Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, January 10, 2019

Tick, tick, tick goes the time bomb of national doom. Every second the ticking grows louder, but you won't hear the muffled sound that's more akin to white noise. Across all media platforms, the threat goes largely unreported. Perhaps the consequences are unfathomable to discuss in 90-second news segments sandwiched between commercial breaks and panels of talking heads Members of Congress from both parties are also deaf to the ticking. Inherently they know that any attempt to defuse the bomb means they run the risk of being voted out of office. The same is true at the White House, where Donald Trump, like Barack Obama before him, never mentions this impending catastrophe. Among the hordes of 2020 Democratic candidates, count on the time bomb to be a topic non grata while Medicare-for-all gains momentum and Medicare-as-is remains a lethal bomb component.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I'm sure the usual suspects will absolutely lambaste this thread exclaiming that things couldn't be better and that simply eliminating the FICA cap will result in pure Utopia.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-10 09:42 AM | Reply

JeffJ: We're headed for problems with unfunded liabilities. This is a MAJOR problem, people!!!

Republicans: Screw that. We're going to borrow an additional $2.3 Trillion, and give 82% of it away to the world's wealthiest 1%.

JeffJ: That gets my vote!

#2 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 09:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"I'm sure the usual suspects will absolutely lambaste this thread"

no lambasting this thread.

Just You

Those policies you have been so pleased with took $19 trillion to $21.7 trillion. In the fiscal year ending September 30, it grew by $779 billion, up 17 percent from $666 billion in fiscal 2017. This year, after the Trump tax cuts take full effect, another $1 trillion worth of government IOUs will be issued.

So STFU.

#3 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-01-10 09:54 AM | Reply

"I'm sure the usual suspects will absolutely lambaste this thread exclaiming that things couldn't be better and that simply eliminating the FICA cap will result in pure Utopia."

God damned right Jeff. It would make SS sovent for virtually infinity.
But hey, what's the Republican fix???? 1.8 trillion dollar tax cuts for the 1%.
Jeff is a laughable stooge that the 1% love dearly. Repeal the Reagan tax cuts and all the subsequent tax cuts. Fix the nation, quit be unAmerican tools for the 1% who don't give a rat's ass about you, your kids, your grandkids.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-10 10:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Danforth and Danni validated post #1.

Is there anyone on the DR willing to have an intelligent discussion about this issue?

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-10 10:28 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Danforth and Danni validated post #1."

Don't sell yourself short. ChiefTut validated it, too.

But feel free to explain why moving $2.3 Trillion further away isn't a big middle finger to folks who are actually worried about unfunded liabilities.

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 10:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Is there anyone on the DR willing to have an intelligent discussion about this issue?"

Repeal the $2.3 Trillion giveaway, and we'll discuss.

Going further away, while complaining you're not getting closer, is verbal Republican Math™.

#7 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 10:38 AM | Reply

Unfunded Govt. Liabilities -- Our Ticking Time Bomb

Here's the problem with that headline:

Every 5 years or so there's a similar headline, proclaiming a ticking time bomb about unfunded government liabilities.

But, as we're often reminded, similar every-five-years ticking time bomb headlines about climate change (seas rising, Arctic ice cap melting, coastal cities disappearing, etc.) are ridiculed by the right with the same response: "We heard that same thing x years ago and it never happened."

What makes this headline any different?

#8 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-10 10:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Is there anyone on the DR willing to have an intelligent discussion about this issue?

#5 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Sadly, I've only seen this thread, where intelligent discussion was immediately prevented by your intentionally inflammatory and willfully ignorant #1. You can't support trillions in tax cuts and then cry when We the People want those trillions invested instead.

#9 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-10 10:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

JeffJ,

I have seen you post the unfunded liabilities before but its a negative projection, and I don't believe it contains the other side of the equation (hattip danforth LOL).

So how is it defined? Its a debt obligation that doesn't have sufficient funds.

But its used to say we have a 4 yo, and in 70yrs they are going to retire and this is how much it will cost in SS, not how much the person puts into the SS and the delta.

I just don't believe the number is a fair number because of this, and I hate that I am saying this, its not the full equation, you are forgetting the pluses.

Not to say it will "equate" or be balanced, only that while bad, its not as bad as these "unfunded liabilities" paint.

#10 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-10 10:58 AM | Reply

Let me be crystal clear: I don't support any tax cuts that results in increasing the deficit.

There.

Now, can we actually discuss this problem?

Hans,

The thing is the problem is far enough away that it's easy to dismiss. Doesn't change the fact that it's there. The math is obvious - the ratio of contributors to recipients (SS and Medicare) is moving in a bad direction. More people receiving benefits with fewer paying in. There is simply no way to paper over that fact. Throw in servicing interest on the debt and skyrocketing Medicaid costs and the problem is very real and it's massive.

This issue is the biggest reason I won't even consider supporting M4A. Until this problem is addressed - until our government does what is necessary to properly fund its existing obligations, I cannot support taking on new massive spending obligations on top of all of the other stuff that isn't being properly funded.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-10 10:59 AM | Reply

simply eliminating the FICA cap will result in pure Utopia.
#1 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Well now you are just talking silly talk, you know the earth will begin healing, and the seas will stop rising, nothing more....

#12 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-10 11:00 AM | Reply

Not to say it will "equate" or be balanced, only that while bad, its not as bad as these "unfunded liabilities" paint.

#10 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Basically what it translates to is that future recipients will only receive some of what they were promised. I get that. Having said that, can you imagine if current SS recipients had their benefits cut by 30% next year the kind of chaos that would create?

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-10 11:02 AM | Reply

Don't sell yourself short. ChiefTut validated it, too...

#6 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

That person belongs in a straight-jacket. I make a point of not reading that schizoid's posts.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-10 11:06 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"simply eliminating the FICA cap will result in pure Utopia."

It certainly solves the SS part of the equation.

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 11:09 AM | Reply

"Let me be crystal clear: I don't support any tax cuts that results in increasing the deficit."

Remember when you warned how much more difficult it would make it to address our unfunded liabilities?

No one else does either.

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 11:09 AM | Reply

"I don't support any tax cuts that results in increasing the deficit.""

Riiiiiight.

You just support the folks who support tax cuts that results in increasing the deficit.

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 11:11 AM | Reply

"The thing is the problem is far enough away that it's easy to dismiss. Doesn't change the fact that it's there. The math is obvious ..." - #11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-10 10:59 AM

And the exact same thing could be said about climate change (with one small modification):

The thing is the problem is far enough away that it's easy to dismiss. Doesn't change the fact that it's there. The science is obvious ...
The proverbial SS/Medicare day of reckoning has been forecast before, and just like the scare stories of climate change, those dates have come and gone without the doomsday projected earlier.

See also: Boy Who Cried Wolf

#18 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-10 11:14 AM | Reply

"The math is obvious - the ratio of contributors to recipients (SS and Medicare) is moving in a bad direction."

Oh noes!!! Who could ever have known...

...except for everyone who has seen this coming for six decades.

But if that's your worry, then a $2.3 Trillion tax cut at this point is a monstrously idiotic notion. And Dubya/Cheney resetting the fiscal sights of America, on the precipice of the baby boomers retirement, is the ultimate fork in the road.

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 11:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Having said that, can you imagine if current SS recipients had their benefits cut by 30% next year the kind of chaos that would create? ~ JeffJ

This is what Macron did wrong and Pittsburgh did correctly.

You need to ease into cuts and taxation. Just saying next month we are doing cuts/tax isn't the way to make it work for people.

You ever see the movie BeingThere? I suggest it only because its a good way to look at economies. Its like a garden, you can't just reduce water by 30 percent, it can't adapt. But slowly you cut back.

Politically it would be impossible, but that is how we should go about doing it. Offering less to those of future generations, but keeping SS taxation at its current rate.

I know non-discretionary spending is non-linear. The tension is Medicare costs,vs Hospital charges, again need to flood the industry with doctors and nurses, and tell them to expect less, restructure so most visits are with a nurse, or doctors assistant.

Its not a one shot and we are done (FICA etal) it has to happen over time, do we have the will for that? Do democracies have the ability to plan long term, I am betting against that.

#20 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-10 11:16 AM | Reply

- a monstrously idiotic notion

mAndy loves it.... speaking of funded liabilities like him.

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-10 11:17 AM | Reply

#19 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Even if taxation was the same the nonlinear growth rate needs to be dealt with, we would be in the same position 5yrs down the road.

You seem to need to blame someone for it today's short fall, not the poor decisions that contribute to non-linear debt growth.

#22 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-10 11:20 AM | Reply

What makes this headline any different?

The debt time bomb is actually real.

#23 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-10 11:24 AM | Reply

"The debt time bomb is actually real."

Did you support the recent tax cut, that made addressing the unfunded liabilities trillions of dollars more difficult?

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 11:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Even if taxation was the same the nonlinear growth rate needs to be dealt with"

Sounds like another tax cut for the wealthiest will do the trick.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 11:28 AM | Reply

"You seem to need to blame someone for it today's short fall"

Duby and Cheney were given true surplus budgets, and instead of shoring up or finances for the baby boomers' retirement, they chose to raid the Treasury, and reset the fiscal sights of America from Surplusville to Debtsylvania. Following that, Republicans refused to allow any tax bill to get through Congress; the only reason taxes went back up on the wealthiest was due to the sunset clauses the Rs had to employ to get it originally done, since they had NO Democratic votes.

So Republicans reset the sights, and then refused to allow the course to be altered. Who would YOU blame?

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 11:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"not the poor decisions that contribute to non-linear debt growth."

Poor decisions?!?

Who "decides" to age and get old?

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 11:33 AM | Reply

^Duby = Dubya

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 11:34 AM | Reply

Danforth,

We get it. Republicans suck. What are Democrats doing about this problem? Oh, that's right - nothing.

Bottom line is that in the absence of restructuring these programs the only viable option is a combination of tax increases - specifically FICA - and spending cuts - specifically, raising the age of eligibility.

Like Andrea said, if done slowly and gradually enough it should be painless enough that the public will accept it. Before that can happen, we have to actually elect adult leaders who will first acknowledge the problem exists and then talk soberly about what needs to be done to stave it off.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-10 11:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"What are Democrats doing about this problem? "

Trying to regain the majority.

"Bottom line is that in the absence of restructuring these programs the only viable option is a combination of tax increases - specifically FICA - and spending cuts "

And repealing the $2.3 Trillion giveaway...why didn't you mention that?

"we have to actually elect adult leaders who will first acknowledge the problem exists"

Great idea. When will you start voting against the folks who keep ratcheting up the deficits?

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 11:41 AM | Reply

"We get it. Republicans suck."

I didn't say they suck.

I said they purposefully reset the fiscal sights of America, and then refused to alter the course. Then, once they got power, voted to borrow even more trillions, just to give it away to the world's richest. And specifically because of all that, the debt crisis can honestly be laid at their feet.

Do you agree, or disagree?

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 11:44 AM | Reply

Did you support the recent tax cut, that made addressing the unfunded liabilities trillions of dollars more difficult?

You cant just tax the problem away. Yes, I did support the tax cut, you have to throw a bone to the producers of the nation sometime. And it did as it intended, it boosted the economy.

We need a combination of targeted tax increases with targeted liability decreases. But I doubt any politician has the balls to do that.

Democrats know that once you introduce a gimme program, it's almost impossible to take it back.

#32 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-10 11:50 AM | Reply

"Yes, I did support the tax cut, you have to throw a bone to the producers of the nation sometime."

Then STFU.

"We need a combination of targeted tax increases"

You just voted for a combination of targeted tax decreases.

"Democrats know that once you introduce a gimme program, it's almost impossible to take it back."

ExxonMobil knows it better.

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 11:53 AM | Reply

"You cant just tax the problem away."

How else are you planning on raising revenue...a bake sale?

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 11:54 AM | Reply

Funny how with the Democrats taking the House, debt is suddenly a concern again.

#35 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-01-10 11:55 AM | Reply

"Funny how with the Democrats taking the House, debt is suddenly a concern again."

And how right before that happened, Republicans were talking about ANOTHER round of tax cuts. Kevin Brady was working on it.

Any Republicans want to claim it was worry about unfunded liabilities that made them want another tax cut?

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 11:57 AM | Reply

And repealing the $2.3 Trillion giveaway...why didn't you mention that?

I'm fine with that.

Do you agree, or disagree?

#31 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I agree that they bear more of the blame for our current situation.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-10 11:58 AM | Reply

I'll say it.

Republicans suck

#38 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-01-10 12:02 PM | Reply

"I'm fine with that. "

While you vote for Republicans who aren't. Exactly HOW do you think this is going to happen if Republicans stay in power?

"(Republicans) bear more of the blame"

At what ratios? I mean, is this 51-49. or 99-1?

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 12:04 PM | Reply

"(Republicans) bear more of the blame"
At what ratios? I mean, is this 51-49. or 99-1?

#39 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Probably in the neighborhood of 65-35.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-10 12:07 PM | Reply

Jefe thinks he is a master of subtle speech, implying stuff but leaving himself a lot of wiggle room to back out of arguments.
Actually he is as subtle as a 2x4 to the face.

#41 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-01-10 12:08 PM | Reply

Exactly HOW do you think this is going to happen if Republicans stay in power?

Or Democrats ...

In the end it doesn't matter to either party, just like this thread no one is addressing JeffJ's topic and the non-linear spending.

I have stopped complaining about the debt and deficit, what will happen is going to happen with or without taxation cuts or increases.

Which is why I am FOR TAX CUTS, the system isn't going to fix itself it will collapse under the weight of spending problems, regardless of taxation rates.

So from a moral perspective, why should I pay for it?

#42 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-10 12:18 PM | Reply

"Democrats know that once you introduce a gimme program, it's almost impossible to take it back."

Economists have looked back at the Clinton tax increases and concluded that had we just left them in place would would have paid off the national debt by now. Live in your right wing fantasy land all you want but reality just won't ever agree with you. The "Gimme Program" of SS was paid for by boomers through doubling of our SS deductions UNDER RONNIE RAYGUN. We could see the numbers and acted responsibly to make sure the money was there which IT IS. You want to blame someone for shortages in Medicare, look no father than George W. Bush, who got Medicare Part D passed with a prohibition on Medicare negotiating with drug companies for lower prices, now you tell me BOAZ, who is the "Gimme" program really rewarding? Drug companies, that's who.

#43 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-10 12:19 PM | Reply

"Let me be crystal clear: I don't support any tax cuts that results in increasing the deficit."

But do you support tax increaes that result in decreasing unfunded liabilities?

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-10 12:20 PM | Reply

Which is why I am FOR TAX CUTS, the system isn't going to fix itself it will collapse under the weight of spending problems, regardless of taxation rates.
So from a moral perspective, why should I pay for it?
#42 | Posted by AndreaMackris

From a reality perspective, trust fund babies like you will be the first guillotined.

#45 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-01-10 12:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Yes, I did support the tax cut, you have to throw a bone to the producers of the nation sometime."

Which school of economics is this?
Maybe MadBomber can tell us...

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-10 12:22 PM | Reply

"Which is why I am FOR TAX CUTS, the system isn't going to fix itself it will collapse under the weight of spending problems"

So your answer to the upcoming cliff is...to step on the accelerator, so the crash will be even gorier. Why should we let you or your ilk drive?

Hey Jeff, do you agree? Andrea the Trust Fund Baby wants more tax cuts to solve the problem.

#47 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 12:23 PM | Reply

"Let me be crystal clear: I don't support any tax cuts that results in increasing the deficit."

Until I step into the voting booth.

FTFY

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-10 12:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

But do you support tax increaes that result in decreasing unfunded liabilities?

#44 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-01-10 12:20 PM

Short answer: yes.

See #29.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-10 12:42 PM | Reply

- So from a moral perspective, why should I pay for it?

Because you are not a totally uncaring, self-concerned Randian Objectivist pr-ck.... oh, wait. Never mind.

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-10 12:44 PM | Reply

Hey Jeff, do you agree? Andrea the Trust Fund Baby wants more tax cuts to solve the problem.

#47 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I don't agree. Having said that, I understand where Andrea is coming from: If nobody from either party is willing to address the freight train that we can all see is coming then worrying about short-term debt and deficits is pointless, so might as well cut taxes.

Again, I don't agree with that rationale, but I do understand it.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-10 12:45 PM | Reply

The government can go into debt forever. Debt is a sign of mismanagement, yes, but the idea that one day the Chinese are going to send repo-men to take your Ram Truck is another republican boogeyman.

#52 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-10 12:51 PM | Reply

Funny that this is now suddenly an issue. Never heard a peep about it the last 2 years when the GOP held all 3 branches of govt and were busy passing their deficit-busting tax cut for the wealthy.

#53 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-10 12:57 PM | Reply

Economists have looked back at the Clinton tax increases and concluded that had we just left them in place would would have paid off the national debt by now.

Source? Link?

#54 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-10 12:58 PM | Reply

"deficit-busting" Or I should say, deficit-exploding.

#55 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-10 12:58 PM | Reply

But do you support tax increaes that result in decreasing unfunded liabilities?

#44 | Posted by snoofy

No such animal. Everyone knows that if the government has more money to play with, liabilities will go up as well.

Spending would have to remain the same or go down in order for that to work.

#56 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-10 01:00 PM | Reply

Mind you jeffyj has been "really pleased" by two years of single party representation, the same two years that jeffyj never mentioned the debt

But now all of a sudden, mr "tax breaks pay for themselves" is all about the "coming catastrophe" he was "pleased" with just the other day

#57 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-01-10 01:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- If nobody from either party is willing to address the freight train

Bubba did, then handed GW our wallet, and he blew it all on a second term. Obama would have, but he was too busy paying for GW and the GOP's party.

#58 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-10 01:01 PM | Reply

"If nobody from either party is willing to address the freight train that we can all see is coming then worrying about short-term debt and deficits is pointless, so might as well cut taxes."

Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Party of Fiscal (and Personal) Responsibility.

You're a fraud, JeffJ.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-10 01:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#59

You need to re-hire your reading comprehension tutor, Snoofy.

Go back and read #51 as many times as necessary until you understand it.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-10 01:15 PM | Reply

Here's how fundamentally dishonest Snoofy is:

Hey Jeff, do you agree? Andrea the Trust Fund Baby wants more tax cuts to solve the problem.

#47 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I don't agree. Having said that, I understand where Andrea is coming from: If nobody from either party is willing to address the freight train that we can all see is coming then worrying about short-term debt and deficits is pointless, so might as well cut taxes.
Again, I don't agree with that rationale, but I do understand it.

#51 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-01-10 12:45 PM |


The parts in bold are the parts Snoofy omitted. Snoofy presented my summation of Andrea's viewpoint as if it was my own, all so he could bite my ankle.

I normally ignore Snoofy's ankle-biting posts, but this one was teed up way too nicely.

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-10 01:18 PM | Reply

JeffJ, I'd like to take this moment to lay bare for all to see your actual fraudulent activity:

"Let me be crystal clear: I don't support any tax cuts that results in increasing the deficit."

"Until I step into the voting booth.
FTFY
#48 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

^
Thanks for reading and understanding.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-10 01:23 PM | Reply

Piss off, ankle-biter.

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-10 01:24 PM | Reply

Also, it's a little bit of a bait and switch how your concern is "unfunded liabilities" but you're saying you don't support tax cuts that increase the "deficit," which is separate from our unfunded liabilities, and which is separate from our debt.

What's up with that?

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-10 01:25 PM | Reply

You piss off, kid.

Or stick around and I'll rub your face in it some more.

You're a fraud.

Own it.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-10 01:26 PM | Reply

"Here's how fundamentally dishonest Snoofy is"

really

this is coming from the same guy who swore OBAMA was going to

A) Declare martial law before election
B) Grant legal status to all illegals before leaving office
C) Destroy Americas medical system
D) insisted numerous times Kansas was going to show us all how "conservative" economics is done

Then denies it all when none of it came to fruition

#66 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-01-10 01:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

This is the only response warranted for your BS:

[stamp]
Please explain. Your claim is ridiculous. Stop repeating what you hear and educate yourself. What exactly was that supposed to prove? When your point is based entirely on an assumption, you didn't have a point to begin with. In order to make your point, you had to make something up completely. See the problem? Anything else that you would like to make up? The rest of your post was just mindless. I think you have only shown that you assume too much.
Do you ever actually understand what you are commenting on or does stupidity just take hold? Does anyone really understand what this person is babbling about?
[/stamp]

#67 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-10 01:33 PM | Reply

fraud is jeffyj's middle name

#68 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-01-10 01:52 PM | Reply

Jeffylubes's mad we judge him based on his entire history of comments rather than just his latest one.

#69 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-10 01:56 PM | Reply

rather than just his latest one.

#69 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

Exactly. 'I never complained about Obama playing golf.' The comedy writes itself around here.

#70 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-01-10 02:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Obama would have, but he was too busy paying for GW and the GOP's party.

What are you talking about? The debt under Obama in two years increased more than ALL Presidents COMBINED.

#71 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-10 02:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I'm genuinely curious why he started a thread about "unfunded liabities" and then when asked how he'd like to pay for them, he proclaimed he doesn't support tax cuts that increase the "deficit."

There could be no deficit, like in the Clinton years, and these unfunded liabities would still be looming large on the horizon.

In summary, JeffJ must think we are bigger fools than he is.

Stay in school, kids!

Especially if you are JeffJ's kids. You've got some serious verbal and quantitative comprehension problems to outrun.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-10 02:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Justagirl,

Your memory sucks ass.

This was my consistent take regarding Obama playing golf (never once wavered throughout his entire presidency):

In the modern day POTUS is tethered to the job 24/7. POTUS is also a human being and human beings function best when they have some time for leisure. I have no problem with Obama playing a lot of golf. In fact, it probably makes him more effective at his job as his taking the time to unwind with some leisure his mind will be more focused when it matters.

That was my take from day-1 of his presidency all of the way through to day-2920 of his presidency.

Way back in the early days of the DR for me, around the beginning of Bush's 2nd term Troofy posted a comment about attending an anti-war demonstration. I brought it up a year later and he was adamant he never made the comment. I was 100% completely convinced of it yet he was 100% adamant that he never made the comment. I concluded that my memory must have failed me. That is precisely what has happened in your case regarding my take on Obama's golfing. Just accept it and move on.

Consider trying to Hans a quote from me regarding Obama's golfing while he was president.

#73 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-10 02:25 PM | Reply

The debt under Obama in two years increased more than ALL Presidents COMBINED.

#71 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Thank's Dubya!

#74 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-10 02:27 PM | Reply

"The debt time bomb is actually real." - #23 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-10 11:24 AM

So is climate change.

#75 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-10 02:28 PM | Reply

"The debt under Obama in two years increased more than ALL Presidents COMBINED." - #71 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-10 02:07 PM

Apparently, context is a foreign concept to you.

#76 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-10 02:29 PM | Reply

Consider trying to Hans a quote

I dont have that creepy ability. If you were able to pull a quote with date/time stamp that you posted yourself to prove me wrong you would have already. I am not the only poster that recalls you being against it, until you were for it.

Just like supposedly being against these tax cuts that increase the deficit, until you vote. Then the party of fiscal irresponsibility will get your vote and attempt (possibly succeed) to cut more taxes...

#77 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-01-10 02:30 PM | Reply

"That was my take from day-1 of his presidency all of the way through to day-2920 of his presidency"

More Lies

#78 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-01-10 02:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I am not the only poster that recalls you being against it, until you were for it.

The recent tax cuts? Yes, that is true. Is it a crime for me to change my mind? Is it bad for my position to evolve as I've had more time to fully evaluate the tax law and see how it's shaken out now that it's been implemented? The deficits speak for themselves and to have them to this degree during a period of strong economic growth is unconscionable. Or, should I just stick to my initial position no matter what?

As for the Obama golf-thing - my position was 100% consistent and it's what I paraphrased above.

#79 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-10 03:01 PM | Reply

"Is it bad for my position to evolve as I've had more time to fully evaluate the tax law and see how it's shaken out now that it's been implemented?"

Oh, your position has evolved?

How have the unfunded liabilities shaken out now that the tax cuts have been implemented, JeffJ?

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-10 03:06 PM | Reply

Hey, JeffJ - have you funded all your future property payments, groceries, health insurance payments, utility bills etc. yet?

You haven't? Those are unfunded liabilities! Tick, tick, tick, you're doooooomed!!!

#81 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2019-01-10 03:30 PM | Reply

Derek,

Do you understand what unfunded liabilities are in terms of our federal budget?

I'd tell you to get lost because the adults are talking but the post right before yours was Snoofy's, so...

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-10 03:44 PM | Reply

"Do you understand what unfunded liabilities are in terms of our federal budget?"

Just tell us.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-10 03:54 PM | Reply

Hindsight is 20 20 but no matter what you say now about the tax situation your new opinion means less than nothing if you dont advocate for change. If you dont hold leaders accountable for their actions then no, you might as well just stick to your original position because it changes nothing either way. I can say anything I want, but if I dont act on it then it was all hot air. You admitted that you continued to vote GOP in the recent midterms. So far you have only been hot air.

#84 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-01-10 04:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This thread is a prime example of why righties should never attempt to lecture anybody again on economics.

You guys are absolute idiots. The dishonesty and lack of integrity are just icing.

#85 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-10 09:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Canada has a fully funded public pension system and a publically funded healthcare system for all.

Is Canada really so much better and richer than the USA in spite of not having the money machines of wall street, Madison Avenue, Hollywood and silicon valley?

Should the US admit defeat and outsource its government to Canada?

#86 | Posted by bored at 2019-01-10 09:33 PM | Reply

Is Canada really so much better and richer than the USA in spite of not having the money machines of wall street, Madison Avenue, Hollywood and silicon valley?

Nope. We just suck it up and pay a lot of taxes. Some of it you get back, most of it you don't.

#87 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-01-10 09:40 PM | Reply

Some of it you get back, most of it you don't.

#87 | POSTED BY REDIAL

At least you have the maybe. As a Californian, I know my federal taxes are being thrown away as subsidies for red states.

#88 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-10 10:02 PM | Reply

At least you have the maybe.

For sure. I pay huge for schools but don't get anything back from it. I pay huge for health care and get some of it back. When I get get a critical illness I'll probably get all of it back.

#89 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-01-10 10:21 PM | Reply

"The debt under Obama in two years increased more than ALL Presidents COMBINED"

Not true at all. Whatever sources are telling you that, are lying to you. It's an easily disprovable claim, so whoever is telling you that lie, literally believes you're too stupid to discover the truth.

Look it up. Seriously. Then come back and apologize for posting a lie.

I mean...isn't that what a soldier is supposed to do if he unknowingly misleads his fellow troops...come back and apologize?

#90 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-11 12:52 AM | Reply

"The debt under Obama in two years increased more than ALL Presidents COMBINED"

How's it doing under Trump?

Getting better?

Obama's fault it's not getting better?

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-11 12:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Having said that, can you imagine if current SS recipients had their benefits cut by 30% next year the kind of chaos that would create?

#13 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-01-10 11:02 AM | FLAG:

It happens all the time in the private world.

CEO cuts funding to pension plan, gives C-suite huge bonuses, business gets run into ground, declares bankruptcy, the government takes over the pension plan, slashes pension benefits 70%, bonuses awarded again by the bankruptcy trustee to the c-suite.

See Sears, Delphi, American Airlines, etc.

#92 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-01-11 07:22 AM | Reply

The debt under Obama in two years increased more than ALL Presidents COMBINED.

#71 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2019-01-10 02:07 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

--------.

#93 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-01-11 07:24 AM | Reply

Hindsight is 20 20 but no matter what you say now about the tax situation your new opinion means less than nothing if you dont advocate for change. If you dont hold leaders accountable for their actions then no, you might as well just stick to your original position because it changes nothing either way. I can say anything I want, but if I dont act on it then it was all hot air. You admitted that you continued to vote GOP in the recent midterms. So far you have only been hot air.

#84 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

First off, this thread is about unfunded liabilities, not the recently passed tax law.

So, to your point....in 2011 the GOP lead House passed a budget that addressed the unfunded liabilities driven by SS, Medicare and Medicaid. So, what was the Democratic Party's response?

It was 2-fold. First, Obama invited Paul Ryan to join him at a speech he was giving at Georgetown regarding the federal budget. Ryan was honored - an olive branch thrown out by Obama to address a very serious issue. Obama had Ryan placed in the front row of the auditorium and proceeded to mock and eviscerate the GOP budget with Ryan sitting there, unable to offer a rejoinder. Oh, and then a nice political ad was run depicting a Ryan look-a-like pushing a wheelchair-bound Granny over a cliff. That response told me everything I needed to know about how seriously the Democratic Party took the issue of unfunded liabilities, which JPW seems to think doesn't even exist at all.

If neither party is willing to address this issue at all (Which I think will be the case for the GOP too now with Ryan retiring) then I will vote based upon other issues.

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-11 07:26 AM | Reply

"If neither party is willing to address this issue at all (Which I think will be the case for the GOP too now with Ryan retiring) then I will vote based upon other issues."

Oh so it's all a canard.

You pay lip service to this issue, but you'll still vote for people who do the opposite of what you'd like.

And you still really wonder why we don't think you're serious about this issue?

That's cute.

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-11 12:29 PM | Reply

"First off, this thread is about unfunded liabilities, not the recently passed tax law. "

Why are you pretending they have nothing to do with each other?

You say we're headed for a cliff, and you're screaming to hit the brakes...

...while you floor it.

#96 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-11 12:51 PM | Reply

"First off, this thread is about unfunded liabilities, not the recently passed tax law. "

Why didn't the recently passed tax law fund the liabilities, -------?

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-11 12:58 PM | Reply

"First off, this thread is about unfunded liabilities, not the recently passed tax law." - #94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-11 07:26 AM

This thread was about Steve King (R-Iowa) questioning how terms such as "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" became offensive in the U.S.

It had zero to do with Western Civ courses or, for that matter, Western Civilization, which the very first comment of the thread addressed:

"Just added in Western civilization and pretends the rest of us won't notice. White nationalist, white supremacist are not synonyms for Western Civilization. What a dishonest piece of crap he is." - #1 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-10 11:12 AM | Flag: Newsworthy 7
In spite of that, the thread was hijacked, and seemingly with glee...
"Poor little Joe and Corky. They wanted another typical partisan beatdown of a politician and the thread exploded into a much broader discussion of Western Civ courses and Western Civilization in general." - #97 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-10 04:14 PM
Sadly, posters from both sides of the aisle (including a post from me) fell for that hijacking.

'Tis the nature of the Retort.

#98 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-11 01:58 PM | Reply

First off, this thread is about unfunded liabilities, not the recently passed tax law. "
Why didn't the recently passed tax law fund the liabilities, -------?

#97 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-01-11 12:58 PM

First off, tell me how the recently passed tax law created the liabilities, -------.

Typical that the freaks on the DR Left will gyrate wildly to avoid actually addressing this topic, instead deflecting to either "GOP bad" or the recent tax law.

SMFH

#99 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-01-11 05:00 PM | Reply

"First off, tell me how the recently passed tax law created the liabilities, -------."

It didn't create them, nor did it address them, because Republicans will gyrate wildly to avoid actually addressing this topic.

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-11 05:05 PM | Reply

"or the recent tax law."

It's just hard to take "We're in financial trouble" seriously from the folks who just got back from a massive spending spree. Did you just wake up to this fact, or was it Dems taking the House that did it?

#101 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-11 05:24 PM | Reply

"tell me how the recently passed tax law created the liabilities,"

Tax payments have been lower since the change. If taking the average over the 8 years, it's about $285 Billion per year.

Also, keep in mind, the $285 Billion of costs-over-revenues assumes 4% growth.

#102 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-11 05:28 PM | Reply

"It's just hard to take "We're in financial trouble" seriously from the folks who just got back from a massive spending spree."

Not for them it's not.

The part where that spending spree could have been directed towards the very unfunded liabilities that now cause them to call for austerity and welfare cuts, they simoly refuse to connect those dots.

And you sure as hell can't make them.

Somehow they still feel shame, which seems to be the only surefire way to shut them up.

At least, until tomorrow.

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-11 05:33 PM | Reply

end prohibition, cut back the MIC, ...rake in the taxes. ...USP; UBI;...

#104 | Posted by ichiro at 2019-01-12 03:48 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort