Of couse he didn't of expect me to know this was the infamous Bybee memo.

Just read what became of the Bybee memo and it's authors.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_Memo]Bybee Memo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]



********************


Read this whole thread again Jackalope.

Notice who we have a person that pretty much has walked away from everything he was hinting at, and implying about? He wanted this fearmongering about Social Security to hang out there until facts just overwhelmed him.

I've never seen anything like it.

dragondad said:

Read this whole thread again Jackalope.

Notice who we have a person that pretty much has walked away from everything he was hinting at, and implying about? He wanted this fearmongering about Social Security to hang out there until facts just overwhelmed him.

I've never seen anything like it.

Click to expand...

No, Right has laid out everything for you and has even do so multiple times but your serious reading comprehension deficiency and absolute partisan attitude have kept you from understanding the problem.

But go ahead and keep thank whoring each other for your lack of reading skills.

Harry Guerrilla said:

No, Right has laid out everything for you and has even do so multiple times but your serious reading comprehension deficiency and absolute partisan attitude have kept you from understanding the problem.

But go ahead and keep thank whoring each other for your lack of reading skills.

Click to expand...

The only 'problem' that Right has laid out the case for is there's a big, giant, pile of money that he wants to confiscate to use to paof deficits piled on by irresponsible Republican past policies.

We understand quite clearly he's jonesing for that trust fund. Why not, using the fruits of perhaps the most highly regressive federal tax out there, to pay for handing out money hand over fist to the wealthiest strata of our society would be the perfect epitaph to the middle class gutting that commenced under Reaganomics.

And, Right's problem is not our lack of reading comprehension, but rather actually comprehending the fraudulence of his 'arguments'.

jackalope said:

The only 'problem' that Right has laid out the case for is there's a big, giant, pile of money that he wants to confiscate to use to paof deficits piled on by irresponsible Republican past policies.

We understand quite clearly he's jonesing for that trust fund. Why not, using the fruits of perhaps the most highly regressive federal tax out there, to pay for handing out money hand over fist to the wealthiest strata of our society would be the perfect epitaph to the middle class gutting that commenced under Reaganomics.

Click to expand...

There is no pile of money anywhere.
T-bills and bonds are not piles of money, they are promissory notes.

Check this out, I'm going to make a virtual promissory note:

I promise to pay the bearer of this virtual note $10.

That's essentially what the government has created for itself.
It promises to pay itself back money that it has borrowed from itself.

Can you not see the problem with this type of accounting?
If not then I hear Enron is looking for some help.

Harry Guerrilla said:

There is no pile of money anywhere.
T-bills and bonds are not piles of money, they are promissory notes.

Check this out, I'm going to make a virtual promissory note:

I promise to pay the bearer of this virtual note $10.

That's essentially what the government has created for itself.
It promises to pay itself back money that it has borrowed from itself.

Can you not see the problem with this type of accounting?
If not then I hear Enron is looking for some help.

Click to expand...

You made nothing, and display a lack of basic legal understanding.

You applaud Right's contradictory arguments that the SSTF is meaningless IOU's, which will nonetheless be repaid?

It's utterly ridiculous.

jackalope said:

You made nothing, and display a lack of basic legal understanding.

You applaud Right's contradictory arguments that the SSTF is meaningless IOU's, which will nonetheless be repaid?

It's utterly ridiculous.

Click to expand...

He isn't making contradictory arguments.

-He is saying that Congress authorized the use of the SSTF as general revenue and replaced those funds with promissory notes.

-Those promissory notes are only representations of debt.

-The terms of those promissory notes can be changed at any time, for any reason by the Congress.

So there is no trust fund of cash, only a fund of promissory notes.
The terms of which can be altered at any time by Congress.
Which is effect creates a trust fund of IOU's.

Please don't question my understanding of legal principles and doctrine.
I've studied this extensively both on a collegiate level and on my own time.

Harry Guerrilla said:

He isn't making contradictory arguments.

-He is saying that Congress authorized the use of the SSTF as general revenue and replaced those funds with promissory notes.

-Those promissory notes are only representations of debt.

-The terms of those promissory notes can be changed at any time, for any reason by the Congress.

So there is no trust fund of cash, only a fund of promissory notes.
The terms of which can be altered at any time by Congress.
Which is effect creates a trust fund of IOU's.

Please don't question my understanding of legal principles and doctrine.
I've studied this extensively both on a collegiate level and on my own time.

Click to expand...

So, which is it, these pieces of paper are meaningless IOUs, or these pieces of paper will be repaid? Which one of Right's arguments are you siding with?

And, I see you now include the option that Congress will vote to default on these bonds. The terms of the 'promissory notes' cannot be changed by the Congress at any time, for any reason. They can default, pay them back, refinance them with new issuance. They do not have the option to change the terms at any time for any reason - that would fall under 'default'. Which is not gonna happen.

Harry Guerrilla said:

There is no pile of money anywhere.
T-bills and bonds are not piles of money, they are promissory notes.

Check this out, I'm going to make a virtual promissory note:

I promise to pay the bearer of this virtual note $10.

That's essentially what the government has created for itself.
It promises to pay itself back money that it has borrowed from itself.

Can you not see the problem with this type of accounting?
If not then I hear Enron is looking for some help.

Click to expand...

I'd like to end this debate with this oh so typical argument from the serious, informed "fiscal Conservative" side.

It sums up their claims nicely.

dragondad said:

I'd like to end this debate with this oh so typical argument from the serious, informed "fiscal Conservative" side.

It sums up their claims nicely.

Click to expand...

It does doesn't it.
You can't read or refuse to acknowledge what has been written in favor of personal attacks.

Refute me or concede that you are wrong and move on.

jackalope said:

So, which is it, these pieces of paper are meaningless IOUs, or these pieces of paper will be repaid? Which one of Right's arguments are you siding with?

And, I see you now include the option that Congress will vote to default on these bonds. The terms of the 'promissory notes' cannot be changed by the Congress at any time, for any reason. They can default, pay them back, refinance them with new issuance. They do not have the option to change the terms at any time for any reason - that would fall under 'default'. Which is not gonna happen.

Click to expand...

Who knows, it is at the discretion of Congress to decide.
They may decide to fulfill them full or they may decide to only pay cents on the dollar.

They can change the terms at any time, they make the laws including any changes to contractual laws.
If I'm not mistaken the supreme court has ruled that you do not own SS benefits.

I'll have to find it.

dragondad said:

Par for the course.

Here is his defense of torture using a cut-n-paste of an unspecified DOJ memo.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...427-c-i-double-jeopardy-3.html#post1058232014

Of couse he didn't of expect me to know this was the infamous Bybee memo.

Click to expand...

It was incredibly easy for anyone who has paid the slightest bit of attention or who used a modicum of critical thought to understand exactly where that quote came from. It's not my fault that you're incapable of understanding that.

jackalope said:

The only 'problem' that Right has laid out the case for is there's a big, giant, pile of money that he wants to confiscate to use to paof deficits piled on by irresponsible Republican past policies

Click to expand...

For the last time, you are still having difficulties comprehending my point. I would ask you (again) to point out where I advocated for not paying back those "debts" or for taking them from someone else, but that would imply that I care what you say in response. At this point, I'm only embarrassing myself by bothering to respond to either of you.