The Right Side of the News

Really? So then you can easily demonstrate that "fact"!Do so! Demonstrate the fact of what you are asserting!Of course, we all know that you will not. You never do. You never have and you never will.All you ever do is make blatant and obvious false assertions contrary to reality and then try to suck everybody down into your Black Hole of Shtupidity. 
Remember: the deficit is not the same thing as the National Debt!

An unqualified PR flack on the radio says SS contributes to the deficit.QED.

First Faith was challenged repeatedly by the concept of plurals in the English language, then by the fact that the federal deficit and the National Debt are two very different things, and now she is being challenged by the fact that most things have more than one property (eg, ice is both cold and slippery).Social Security and Medicare are entitlements. We paid into them for decades (over four decades in my own case) so we are entitled to the promised benefits. Same thing for any life insurance (or auto or homeowners insurance), in which you have paid your premiums so you are entitled to the benefits of that coverage.Instead, the Wrong (how could anyone possibly call them "right"?) has shifted the meaning to "freebies", that we are lazy bums who "feel entitled" to get something for nothing. As noted above, we paid into the program which entitles us to the benefits.At the same time, those payments are mandatory and make up the part of the Federal Budget called "Mandatory Spending" in contrast to "Discretionary Spending". From that Wikipedia link:

quote:

---

Expenditures are classified as "mandatory", with payments required by specific laws to those meeting eligibility criteria (e.g., Social Security and Medicare), or "discretionary", with payment amounts renewed annually as part of the budget process. Around two thirds of federal spending is for "mandatory" programs. CBO projects that mandatory program spending and interest costs will rise relative to GDP over the 2016—2026 period, while defense and other discretionary spending will decline relative to GDP.

​

Mandatory spending and social safety nets

​

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid expenditures are funded by more permanent Congressional appropriations and so are considered mandatory spen. Social Security and Medicare are sometimes called "entitlements", because people meeting relevant eligibility requirements are legally entitled to benefits, although most pay taxes into these programs throughout their working lives. Some programs, such as Food Stamps, are appropriated entitlements. Some mandatory spending, such as Congressional salaries, is not part of any entitlement program. Mandatory spending accounted for 59.8% of total federal outlays (net of receipts that partially pay for the programs), with net interest payments accounting for an additional 6.5%. In 2000, these were 53.2% and 12.5%, respectively.

---

I read "funded by more permanent Congressional appropriations" as referring to Social Security and Medicare Part A funding coming from specific payroll taxes that go into specific trust funds (Medicare B is funded by participants' monthly insurance premiums while Parts C and D are private insurance).The primary source of the deficit is in the discrepancy between revenues and outlays under "Discretionary Spending", with some of the other mandatory spending (eg, Congressional salaries and pensions) also contributing to the deficit. So then if Congress were truly committed to cutting mandatory spending that would actually affect the deficit, then they should vote to eliminate salaries for congressmen and senators. That would certainly contribute much more to reducing the deficit than cuts to Social Security or Medicare ever could.

And as you yourself pointed out in Message 4828 about Faith's source, Justin Bogie (my emphasis added): Now, I remember Paul Ryan as being one of the most vocal proponents of destroying Social Security and Medicare. Why should we be surprised that Justin Bogie would be carrying on his old boss' misconceived crusade? 

quote:

---

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

---

Paul Ryan is famously obsessed with Ayn Rand and required his staffers to read one of her novels (I forget which one).Ayn Rand in turn idolized William Edward Hickman, a psychopath who in late 1927 kidnapped and murdered Marion Parker, the 12-year-old daughter of a Los Angeles banker. For the ransom payment, he had dismembered her body leaving only her torso and head with eyes propped open so that it would look to her father that she was still alive. After first evading capture, he was finally arrested, tried and executed on the gallows about a year after the kidnapping. Ayn Rand idolized him and planned a novel in which the protagonist, a Nietschian "superman", was patterned after Hickman.So she is the source of inspiration for "libertarians" and "conservatives"? No wonder so many of their ideas and positions seem so evil. And ironically she ended up on Social Security and Medicare.

We've been through all this before and you still have no clue how it works? Then get off your lazy ass and start studying! Sheesh! What's wrong with you? If you were to study then you would be able to understand what Bogie's talking about and be able to tell if it actually rings true and, if he is indeed lying (which we don't doubt) then you won't be deceived by him.But as long as you refuse to even try to learn anything, you will continue to be easy prey for him and his ilk.Here's a practical example of your folly. Back in 2002 I received a cold email from a young creationist with a creationist claim he had just been told in youth camp:

quote:

---

As any good scientist will tell you, the Sun burns half of its mass every year. If you multiply the Sun's mass by millions (even though science says it is in the billions) the Sun will be so incredibly huge it will stretch out past Pluto. And if you say that the planets would stay close to the Sun as it shrank, then why don't the planets still move closer?

---

No scientist would tell us such a thing, because that claim is complete and utter nonsense. The actual facts are that half the sun's mass is concentrated at the core which occupies 1.5% of its volume and it is in the core that the sun is losing mass through fusion. Some creationist at some point saw or heard that half the sun's mass is involved in mass loss through fusion and misunderstood what he was reading or hearing. He repeated that to some other creationist who misunderstood it even worse until that claim degraded to its final ludicrous form. And BTW, as the sun loses mass, its gravity decreases and the planets end up moving farther out, not closer in as per this claim.The object lesson here is that if anybody who had even the most basic understanding of the sun had heard that claim, he would have immediately recognized it for the complete trash that it is and he would not be fooled by it. But instead, abjectly ignrant creationists accepted it uncritically and repeated it to other abjectly ignrant creationists created a long chain of deceived fools.If you were to gain even the most basic understanding of anything that you pontificate about, then you would be able to tell what complete trash your sources are feeding you and be able to break their chain of deceived fools. Different pots of money being filled from different sources being used to pay for different things. Is that beyond your ability to comprehend? Yes, we are using the plural in English, but don't let that frighten you.So let's use an example of running a household budget based on how we used to do it with some additions. My wife and I both worked and made about the same amount and in addition I had a second income from the reserves. We did not co-mingle our money, but rather we both had our own checking and savings accounts -- I had two sets of accounts which I kept separate (and still do). That means that we had three pots of money to work with. Each pot of money had its own separate source of income and each pot of money was used to pay for very specific expenses:

• My reserve pay went into my K account, where that money would accumulate and be used for our annual "balloon payments" of insurance (both auto and homeowners) and property tax.
• My civilian pay went into my C account, which was used for:
  1. The mortgage, including a little extra every month towards the principal.
  2. Utilities.
  3. Fuel for my car.
  4. Car payments (negotiable with T).
  5. My credit card payments (paid off every month).
  6. Personal groceries (mainly fixings for breakfast and lunch)
  7. Personal medical costs (eg, co-pays, non-prescription meds)
  8. Personal incidentals.
  9. Conjugal and family activities (eg, going out for dinner, movies, etc)
• Her pay went into her T account, which was used for:
  1. Family groceries
  2. Clothing
  3. Medical expenses for her and the children
  4. Fuel expenses for her car
  5. Car payments (negotiable with C)
  6. Her credit card payments (paid off every month)
  7. Her own activities (eg, girls' night out)
  8. Personal incidentals.

OK, we have three pots of money: K, C, and T. If a deficit were to arise, where would it be? Any one of the three accounts, of the three pots of money, could develop a deficit. And that deficit would be independent of the other accounts.If one account were to develop a deficit, would cutting costs in the other accounts alleviate that deficit? No, of course not! Changing the spending in the other pots of money would have no effect on spending in the pot suffering from the deficit. The only thing that could possibly affect a pot's deficit would be to change the spending in that pot.It's really that simple and straightforward. How could anybody not be able to understand it? 
Social Security has its own pot of money, its trust fund which is dedicated to paying out SS benefits. That pot is fed by special payroll taxes which are labeled either "Social Security" or "FICA" (when combined with Medicare part A; I've seen both).Medicare has its own pot of money, its trust fund which is dedicated to paying out Medicare benefits. Medicare A is fed by special payroll taxes which are labeled either "Medicare" or "FICA" (when combined with Social Security; I've seen both). Medicare B is fed by monthly insurance premiums paid by recipients. Parts C and D are private medical insurance and so do not involve any government spending. What I am not sure of is whether Parts A and B use the same pot of money or have their own separate pots, but that has no effect on the federal deficit.What's left is a communal pot of money that is fed by all government revenues except for Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. Out of that communal pot of money come about half the mandatory spending and all of the discretionary spending. That is where the deficit comes from. And either Social Security nor Medicare have anything whatsoever to do with it, since they are paid for out of their own separate pots of money.Back in mid-November in Dominant Force in West Today According to Dennis Prager is Fear of Left I replied to JonF's reply to you, Message 98, with my own Message 100. JonF presented two pie graphs showing what percentages of the outlays went to what in 2018. In my reply, I pointed out that his graphs don't separate out which outlays came from which pots of money and even that there was no mention that there actually are separate pots of money. I took data from a graphic for the 2018 Federal Budget from Wikipedia's United States Federal Budget: Then I broke all the figures down: We can also learn about how much federal spending is going where from economist and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich's video, "Where Your Tax Dollars Really Go": I had prepared a list of the percentages he presents for discretionary spending, but haven't posted them on this forum yet ... until now: Faith, I do realize that this is casting pearls before swine yet again. At least others can learn something even if you are a lost cause.

I WILL NOT CALL HIM A LlAR AND SINCE YOU DO I WILL NOT READ YOUR POST. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Then fuck you, you Black Hole of Sthupidity.But what did I write? IFYour grasp of English is so abysmal that you have no comprehension of a conditional?If you do find that he is lying to you, then why wouldn't you call him a liar? That's yet another conditional that I just used. Because you're a fucking lying hypocrite yourself?

You forgot to mention lawless, dishonest, retributive, intimidating, vindictive and tyranical. Empty denial looks so good on you, and the additional flourish of a gratuitous and erroneous insult was icing on the cake. Don't forget to deny that Republicans in Congress are enablers of all this.But most of my message was about hearsay, and Message 4647 contains a lengthy cut-n-paste of the actual Fiona Hill testimony, the testimony you keep mischaracterizing. Have you no interest in backing up your claims of hearsay with fact? Do you not care whether your accusations are true? It certainly appears that way.--Percy

Are you drinking again, David? Let's try not to get personal with Faith. And there is no need to use profanity to make your points.Edited by AdminPhat, : David,not Duane

Would be nice if the mods would moderate Faith. How many lies, micharecterizations and attacks against "leftists" is she allowed before you have the balls to say something to her?

I found those definitions very confusing. All we need to do for Faith is provide a clear, understandable and unambiguous definition of hearsay, and I don't think this does that.Here's the whole thing from Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay | Federal Rules of Evidence | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. It appears to be defining not what constitutes hearsay but what doesn't. I think few non-lawyers could make sense of this. I certainly can't:

quote:

---

1. Statement. Statement means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.
   ​
2. Declarant. Declarant means the person who made the statement.
   ​
3. Hearsay. Hearsay means a statement that:
   ​
   1. the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and
      ​
   2. a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
   ​
4. Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:
   ​
   1. A Declarant-Witness’s Prior Statement. The declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement:
      ​
      1. is inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition;
         ​
      2. is consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered:
         ​
         9. to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying; or
            ​
         10. to rehabilitate the declarant's credibility as a witness when attacked on another ground; or
         ​
      3. identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier.
      ​
   2. An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and:
      ​
      1. was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;
         ​
      2. is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true;
         ​
      3. was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject;
         ​
      4. was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or
         ​
      5. was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
      ​
      The statement must be considered but does not by itself establish the declarant’s authority under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship under (D); or the existence of the conspiracy or participation in it under (E).

---

If you were just trying to help me understand the formal legal definition of hearsay then thanks for trying, but this is beyond me.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Edit introductory paragraph to be more clear.

Any excuse to avoid reality.What he said is false, proven over and over. Call it what you will, it remains false.It's apparent his field of expertise is appearing on TV and radio. Reading his biography on the Heritage Foundation site, it seems very unlikely he has studied retirement economics to any noticeable extent.

I have no difficulty understanding that. I am not a lawyer.I think the most understandable definition is the first one I posted.There is no definition so simple that Faith will understand it.

Cold sober for more than a week. It's factual. Faith is a f*cking liar. Just now, she deliberately lied in order to fake an excuse to avoid the facts and reality yet again!She repeats the same sick and demented pattern over and over and over and f*cking over again. She spouts her liies. Everybody corrects her and she ignores them and just repeats her liies. When she does "engage", she does so by lying about what we tell her, citing sources who are lying, citing valid sources whom she then misrepresents and lies about, and/or by spouting a new set of liies. Then when she finally finds her position untenable, she concocts some lame excuse to fun away, including her eyesight (which just conveniently happens to go out at that point), somebody looked at her wrong so now she's too upset, she arbitrarily decides to ignore the facts because of some dreamed up offense, whatever other lie she can dream up as an excuse. Then later she comes back with the same old liies and starts the cycle all over again. And she does it all deliberately!She is a f*cking liar. She is a deliberate deceiver. She is a willing and willful accomplice to traitors to America. She is an abomination. And she is the very model of a creationist and a "true Christian."

They likely already have homes in many countries and "official" residence for tax purposes in a tax free country.That's why we need to revive corporate taxes and taxes on stocks and equities: if you make money in the US you pay US taxes on it. Exactly. They also buy stocks in their companies to raise the stock values (an artificial value that isn't real until stocks are sold). Exactly, whereas higher taxes mean they allocate more to lower their taxable value, and THAT creates jobs or increases payroll. Curiously it seems to me that if the economy depends on some people being unemployed there is something amiss in the system.And IF having people unemployed is of value to the economy then they should be compensated.There are also other considerations: earning money isn't the end-all be-all of life, where does capitalism provide for arts and crafts? The idea that a pursuit is of no value unless it makes money, especially enough to live on, seems stunted, narrow minded, and drab. Not just unemployment but under-employment as well, where jobs worked are insufficient for living and so these workers qualify for assistance. A living wage requirement would eliminate the need for such assistance for most of the people in the system.But I also like Yang's basic income, as it allows artists and musicians, dancers, academicians, scientists, etc to pursue their crafts and in the process brighten the lives of everyone. The return is a more complete population.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : st