SisterMaryElephant
Active Member
Mad because it's not the huffington post? Too funny...
The numbers are the numbers, they don't change. 70% of our budget go to 47 socialist dependence programs.
Show me a link that says otherwise...
romney committed a federal felony?
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
The numbers are the numbers, they don't change. 70% of our budget go to 47 socialist dependence programs.
Show me a link that says otherwise...
SisterMaryElephant
Active Member
Since you're not very smart how about an older MSNBC article?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10609044/ns/us_news/t/federal-entitlement-programs-more-costly/
"WASHINGTON Three growing entitlement programs consumed nearly half of all federal spending in 2004, and budget analysts expect them to make up an even bigger share in the future. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid accounted for more than $1 trillion in the 2004 budget year, according to the Consolidated Federal Funds Report released Tuesday by the Census Bureau."
If those 3 made up 50% in 2004 how big of a percentage do you think the 47 programs looked at by HF would be now? 70% like they said maybe?
Too easy...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10609044/ns/us_news/t/federal-entitlement-programs-more-costly/
"WASHINGTON Three growing entitlement programs consumed nearly half of all federal spending in 2004, and budget analysts expect them to make up an even bigger share in the future. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid accounted for more than $1 trillion in the 2004 budget year, according to the Consolidated Federal Funds Report released Tuesday by the Census Bureau."
If those 3 made up 50% in 2004 how big of a percentage do you think the 47 programs looked at by HF would be now? 70% like they said maybe?
Too easy...
tomahawk2406
Well-Known Member
listing social security as government spending is retardedSince you're not very smart how about an older MSNBC article?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10609044/ns/us_news/t/federal-entitlement-programs-more-costly/
"WASHINGTON Three growing entitlement programs consumed nearly half of all federal spending in 2004, and budget analysts expect them to make up an even bigger share in the future. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid accounted for more than $1 trillion in the 2004 budget year, according to the Consolidated Federal Funds Report released Tuesday by the Census Bureau."
If those 3 made up 50% in 2004 how big of a percentage do you think the 47 programs looked at by HF would be now? 70% like they said maybe?
Too easy...
SisterMaryElephant
Active Member
SS as a government program is retarded but it's always been classified as spending no matter whether you agree or not. The government writes checks and collects taxes for it, how could it not be spending?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
here is your original claim....those 3 made up 50% in 2004 how big of a percentage do you think the 47 programs looked at by HF would be now? 70% like they said maybe?
Medicare and medicaid are 2 of the socialist entitlement programs that are mostly responsible for our declining economic situation.
as you can see, you said those 2 programs (not 3) were MOSTLY responsible, implying over 50% responsible.
it's easy to seem too cool for school when you move the goalposts. in reality though, it make syou intellectually dishonest and borderline retarded.
hey sistah, you want to compare the administrative expenses (ie, efficiency) of medicare and medicaid versus private insurers?
too easy.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
now we're up to 47 programs from 2 originally.
LOL!
don't be angry that blue states pay more in then they get so that inbred farmers from kentucky can get their farm subsidies and dickbags at exxon can get their record profits on gas subsidized while they spend hand over fist on anti-science programs like big tobacco did decades ago.
if you can hire a "scientist" to say that smoking isn't harmful, you can easily hire one to say that out pollution has no effect on our environment.
thank you, GOP!
douchebags.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (or OBRA-93[1]) was federal law that was enacted by the 103rd United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It has also been referred to, unofficially, as the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. Part XIII, which dealt with taxes, is also called the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.The guy that signed the Republican budgets that helped the economy?
Thanks for proving my point...his first 2 years were horrible so America elected Republicans in the legislative branches and they turned it around...you want to credit clinton because you're not very bright.
[h=2]Legislative history[/h]Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill, as did a number of Democrats. Vice President Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate on both the Senate bill and the conference report. The House bill passed 219-213 on Thursday, May 27, 1993.[1] The House passed the conference report on Thursday, August 5, 1993, by a vote of 218 to 216 (217 Democrats and 1 independent (Sanders (VT-I)) voting in favor; 41 Democrats and 175 Republicans voting against).[2] The Senate passed the conference report on the last day before their month's vacation, on Friday, August 6, 1993, by a vote of 51 to 50 (50 Democrats plus Vice President Gore voting in favor, 6 Democrats (Lautenberg (D-NJ), Bryan (D-NV), Nunn (D-GA), Johnston (D-LA), Boren (D-OK), and Shelby (D-AL) now (R-AL)) and 44 Republicans voting against). President Clinton signed the bill on August 10, 1993.
SisterMaryElephant
Active Member
Are you really that stupid or are you being intentionally obtuse?
I ACCURATELY said, they were 2 OF the socialist programs responsible for our economic decline. I never said they were the 2 *most* responsible...but they could be. Throw in SS (3) and it's already over 50%. The link shows that if you look at 47 socialist programs entitlement spending is 70%.
I know you're stupid, like all liberals, but they're all accurate:
Medicare/medicaid are, indeed, 2 "of" the socialist programs. FACT.
Medicare/medicaid/SS are more than 50% of federal spending. FACT
Medicare/medicaid/SS and 44 other dependence programs are eating up 70% of federal spending.
Seriously, pull your head out...
I was in between Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.
Paul's foreign and defense policy had me a bit worried and Santorum was a little too on the religious side for my liking.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Are you really that stupid or are you being intentionally obtuse?
I ACCURATELY said, they were 2 OF the socialist programs responsible for our economic decline. I never said they were the 2 *most* responsible...but they could be. Throw in SS (3) and it's already over 50%. The link shows that if you look at 47 socialist programs entitlement spending is 70%.
I know you're stupid, like all liberals, but they're all accurate:
Medicare/medicaid are, indeed, 2 "of" the socialist programs. FACT.
Medicare/medicaid/SS are more than 50% of federal spending. FACT
Medicare/medicaid/SS and 44 other dependence programs are eating up 70% of federal spending.
Seriously, pull your head out...
SisterMaryElephant
Active Member
Nothing was moved, liar. It's all true. You're just too stupid to get it or challenge it. That makes me laugh.
SisterMaryElephant
Active Member
Medicare/medicaid are, indeed, 2 "of" the socialist programs. FACT.
Medicare/medicaid/SS are more than 50% of federal spending. FACT
Medicare/medicaid/SS and 44 other dependence programs are eating up 70% of federal spending. FACT
Socialist dependence programs are mostly responsible for the economic decline. FACT
What part of that is too complicated for the dishonest libtards? Must be the truth part...
Medicare/medicaid/SS are more than 50% of federal spending. FACT
Medicare/medicaid/SS and 44 other dependence programs are eating up 70% of federal spending. FACT
Socialist dependence programs are mostly responsible for the economic decline. FACT
What part of that is too complicated for the dishonest libtards? Must be the truth part...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Nothing was moved, liar. It's all true. You're just too stupid to get it or challenge it. That makes me laugh.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I am curious: how is a program adjudicated to be socialist? And by/on whose authority? cnMedicare/medicaid are, indeed, 2 "of" the socialist programs. FACT.
Medicare/medicaid/SS are more than 50% of federal spending. FACT
Medicare/medicaid/SS and 44 other dependence programs are eating up 70% of federal spending. FACT
Socialist dependence programs are mostly responsible for the economic decline. FACT
What part of that is too complicated for the dishonest libtards? Must be the truth part...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
those "socialist dependence" programs existed since WWII times. so if they are responsible for the economic decline we've seen, the decline should start around WWII.
any everyday dipshit, minus douchebag bleating partisan hacks with sean hannity's cock lodged in their mouth, knows that we experienced no significant decline from post WWII up until about 1980 or so.
reagan, enter stage right. pitch this idea of trickle down and watch douchebags like sistah and beenthere eat it up. witness the ballooning of deficits and the national debt.
what we don't witness is anything trickling down. the once great middle is reduced to near non-existence via wage stagnation, despite increased productivity.
money flows to the top as markets become deregulated. witness the great crash of 2008, brought to us by bush's "ownership society" and rampant abuse of derivatives brought to us primarily by the GOP.
but douchebags like you think it is all because we gave a food card to a working family with hungry children who never saw the money trickle down as we were told it would.
dumbasses like you still think this fantasy will work. people with IQs not more than two standard deviations below average can see the failure of this economic policy.
tell me again how these programs are responsible for the decline, rather than failed GOP economic policies?
douchebag.
SisterMaryElephant
Active Member
It started in the 30's. When SS program started there were a lot more people working to pay for very few people on the system, now it's different. It took a while for the damage to be done but it did, indeed start in the 30's. SS was never intended to get as big as it did.
Medicare/medicaid are, indeed, 2 "of" the socialist programs. FACT.
Medicare/medicaid/SS are more than 50% of federal spending. FACT
Medicare/medicaid/SS and 44 other dependence programs are eating up 70% of federal spending. FACT
Socialist dependence programs are mostly responsible for the economic decline. FACT
What part of that is too complicated for the dishonest libtards? Must be the truth part...
Nobody? Truth is hard for libtard scum...
SisterMaryElephant
Active Member
http://www3.prudential.com/signature/Social-Security.html
"The Past President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act in 1935 as a direct result of the economic depression of the 1930s. Originally, only retirement benefits were paid to the primary worker. The law was amended in 1939 to add survivors’ benefits and benefits for the retiree’s spouse and children. Disability benefits were added in 1956.
Social Security is a “pay-as-you-go” program, which means that today’s workers are paying for the benefits to today’s beneficiaries through their payroll taxes. In 1940, there were 42 workers per retiree. In 1950, the ratio was 16-to-1. In 2010, there were 2.8 workers per retiree, and within 40 years, it’s projected that there will be just two workers per retiree¹. At the present rate, as the population ages and life expectancies continue to rise, the system will not be able to sustain itself into the future without major reform."
Unsustainable...
"The Past President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act in 1935 as a direct result of the economic depression of the 1930s. Originally, only retirement benefits were paid to the primary worker. The law was amended in 1939 to add survivors’ benefits and benefits for the retiree’s spouse and children. Disability benefits were added in 1956.
Social Security is a “pay-as-you-go” program, which means that today’s workers are paying for the benefits to today’s beneficiaries through their payroll taxes. In 1940, there were 42 workers per retiree. In 1950, the ratio was 16-to-1. In 2010, there were 2.8 workers per retiree, and within 40 years, it’s projected that there will be just two workers per retiree¹. At the present rate, as the population ages and life expectancies continue to rise, the system will not be able to sustain itself into the future without major reform."
Unsustainable...
SisterMaryElephant
Active Member
You don't understand what kind of programs might be considered socialistic?
Does my pay go (against my will) to people that I owe nothing to, via the government?
Can I opt out?
Do I have another option?
Authorized by the board of Pointing Out Socialists on the Internet. P.O.S.I.
On who's authority are you questioning the authority of POSI?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I didn't ask "might". You are stating without qualifications that these programs are socialist. I am asking you to provide support for what you're presenting as fact.
You don't understand what kind of programs might be considered socialistic?
Does my pay go (against my will) to people that I owe nothing to, via the government?
Can I opt out?
Do I have another option?
Authorized by the board of Pointing Out Socialists on the Internet. P.O.S.I.
ceterum censeo answering a question with a string of questions is a form of admission. cn
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
did anyone stick a gun to your head and force you to sign that W2 form?
i hear the amish don't have to pay in to SS, but unlike ayn rand, they are not douchebag hypocrites who go on to take SS.