I'm really disappointed that someone like Draginol who is on the cusp of having enough influence to actually matter in our politics, and who also is openminded enough to personally argue over politics on his blog, is faced with an opposition making statements like "Social Security is a trust fund that is continually robbed... which is why it is insoluble." (Insolvent is the word.) No wonder he thinks liberals are a little inferior. Brad, people who come to argue are a different breed than people who come to think, so judge liberals by their own comment threads, not how they look in yours. This is probably as close as you'll ever get to a real live liberal, though, so at least it's something.

The 2004 chart is at h ttp://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=federal_budget&list=8 . Not as well presented as your version but I do disagree with your interpretation that it only differs by "interest on the debt which has shrunk and military which has grown slightly." Military's share has grown by 33%, to 19.9%, meaning it's now bigger than Medicare + Medicaid and lagging only Social Security. And as far as I'm aware, that doesn't even include the $100-billion plus going to the Iraq war, which is financed with offbudget resolutions. Can't tell, because there are no sources. Deference really should have sourced that chart -- not only for documentation, but also because a chart that reveals its assumptions and methods gains a credibility advantage. (Just because these charts are the official government statistics doesn't mean they're not "propaganda" -- in fact, you'd almost expect the reverse, though not so much in America.)

"Social Security is a trust fund that is continually robbed... which is why it is insoluble." (Insolvent is the word.) No wonder he thinks liberals are a little inferior. - Noumenon

Welcome, Noumenon!

It's good to have a spelling and grammar checking professional on the premises. Though I'd once again have to say I'm having severe issues editing some posts, I'd be glad to simply roll over on that issue and insist that you become Chief Spelling and Grammar Checking Inspector at JU.

You may first want to begin (naturally) with this thread, starting at the top of the page. As you work your way down, you will eventually run in to Draginol's post #3 wherein the first sentence alone you will find he mispelled my handle, added an additional 't' to 'tthat' and dropped a 'v' from 'objectie'.

Congratulations on your new job, you should be very proud...and make sure to call everyone who slips up and can't edit their post an 'inferior liberal' whithout providing any other reason as to why. I gotta' love that baseless smear.

Deference really should have sourced that chart -- not only for documentation, but also because a chart that reveals its assumptions and methods gains a credibility advantage. - Noumenon

Yes, I too made it through Jr. High English class. Didn't stop there either. You were just a bit too eager to suck Draginol's butt you failed to read that I did actually provide my source here Link when I originally posted the charts.

It's also funny you missed my point that Draginol never provided a source for his graph, but that's okay, you seem to miss a lot of things. Maybe you shouldn't be Chief Grammar and Spelling Inspector.

Noumenon...

Sounds like a Pokemon. Get the f*ck outta' here Pikachu, and thanks for the pie chart, it was another one showing how out of date and inaccurate Draginol's was.

Despite the wording of the act that created SS, the operation was not like a REAL trust fund to fully fund some later payments to the retired. It was understood that from time to time monies paid into SS would be greater then the benefits paid out and at times the reverse would be true.

When, the system was created there was no block of money put into the trust fund to fully fund those that began drawing out in the years soon after the system was created. Their benefits were paid from current taxes. Today the system is generating about $170 Billion MORE then it pays out. That will end when the baby boomers retire in large numbers and the number of people working paying their SS taxes do not equal the people drawing retirement.

There are two issues with the federal budget. First, most of the federal spending is predicated on promises made to our citizens by our government. SS, Medicare, Retirement, Interest on the debt. When you look at those elements of the budget that could be cut without breaking the promises made and those elements like national defense, Homeland defense and other essential government services, the amount that COULD be cut is small unless you cut essential elements or fail to keep the promises made by our government.

The second issue is that we have been spending far more then we have taxes collected. That has produced an ever-increasing debt and the amount in interest we MUST pay will go to $500 Billion per year by 2010. The interest on the debt in 1979 was $60 billion.

The second issue is that we have been spending far more then we have taxes collected. That has produced an ever-increasing debt and the amount in interest we MUST pay will go to $500 Billion per year by 2010. The interest on the debt in 1979 was $60 billion.

We know, we know! And according to you we should repeal all the Bush tax cuts and raise taxes. Right? Col, I sorry but you have become waaaaaay to predicable!

I'm sorry, Deference. It was a cheap shot, shorthand for my dissatisfaction with the discussion. I just feel that Draginol should be losing these arguments in the comments, because he's at a time disadvantage and isn't very aware of his opponents' point of view. But it's not happening here. He ends up arguing with people that can be refuted with a link to a mortgage calculator, as in that KFC thread.

If you Google "War Resisters League" "Republican Convention" it looks like they are pretty into partisan politics. The appeal to universal values is standard. Listen to Bush talk about democracy and freedom some time, doesn't mean he's a liberal.

(How do you make links on this forum? I thought it was [ link ] like the GalCiv forum but it's not working for me.

Draginol is just wrong ont his one.

Social Security is a trust fund that has been pilfered illegally. Our defense budget isn't "Slightly" higher, it is almost double, and about as high as every other country in the world combined. What in gods name do we need to spend money on defense like that for? My guess, to line the pockets of the Bush family coffers, they have been war profiteers since the 40's helping the germans arm for war. If anything, this administration and majority congress have taught us that the conservative agenda just doesn't work for this country, and they have us going down the wrong path, the path of doom and destruction and budgetary disaster. Anyone that believes bush is a true conservative is a moron.

Bush desperately needs to be impeached for disregarding his oath of office, violating our constitution, and trashing the bill of rights. Just the mere issue of his "Signing Statements" on the bottom of bills he signs is an impeachable offense. Where is the outrage for those unconstitutional and illegal line item vetos? I fully believe once this administration is judged in history, it will be deemed to have been a criminal empire.

www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060807/OPINION02/608070301/1009/OPINION04

"Deference really should have sourced that chart -- not only for documentation, but also because a chart that reveals its assumptions and methods gains a credibility advantage."

I do not agree that this is always the case. While generally true that a source that states its methods and the locations of its information can be trusted more tahn a site that does not this credibility depends on the locations and methods sited. Also, credibility is subjective - I do not believe that a site that bases its chart on ficticious situations has any level of creditability

"Deference really should have sourced that chart -- not only for documentation, but also because a chart that reveals its assumptions and methods gains a credibility advantage."

I do not agree that this is always the case. While generally true that a source that states its methods and the locations of its information can be trusted more tahn a site that does not this credibility depends on the locations and methods sited. Also, credibility is subjective - I do not believe that a site that bases its chart on ficticious situations has any level of creditability

Just the mere issue of his "Signing Statements" on the bottom of bills he signs is an impeachable offense.

Better re-read the constitution, as you seem to have forgotten what it SAYS and does NOT Say.

And just a suggestion.  The comments are for statements of opinion and fact.  Facts should be linked to back them up.  Opinions dont have to be.  Why link to someone else's opinion, just state your own.

As for social security being a trust fund -
www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/em940.cfm
www.uschamber.com/issues/index/retirementpension/socialsecurity/trustfundmyth.htm
Even the President of the United States says there is no trust fund
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7393649/
My point is not to debate the solvency of social security only to point out that the SS Trust Fund is completely different from any other trust fund available and is, thus, a trust fund in name only

(sorry for all the posting - I recievd an 'error while posintg' and now there are 2 posts)

If you Google "War Resisters League" "Republican Convention" it looks like they are pretty into partisan politics. - Noumenon

Simply because one group criticizes another doesn't make them 'partisan'. As I correctly mentioned, "[the league has]not affiliated itself with, given credit to, or patronized any political party within it's 73 year existence."

The appeal to universal values is standard. Listen to Bush talk about democracy and freedom some time, doesn't mean he's a liberal. - Noumenon

I agree, but isn't that obvious? I really don't care if Bush is liberal, neo-con, whatever, it wouldn't matter to me one bit what label people applied to him if he simply helped run the country in a way I could agree with.

I'm sorry, Deference. It was a cheap shot, shorthand for my dissatisfaction with the discussion. - Noumenon

Understood. I'd say we're even, now, anyway.

Noumenon:

Thanks for the updated chart:

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=federal_budget&list=8

You are right that things have changed more than I had originally described but it's still pretty close in terms of %'s.

Deference: I provided a direct link the the about page of WarResistors.org. It states that it was founded by socialists. The agenda of WarResistors is spelled out. It is a far left-wing organization. if you don't agree with that that is fine but there's no point in continuing to argue it.

The fact is, you put up a chart that implied that up to 80% of our budget is spent on the miltiary which is nonsense and easily refuted. You can't pick and choose which things should be counted in the budget. The fact is, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is the source for these numbers. Cherry picking what should really count is partisan -- they have an agenda and are using data selectively.

By contrast, I am putting the numbers out there and readers can make their own distinctions.

For the record: I don't like how our taxes are spent. I think we spend too much on the military and I think we are taxed too high.  But that doesn't mean I will suddenly pretend that medicare and medicaid aren't taxes. They're confiscated from us forcibly and thus should be included (and ARE included) in any official pie chart of what the government is doing with the money it collects from us.

The issue of the trust fund for SS is a complex issue. There has been a SURPLUS that developed over the years that amounts to about $1.6 Trillion. In 2005 it was about $175 Billion. The problem is the trust fund consists of IOU'S from the Fed. When it comes time to cash in those IOU'S the Fed will either have to sell more public debt of increase taxes to make good on the IOU's. The reason the Trust Fund is IOU’s is because we refused to BALANCE THE BUDGET and used the SS Surplus to help plug up the annual budget deficit!

However, the amount in the trust fund, even with the Fed honoring their obligation, is not enough to pay the SS benefits to the Baby Boomers. For people that say the Fed will not honor the SS IOU's then what do you think about all the Treasury Bonds people hold as ASSETS? Even if the $1.6 Trillion were AAA Corporate Bonds the issue of funding the Baby Boomers is not solved. There are only two options- Do not fully meet the promises to pay 100% of the SS benefits (The Bush Solution) or add tax money to fund the system.

Sorry DrGuy you are wrong. The American Bar Association, 14 legal journals, 8 legal thinktanks, and 19 constitutional scholars have ruled Bush's signing statements unconstitutional (and illegal). As Americans, we should be bloodly scared to death about this..

www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00211

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300511.html
A panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is sharply criticizing the use of "signing statements" by President Bush that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress.

www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15106725.htm
American Bar Association denounces Bush's signing statements. He has issued more than 800 challenges to bills that he has signed into law with formal "signing statements," more than all of his predecessors combined.

Bottom line, the constitiion and laws of the land are in severe peril under "King Bush", never before has there been a power grab of this magnitude from the executive branch. So much so, it is undermining the very fabric of our country.

Sorry DrGuy you are wrong. The American Bar Association, 14 legal journals, 8 legal thinktanks, and 19 constitutional scholars have ruled Bush's signing statements unconstitutional (and illegal).

Sorry James, you are wrong. None have legal standing. (do you understand that concept?). it has been used by past presidents, and until SCOTUS RULES, it is just a stupid opinion. How stupid? Google the colleges vs the armed forces and tell me who called that one right! Hint, none of your sources.