Slashdot Mirror
Former First Lady Nancy Reagan Dead At 94 (nbcnews.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Former first lady Nancy Reagan has died, according to a spokeswoman with the Reagan Library. She was 94. The cause of death was congestive heart failure, according to her rep Joanne Drake. "Mrs. Reagan will be buried at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, next to her husband, Ronald Wilson Reagan, who died on June 5, 2004," Drake wrote in a statement. May she rest in peace.
stuff that matters
Don't use drugs, kids.
On average.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Try Facebook next time.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
What exactly did Reagan do that previous administrations back to Truman's hadn't done?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Other random people dead at ages other than 94!!!
No news articles about that.
Nancy Reagan had nowhere near the level of awesomeness that was Eleanor Roosevelt, but she did a few things.
After Ronald Reagan's term in office, she devoted most of her time to caring for her him. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994, until his death at the age of 93 in 2004. Nancy remained active within the Reagan Library and in politics, particularly in support of embryonic stem cell research, until her death in 2016.
She was also well-known for her "Just say no" campaign on drugs; for replacing the White House China with a full service order from Lenox for the first time since the Truman administration; and for renovating the White House when it was in a state of disrepair, largely with private donations.
What exactly did Reagan do that previous administrations back to Truman's hadn't done?
Americans don't care what their politicians do, only what they say. Reagan talked like a conservative, but governed like a liberal, running big deficits, negotiating with Gorbachev, continuing and expanding most social spending, etc. So conservatives loved him and liberals hated him. Bill Clinton did the opposite: he talked like a liberal, but governed as a conservative. He cut welfare, balanced the budget, pushed through free market reforms and free trade agreements, and sent bombers into the Balkans. So liberals loved him, and conservatives hated him.
Already done.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
heart failure.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
"You learn something out of everything, and you come to realize more than ever that we're all here for a certain space of time, and, and then it's going to be over, and you better make this count."
RIP
Reagan did not start out negotiating with the Soviets, he initially scared the crap of them and they were convinced that Reagan was going to start a war with a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Reagan slowly transitioned to a defensive posture and then finally to a de-arming posture (The Dead Hand by David Hoffman touches on this and the Soviet militaries view of the west... it's a great read).
Reagan is not a demi-god but he was a lot shrewder and capable than a lot of people want to give him credit for.
I am sure she'd like it. It's such a wholesome family friendly song!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Both were standing against strongly opposed congresses for most of their administrations.
We're still waiting for the 'spending cut' parts of Grahm-Rudman. We should never accept another 'taxes now, spending cuts later' deal until the first is fulfilled.
What you are putting on Ron and Bill is more on Tip and Newt. If that's credit or blame will depend on your views.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Once again, Slashdot is behind the curve, I read this on TMZ 5 hours ago!
Then read "firehose". Or become a patron and see news items after they're vetted but before they hit the front page.
I see two complaints a lot:
- It's not news for nerds / stuff that matters.
- It's slow.
You can't have both fast and filtered. It takes time to sift the jems from the slush.
Further: faster processing means more errors, while better (though still "imperfect") filtering means later stories. And there's no way to get the filtering right for all readers: I'm constantly finding stories I consider "news for me (a nerd) and stuff that matters (to me, a nerd)" to attract a chorus of one, or (as in this case) both, complaints.
I like Slashdot's setting of the fast - filtered tweak knob. I can always skip stuff *I* don't consider interesting, and it has a HELL of a lot of stuff I *AM* interested in, presented in a timely enough manner to be useful (when the rest of the media ignores it completely or warps it out of recognition).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
How do we get these gorblimey posts?
Oh man. Where to start?
http://listverse.com/2015/01/1...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Reagan Administration stands as the only US administration that was ever convicted of crimes against humanity.
And that doesn't even count his domestic policies that hollowed out the middle class and started our slide into the economic inequality we have today. He dumped crack cocaine into the inner cities to fund illegal wars in Central America and turned the School of the Americas into a training center for hit squads that massacred innocent people, including Jesuit priests and nuns.
He was by far the president that did the most lasting damage to the United States of America.
You are welcome on my lawn.
How can they tell?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Liberals don't run deficits. Liberals tax and spend. Under Obama the deficit has come down at a record rate.
Clinton gave Bush a budget surplus, Bush blew that so fast that people don't remember.
It's the Republicans' near demonic desire to defund government that drives debt and deficits, because you can't cut your way to prosperity, but you can cut yourself into a recession.
See Iraq and Afghanistan wars for proof, you would think you'd raise taxes during war, instead, Bush sent everyone a check. Literally.
You're repeating a common line about things that are easily disproven.
You may not like that liberals want to use government to solve problems with your tax money, but they will raise taxes to pay for things. Conservatives seem to think bombs and tanks are free, because America!
But to be fair she lived much longer than most rich voters.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Nancy Reagan was born the same year the flow chart was first described in the literature. You can read the paper here.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
She was predeceased by her astrologer by more than a year. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Reagan did not govern like a liberal. That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard and considering some of the conservative comments around here that's saying a lot.
Yes, he ran up huge deficits. So has every other modern 'conservative'. It's part of their playbook--literally. Look up the Two Santa Claus Theory. When conservatives are in power they spend like drunken sailors to pump up the economy and make themselves look good (and their corporate buddies rich). See Dick Cheney's 'deficits don't matter' quote. They don't matter--until a liberal is in office, at which point conservatives start screaming about the debt in an attempt to make sure that liberal programs don't get enacted.
See, liberal economic policies gave us a nation with a huge middle class, strong unions and worker protection, and massive economic prosperity because those things are how you get massive economic prosperity for all. So much so that the middle and lower classes started getting politically active in the 60s because they had the economic freedom to do so. This scared the hell out of conservative strategists because their policies only lead to bubbles followed by crashes and are generally deeply unpopular. The destruction of the middle class has been deliberate and cynical, to make sure people are too busy working multiple jobs and worrying about things like paying for college and retirement on salaries designed to support neither. Such things used to be benefits of living and working here.
The whole business of attributing things like massive debts to 'liberals' when it's actually conservatives doing it is just another part of the strategy. The federal government was cut in size while Clinton was in office and increased in size massively under W's frat boy administration, but people like you never admit that if you even know it because Fox News doesn't cover that.
So Reagan governed EXACTLY how conservatives govern. Hell, he wrote the modern book on it. His biggest 'failing' in that regard was he was pragmatic and actually worked with the other side. That is also unacceptable in modern conservative 'my way or the highway, even if I'm in the minority' thinking.
Citation
What exactly did Reagan do that previous administrations back to Truman's hadn't done?
Caused Americans to imprison more of its population than China.
Hmm. Maybe.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png
Reagan was president from 1981 to 1988. So, he started as President after the curve of prison rate started to rise, but before it has significantly diverged from baseline. The curve continued to get steeper after he left, with the steepest part right at the transistion from (George H.W.) Bush to Clinton
Hmm, why is it clear that Serbs were the major dicks? There was no good party in the Balkan wars. The US did choose to side with Muslim terrorist organizations and as thank for the support veterans of the Muslim terrorist army in the Balkan destroyed the Twin Towers on 9/11 and became the inspiration of what is now IS. Yet we insist to say that the Serbs were the wrong doers while the others were the victims.
If the IS threat isn't controlled soon, the Balkan will become a new battleground again. There are already village whose population fully support IS and have replaced any Bosnian flags with IS flags. Will the US again support the Muslim terrorist organizations? Or is it now clear that you should never support any Muslim organization, whether they claim to be moderate, conservative or claim they are the victims?
But nobody noticed.
Totof
Do not forget to mention that she was responsible for the use of astrology in the decision-making process at the highest level.
Conservatives don't believe that you should tax to support spending.
They believe taxes should be cut. While they continue spending just as freely as liberals do.
What exactly did Reagan do that previous administrations back to Truman's hadn't done?
Americans don't care what their politicians do, only what they say. Reagan talked like a conservative, but governed like a liberal, running big deficits, negotiating with Gorbachev, continuing and expanding most social spending, etc. So conservatives loved him and liberals hated him. Bill Clinton did the opposite: he talked like a liberal, but governed as a conservative. He cut welfare, balanced the budget, pushed through free market reforms and free trade agreements, and sent bombers into the Balkans. So liberals loved him, and conservatives hated him.
Both Presidents (and in fact, all Presidents since) have been Corporatist. Left, Right, sure it matters on many issues, - but both were "open for business" - ie, sellling off or leasing public lands [Both], enacting corporate friendly legislation like the DMCA [Clinton] repealing Glass-Steagall [Clinton] tax rate reform (lowering the top marginal tax rate to 28%) [Reagan], Union-busting (PATCO) [Reagan], and expanding the military industrial complex [Reagan].
All of these helped businesses. Sometimes they helped the taxpayers, though most of that is crumbs compared to what the Corporations/Wealthy got.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Clinton never had a surplus (we accumulated debt every single year since Ike), and the debt has exploded under President Obama, averaging 2.4 times that of President Bush; President Obama has averaged over 1.1 trillion dollars in new debt every year of his presidency. SOURCE
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Reagan did not start out negotiating with the Soviets, he initially scared the crap of them and they were convinced that Reagan was going to start a war with a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
That was seriously frightening, since their response to what they perceived as preparations by us for war was to move to launch-on-warning status, which means that an error could have catastrophic consequences.
In terms of technology, this was all a consequence of the adoption of MIRV warheads in the 70s, in which a small number of missiles launched could take out most, or possibly all, of the missiles of the other side, giving the first side to launch an overwhelming advantage.
It apparently never occurred to Reagan that the Soviets might find our moves threatening. He was so fixed in the viewpoint that the Soviets were the ones with evil intent, that he was unable to consider that they might see us as the aggressors.
Reagan slowly transitioned to a defensive posture and then finally to a de-arming posture (The Dead Hand by David Hoffman touches on this and the Soviet militaries view of the west... it's a great read). Reagan is not a demi-god but he was a lot shrewder and capable than a lot of people want to give him credit for.
He had good and bad points.
Would Slasdot have commented if Bianca Hoogendijk had died this week? Or Hannelore Graser? They are respectively former dutch and german 'first ladies'. And I will not even start on Joachim Sauer (the current husband of Angela Merkel. But then most Americans will ask "Who is Angela Merkel".
As a nerd of long standing I like Slashdot. But I am often offended by the USA-centric attitude of the editors. Why not include an european or asian collaborator? I am available.
Paai
I don't know if the deficit has come down at a record rate under Obama but he certainly has reduced the deficit from where he started. Here is a post by David Brin that shows how the rate of increase in the national debt increases under Republican administrations and drops under Democratic administrations, at least since Nixon:
So Do Outcomes Matter More than Rhetoric?
know what else we are still waiting on??? The wall that was supposed to be built when reagan granted amnesty
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
IIRC the war on drugs and "Just say no" popped up on his watch. And, you know, stuff...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
One of the big reasons that the debt "exploded" under Obama is that the Bush administration used accounting tricks to keep the cost of Afghanistan/Iraq off the books until Obama decided it was time to be honest about it. That plus the great recession he was handed upon entering office.
We can start doing drugs again.
My first "-1 Troll", and for a non-troll post!
Most don't appear to recognize the bona fides of this J.G. Ballard piece and its relevance to the Nancy Reagan story.
Here is some more trivia for you, on Earth 151,600 people die each day, and more than twice that number are born.
Yeah, I thought that too for years. But it turns out, like MK-ULTRA, the Reagain/Crack Cocaine connection is absolutely true. Documents have come to light since the 80s that prove it.
In fact, the Reagan Administration admitted to it in secret testimony to Congress.
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEB...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Not sure if someone already posted that he slashed spending for long-term care and mental health facilities, putting incapable people in the streets where they remain today and making us the black sheep of both the civilized world and our own consciences. /S but that's a small price to pay for slashing taxes on the wealthy and enabling the take-over of the electoral system by people with too much money not to spend it investing in more perks for their classes.
because he rolled back decades of banking, Wall Street and Commodities trading reform, not because of what he said. He also supported horrifying acts of violence in South America, helped destroy Unions and oversaw the end of American Manufacturing. His Rhetoric also paved the way for the dismantling of what little safety net we had (which to be fair Clinton actually did, but actual liberals don't like him either).
As a rule, the American left hate people for what they did, not what they said. But then again the American left has gotten so small over the years that I don't blame you for not noticing us.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Take a look at the debt I linked to. You cannot "hide" things off the books - spending above income still shows up in the national debt regardless of on-or-off budget. You'll find that Obama racked up debt a lot quicker than the Bush. It's not military spending - it's Government largesse to millions of people. The facts don't lie - spending has skyrocketed under President Obama, and the debt reflects that very fact.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Social benefits, welfare, subsidized medical, and food stamps. About $0.70 of every dollar of spending by the Federal Government is spent on Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, welfare payments and servicing the national debt. Everything else - defense, IRS, EPA, transportation, education, customs, research, etc - comprises the other $0.30. SOURCE
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Hmm, why is it clear that Serbs were the major dicks?
Murdering 8000 civilians at Srebrenica was certainly dickish.
And Reagan had ties to them all.
So the best you can say is Reagan gave tacit approval to the CIA flooding the inner cities with crack cocaine. The documents that survived Ollie North's "shredding party" confirm this.
And never forget:
Here's a list of them, too:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
"...the worst ever."
You are welcome on my lawn.
The logic (or lack of it) implied by your question:
1) Some people have murdered other people
2) Some new guy murders someone
3) It's not to be considered, because others did it before him
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Oliver North was the scapegoat remember? And they stood him up in Congress and tried to paint him as a freedom fighter hero. SHIT How can you forget RayGun admitting "there were things I was not aware of" after it was uncovered . Remember the CIA airplanes that had ex GI pilots that said "Cocaine going north, and Guns going south." All while NANCY (the story is about her remember?) says "Just say NO" Well I did and said NO way (bong Hit) I am afraid everything about fighting wars is just selling Wall Street firm's weapons to both sides if possible. SAD
The poor should dress better...
Watashi wa chikyubutsurigakusha desu.
Social security and medicare are paid into by workers separately from the general budget (and social security is only paid out to workers who've paid in). They're self-funding, so it's disingenuous to lump them in with the general federal budget.
This space intentionally left blank
In Reagan's defense, he did sign the law requiring emergency rooms to treat patients who don't have money -- so his legacy on health care is mixed.
This space intentionally left blank
Said Nancy's skeleton
Just say No
Said the Rasta skeleton
Blow Nancy Blow
-
1. What BS. The us has been a creditor for a long time. In 1835 the full dept was payed off (only time ever). It lasted until 1836. If you care to see reality try this..
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
2. At least this one has some truth to it. He did increase the deficit in real terms.The rest of it is just religious blather. Half of people believe in personal responsibility. Half of the people believe in collectivist responsibility. Sign-up for your camp, I have yet to see conclusive evidence for either side.
3. Given that more than a quarter of chronic homeless are mentally ill I would say it is probably more the fault of getting rid of institutionalization. The push to get rid of institutionalization was from many places (of which Reagan was one). See this for real information
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
4. Hmmm, looks like your conspiracy nut hat is showing. I would stick to policy and stop jumping at shadows if I was you. Oh, oh, I said shadows isn't that some code word for something else... I must be a racist...
4 (the second one).Hmmm, in a world without the US would the USSR have fallen as quickly... Probably not (they were doing well at the expand to acquire capacity plan for a while). In a world where Reagan wasn't pushing so hard would the USSR have fallen over as quickly... Probably not (It was probably military spending that helped push them over). Would they have fallen eventually? Yes, everything dies eventually.
As to how much money there was I find it hard to care that much. There is probably some waste that needs to be dealt with. That being said Defense spending as percent of GDP continues to go down. It looks like success to me.
http://www.usgovernmentspendin...
Have you tried carbon dating?
"averaging 2.4 times that of President Bush"
This kind of cherry picking of numbers is dishonest. If Bush runs up a huge debt (he did) , then Obama would have had to run an enormous *surplus* in order to achieve the same debt average. Slashdot users have all had algebra, so this shouldn't fool them.
"we accumulated debt every single year since Ike,"
That depends on whether you consider intra-government debt a real part of the debt. If you consider social security to be another government program with its own taxes and expenditures, then the government ran a surplus.
Play Command HQ online
There's nothing disingenuous about totaling government taxes and expenses to find the deficit. The legal construction of social security is political game playing. Lumping it in with everything else is not.
Play Command HQ online
Actually, SSI and Medicare are not self-funding; they've been running in the red for several years now. They are drawing out of the total Federal revenues. And the funds are not a "lock box" for you - the Supreme Court has ruled there is no right to any Social Security payment. Its funds have been part of the official budget for nearly 50 years, and funds have been used to buy T-bills (loans to the Federal Government) since the beginning, by statute. FICA payments are made to the Federal Government, those funds are loaned to the Federal Government, and the Federal Government has no legal requirement to pay back any of it. Does that mean it's separate and self-funding? In any real sense of those words - not a chance.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It was Clinton's tax increase in '93 that lead to the huge decrease in deficit. Democrats ran congress at that time, and basically lost control because of that increase.
Each year that reagan proposed a budget, his proposed deficit was higher than the budgets that were eventually passed by the Democratic congress.
"Before Obamacare it was becoming common for even fast food jobs to offer healthcare benefit."
Pure fantasy land. Under Obamacare, the only way a fast food worker can't afford insurance is if they have the bad luck to live in a state that's run by a Republican governor who is refusing federal medicaid money.
Play Command HQ online
And how many were pardoned by Bush?
Play Command HQ online
A good idea, but it really shows the contradiction in Republican healthcare thinking. Without any good healthcare coverage, the emergency room becomes the walk in clinic for the uninsured, who must then pretend that they can't pay.
Play Command HQ online
The reason I'm focused on debt is because it's an absolute. Games are played with on/off budget deficits, etc (witness those claiming Clinton balanced it, had a surplus). The debt shows the real spending - if you spend more than you bring in, you have a deficit, the debt goes up. So many items are "not counted" in the official deficit that it's crazy. So look at the actual change in debt from year to year, not the reported deficit. That will tell you how much was actually spent relative to revenues...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Uh, no. The ADDED debt per year is what I'm talking about. Ignore the reported "deficit" numbers, they're cooked big time. Look how much is added to the national debt every year - that will tell you how much excess spending went on. President Bush was terrible, adding $5 trillion to the national debt. President Obama has doubled that, adding nearly $10 TRILLION to the national debt. That's the problem - and the real way to look at spending/revenue. And the last time we had an actual surplus - our debt went down - was back when Eisenhower was in the White House, about 60 years ago.
As far as SSI and intragovernmental debt, per GAAP standards that is debt and must be accounted for. It's owed money - it's not just "disappeared". Yes, the Government can welch on its promised obligations to people, but until it does so - that debt is legitimate and must be accounted for. Even if the CBO and the Government try to claim it isn't. If you have a loan from your 401K (like the Federal Government taking loans from the Social Security fund), then lenders will consider that as debt - which is correct (a financial obligation you have to pay).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You have too much time on one of your hands.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
False. Congress allocates what goes into the purse; the President decides what to spend of that purse. Both can limit the other (Congress can allocate less than the President desires, and the President can spend less than Congress desired).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Once you start incorporating Congress into the story your fairy tale falls apart. The best parts of Clinton's governance was the Republican congress that controlled spending and the growth of government.
And yet they completely tanked with Bush Jr.
You can thank the Clinton administration for Enron, and the internet bubble. On the other had Democrats in Congress blocked reform of the mortgage industry that the Bush administration tried to pass to head off the meltdown that occurred and badly damaged the economy.
You can thank Reagan and the Republican senate for Enron and the banking meltdowns. Bush Sr didn't try to pass any legislation, in fact, I don't recall any such thing. Under Bush Jr, when the Reps had both houses of congress, they failed to push any bill through even though supposedly the Bush Jr white house asked for it 17 times. Somehow that sounds Fox newsish, considering all the other crap they pushed through.
The internet bubble was a separate thing that may or may not have had a government cause. I'd argue likely not, except for the "no tax" bit in 97 or whenever that was passed.
And working two jobs? Thank Obamacare.
You are smoking crack. The two jobs bit has been around for at least 2 decades.
Before Obamacare it was becoming common for even fast food jobs to offer healthcare benefit.
Fast food jobs are specifically restricted to under 32 hours excepting managers if they have insurance. Even Walmart does this and has prior to ACA.
After Obamacare that pretty much stopped and lots of full time jobs in the economy turned into part time jobs to get around Obamacare's taxes, penalties, and regulations. Companies shut down expansion plans to stay under the limits. And who brought Obamacare? 100% Democrat created and passed.
Your description of events in the 1960s is more than a little confused as well.
Don't get me wrong, ACA was the right concept, horrible implementation. Single payer is the way forward, or you are advocating to leave people dying in the streets.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
You don't want to be a government and a net creditor. That means that *you* are left holding the bag when everyone else defaults.
It sounds nice to be the country that "owns" other countries, but the thing to remember is that sovereign states can't be forced to pay up at bankruptcy court. If they default, they go into the shitter and all, but they were probably already in serious trouble to begin with. So holding the now worthless IOUs when that happens is not a plus.
Yes, I understand how one might rebel against the idea of buying more things than we have money to pay for, as it seems irresponsible. However, there's nothing wrong with being in debt as a country, especially US dollar denominated debt if you're the US government. As long as you can pay the bills in dollars, you pretty much can't go into default. You can trash your currency by printing money to pay it off, but you won't go into default.
There is one thing that people forget about a country like China "owning" the US debt. They aren't holding US debt because they want to buy the USA. It doesn't work that way. The US isn't a publicly traded stock corporation, it is a government. What they want is to be able to make money on safe decent yield US bonds as a hedge against all that fucking with their own currency not being enough. They get nothing from forcing the US into default since their investment is just that, an investment. They want to make nice safe interest and preserve the value of their reserves with US bonds.
I see no problem with US debt being held by other countries. I do agree that it can get out of control, but the biggest threat to our current economy is not the size of the debt, but rather Congress continuing to fuck with *payment* on the debt when we have the means to do so. That is when we run into trouble for no reason.
Don't get me wrong, I want a smaller government, but that's not because I care much about the debt situation. We ran a lower proportion of debt to GDP during the Great Depression than we have today, and it didn't help us for shit.
Nope, you just jumped from tin-foil territory back to religion. I know, you hate the guy. Having never met him I feel a rather lack of either hate or love for him. That being said here is why its hard to believe this stuff.
1. The Talk sections of these wikis are just a riot to read. Many diverse opinions to read
2. As with Nostradamus you can convince your-self that you can find the hidden meaning you want in anything.
3. The Lee Atwater storyyou linked in both the paragraph before and after the one you cited says things like "Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster." Now I know you take that to mean these are just coded messages but that seems to be more your problem than theirs.
4. A better link in my opinion would be this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That being said I don't buy it. I wouldn't equate "welfare queen" nor "young buck" with blacks so those seem kind of odd to me. Both are good examples of known fraud in the system. Further it uses the example of him changing his language (same point just trade young buck out for young fellow) as proof that he was racist. So even when he changed the words he used because someone found it offensive it still was just proof he was racist.
The reality of the situation seems to be that he obviously didn't believe the same things you do (see original economic theory as religion post) so that make him a heretic. I understand, it just doesn't seem to help to raise the level of discourse. I would be more interested in why you think the work he did that eventually ended up with old BJ.C. signing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act was such a bad thing.
Uh, no. The ADDED debt per year is what I'm talking about. Ignore the reported "deficit" numbers, they're cooked big time. Look how much is added to the national debt every year - that will tell you how much excess spending went on.
I mean, if only there was some commonly agreed upon definition for the word 'deficit' and some publically available data or source to determine what it was. but you know those dictionaries...you cant trust them.
and that congress...they never ever tell us what budget they've passed
and trying to get revenues and expenditures out of the treasury dept, or the CBO? impossible!
your ignorance would be hysterical if it wasn't also so sad.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
the deficit IS THE CHANGE.
its added to it EVERY YEAR.
f'ing moron.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
no, they are not running in the red (patently false misinformation)
speaking to SS, which you evidently need a lesson on, yes, it is a pay-as-you-go system, which is a sort of self-funding setup.
as long as there are workers paying it, there are payments going out.
SS is not a savings account you pay into and then withdrawal from.
SS is a direct cash transfer from current workers to current beneficiaries.
It has a defined benefit amount.
The Trust Fund exists because for decades they took in more money than they paid out.
There were many more workers than beneficiaries.
and if they paid out everything they took in the benefits would be out of whack with the cost of living, and produce bad effects on the economy.
and, while they generally assumed population would grow over time (more workers than beneficiaries), making the system sustainable, even they knew it would be useful to have a cushion; besides, they needed an account to deposit the money in and withdraw from anyway in the process.
and by the time it was overhauled in the 1960s under LBJ it was obvious population might contract or slow down, and with periods of economic reduction or drops in labor, placing even more emphasis on maintain a healthy trust fund.
So they stocked the surplus away into the Trust Fund also.
Im oversimplifying a lot here: technically all payments into and out of SS go through the Trust Fund.
But the Trust Fund itself grew in size to be more than the sum of its intakes and payouts because of said mismatch.
(And also technically there is two trust Funds, one for SS for old age, and one for SS for disability)
the part that is running out of money is the surplus in the Trust Fund which is separate from the mechanics of how SS itself operates.
having this account, aka Trust Fund, was useful because it allowed payouts to remain steady during periods of reduced revenue.
it also allowed the monies within to be invested in various ways to allow it to keep its value, rather than lose value due to inflation.
and some of that surplus has been used over the years to increase benefits amounts to keep the relative value of the benefits constant as inflation occurred and the cost of living increased, while wages didn't (aka, the last 40 years).
now with boomers retiring and the workforce (as a % of population) shrinking therefore there will be more people receiving benefits.
enough such that the trust fund (the surplus from decades of taking in more than being paid out),if used to keep benefits at their current level will run out.
but that is just the surplus in trust fund. .
because the entire SS system is a operated as direct cash transfer from workers to beneficiaries is impossible for it to run out of money
Benefits may go down, and that what people are trying to avoid. But benefits will never cease as long we have an economy where people are still working.
but the Trust Fund is also solvent as its current levels for many years yet.
(so no, it's not in the red)
and making it perpetually solvent is as simple as raising the income cap from 113k/yr (ie, if you make more htna that, you still only contribute to SS as if you make 113k/yr) to 250k/yr which would make the Trust Fund solvent til around the year 2150. and removing the cap entirely would make it solvent forever, and allow benefits to be increased dramatically as well.
the Trust Fund will never actually run out of money.
it will just no longer have a surplus, and will only consist of the sum of its intakes and payouts as money transits the system.
--
as for the claim that congress has played hooky with the moneys, no they haven't.
by law, the money cannot be used in the general fund. it cannot be touched or tapped directly by congress.
there can no direct transfers or borrowings.
the confusion here comes from a very simple misunderstanding:
remember that the Trust Fund gets invested to maintain its value? they did that by buying government
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Clinton did have surpluses
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/...
And most of the debt under Obama is STILL related to the ongoing War on Terror and recovering economy.
And while the Average may be high, that ignores that the actual year-year values have been trending downward.
So again.
You posted BS.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
No, you "f'ing moron", the reported deficit is NOT the change in the debt every year. The reported deficit is for the ON-BUDGET items only, not all items. For example, the 2014 budget deficit was reported as $483 billion. Yet if you look at the debt added, it was nearly $1.1 trillion.
I guess if you want to swallow what the Government is peddling, be my guest. But in any rational, thinking mind - adding $1.1 trillion in debt does not equate to only a $483 billion deficit. Those two numbers are not equal. Go ahead, continue to be the "f'ing moron" and take what your Federal leadership tries to sell you...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
See my response to your moronic statement above. It's clear you don't have any understanding. The reported deficit is NOT the actual deficit. Time and again, you see the "deficit" being maybe 30-40% of the actual debt racked up annually. I gave you the numbers earlier; for 2014 the deficit was reported as $483 billion, but nearly $1.1 trillion was added in debt. You tell me what the real deficit is (HINT: it's NOT what the Federal Government reports). IF you choose to educate yourself about the actual numbers, AND if you had a bit of integrity, you'd apologize and admit I'm correct. We'll see...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Huh. Do we believe dywolf's ramblings, or the OASDI's trustees who state "Social Security’s cost exceeded its tax income in 2013, and also exceeded its non-interest income, as it has since 2010." Personally, I'll trust the SSI trustees over you - they have a bit better handle on the situation, and they legally put their own butts on the line with their annual reports (which have reported a negative income balance since 2010 - like their summary states).
Now, you may not be aware of the term "running in the red", but when your income is less than your expenditures, then your cash flow is negative - it's "in the red". SSSI is in the red, per standard GAAP. And if it continues, then the savings/trust fund will eventually run out - and you either cut benefits (meaning: change the promises you've made) or you close altogether. But it is, truly, running in the red. Ask any accountant if a business spending more than it takes in would be considered in the red...
But then again, you still believe that having a deficit of just $483 billion can equate with adding nearly $1100 billion in debt.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Deficit: 1. the amount by which a sum of money falls short of the required amount.
Now, somehow the Federal Government claimed the deficit in 2014 was "just" $483 billion. Yet it had to borrow nearly $1.1 trillion to cover what it decided to spend. So which is correct? What was the actual shortage? HINT: it wasn't $483 billion.
So what's your definition for deficit? In fact, when have you EVER posted a link to anything? I've backed up what I've posted, and apparently that gets your panties in a bind. That's your problem, not mine. You're showing your failings here, not me.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Uh, no. Let me explain this to you, so perhaps you can learn a bit. It's OK to admit your error - we are all wrong until we learn what is correct.
The measure of a deficit is how much you spend beyond your income. If you make $100,000, but spend $120,000 then you have a $20,000 deficit. Your debt - what you owe others - increases by $20,000. With me so far?
Now, check the national debt records
. What will you discover? Every year since Eisenhower, the national debt has gone up. Every Single Year.
Go back to my opening example - if you spend more than your income, you have to borrow money. Your debt goes up. So how can one "claim" to have a surplus whilst having your debt go up? It's simple! And I'll explain it to you:
You lie.
There are two ways to do this:
First, you simply don't count all your spending. Let's say of that $100,000 in spending, $30,000 of it was on a nice vacation. So you claim "that vacation is not part of my normal spending, so it's not part of my budget, so it doesn't count". You try to claim that your spending was "only $90,000" now, so you actually have a surplus of $10,000! But in reality, do you have a surplus? No - that vacation is still on your credit card, you still owe that $30,000. Your financial position is still the same - you have a $20,000 deficit. But your "budget" had a surplus, because that vacation wasn't part of your budget. It was spending, but since you didn't put it in a given column, you can claim a budget "surplus" even though you actually racked up more debt.
The second way is to defer payments to keep cash flow positive. Say instead of a vacation, you decide to not pay 6 months of your mortgage. Your mortgage is $4,000 per month. Your actual spending is now just $96,000 - that's less than your income! Hurray - you have a $4,000 surplus, no deficit! But do you really have surplus? No - you have at least $24,000 more in debt. But rather than pay your debt, you kept some cash in your pocket. Your actual financial position is a $20,000 hole - but you can "claim" you have a surplus because you still have some cash in your pocket.
The Clinton "surpluses" were a combination of these two - many items were taken "off budget", and others were deferred until later years. The debt still increased, even though the "budget" was in surplus. It was simply word and accounting gimmicks - and the fact that "Factcheck" fell for it says a LOT about their ability to read through the BS.
There, you've been educated, so hopefully you won't make the same mistake again of falling for it!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!