Pelosi officially announces impeachment inquiry

[gemstonefella]

Which is why I said everyone is culpable. Yes, people in both parties have a hand in it, but there is a significant difference between democrats and republicans. Just look at the 2020 candidates.

I'll take a look when they get their shit together. I'll watch a debate when there's less people on stage than most Montana towns.

[~Rocktar~]

Not nearly as dumb as you defending a $30+ trillion deficit. That should be in the Hall of Fame.

Since entitlements, those so called "social services" account for 3/5ths of the budget as of 2015 and since it was estimated that in 3007 or so, we had between 40 and 70 trillion dollars in unfunded social mandates, those so called "social services" that you are so eager to give away, that means that at the present levels of spending on "social services" will keep us in an ever growing deficit until our economy collapses. So, just to put that in perspective, there is about 35 trillion dollars worth of money in the world. The richest few percent of people in the US have a combined 2 to 2.5 trillion dollars of wealth. That isn't enough to feed the entitlement monster for more than about 5 months. Curiously enough, a good stint of high inflation would wipe out the debt but in the mean time, the poor would be ravaged, our economy would tank and all the other bad things that happened in the 70's.

Why not use the riches of our nation and people to take care of our nation and people instead of continuing to allow a system that rewards the lucky and connected few an undue and imbalanced portion of everyone's well being?

Because we are bankrupt just like every other western country out there with substantial "social services". We are in debt to our eyeballs, our income has been long out spent and no matter if you cut back 100% of the military budget, we would STILL be deficit spending. Morons like you who are obviously bad at math and who have put feelings ahead of facts because "muh feels" are on the verge of killing western civilization. Economic enslavement to the body politic is still slavery and it's evil in no uncertain terms. You and others keep advocating for it, so what does that make you?

People have recognized this for a long time, longer than our country has been around, and the cycle has not been broken because its feeds itself. The wealthy buy the power to keep the wealth and the power.

Yes, the rich and powerful work to keep themselves rich and powerful. This is true everywhere and is even more glaringly true in those lovely Socialist and Communist countries you want to emulate.

Your number is retarded, your principles are morally and ethically bankrupt and I sure hope I never get to live in the fantasy "utopia" you and other useful idiots on the left advocate for. Democrats were the party of slavery, were the party of separate but equal, were the party of Jim Crow, were the party of segregation, are the party of slaughtering Blacks, are the party of keeping minorities economically enslaved and when they see their hold on the minorities here slipping, want to import more low IQ people to make into voters in order to cement control of the country as we spiral into economic oblivion, totalitarianism necessitated by Socialism and civil war.

Here is a breakdown of the 2015 budget because you have no clue.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/b...-101/spending/

I'll take a look when they get their shit together. I'll watch a debate when there's less people on stage than most Montana towns.

It's hard to see with that many clowns in the car.

[Back]

Since entitlements, those so called "social services" account for 3/5ths of the budget as of 2015 and since it was estimated that in 3007 or so, we had between 40 and 70 trillion dollars in unfunded social mandates, those so called "social services" that you are so eager to give away, that means that at the present levels of spending on "social services" will keep us in an ever growing deficit until our economy collapses. So, just to put that in perspective, there is about 35 trillion dollars worth of money in the world. The richest few percent of people in the US have a combined 2 to 2.5 trillion dollars of wealth. That isn't enough to feed the entitlement monster for more than about 5 months. Curiously enough, a good stint of high inflation would wipe out the debt but in the mean time, the poor would be ravaged, our economy would tank and all the other bad things that happened in the 70's.



Because we are bankrupt just like every other western country out there with substantial "social services". We are in debt to our eyeballs, our income has been long out spent and no matter if you cut back 100% of the military budget, we would STILL be deficit spending. Morons like you who are obviously bad at math and who have put feelings ahead of facts because "muh feels" are on the verge of killing western civilization. Economic enslavement to the body politic is still slavery and it's evil in no uncertain terms. You and others keep advocating for it, so what does that make you?



Yes, the rich and powerful work to keep themselves rich and powerful. This is true everywhere and is even more glaringly true in those lovely Socialist and Communist countries you want to emulate.

Your number is retarded, your principles are morally and ethically bankrupt and I sure hope I never get to live in the fantasy "utopia" you and other useful idiots on the left advocate for. Democrats were the party of slavery, were the party of separate but equal, were the party of Jim Crow, were the party of segregation, are the party of slaughtering Blacks, are the party of keeping minorities economically enslaved and when they see their hold on the minorities here slipping, want to import more low IQ people to make into voters in order to cement control of the country as we spiral into economic oblivion, totalitarianism necessitated by Socialism and civil war.

Here is a breakdown of the 2015 budget because you have no clue.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/b...-101/spending/

It's hard to see with that many clowns in the car.

Aside from the obvious pot shots and insults this has been one of your more cogent posts. Thanks for the link. Its pretty informative and presents the information in an easy to understand way.

[Methais]

Aside from the obvious pot shots and insults this has been one of your more cogent posts. Thanks for the link. Its pretty informative and presents the information in an easy to understand way.

The most important thing that you need to take away from it though is that you’re really stupid and gullible.

[Back]

I'll take a look when they get their shit together. I'll watch a debate when there's less people on stage than most Montana towns.

So you want fewer options? Most people like having lots of options. You must confuse the shit out of the cashier at Burger King when you order you food their way.

[Back]

In support of my theory that this is a republican shadow coup against Crooked Trump, that the whistle blower might be Bolton, or even Holier Than Thou Pence, this news came out today.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pence...b01f982f03b55d

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The phone call between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart at the center of Congress’ impeachment investigation was “inappropriate,” an aide to Vice President Mike Pence told lawmakers, according to a transcript released on Saturday.

Jennifer Williams, a foreign policy aide to Pence who was listening to the call on July 25, testified that Trump’s insistence that Ukraine carry out politically sensitive investigations “struck me as unusual and inappropriate.”


She said the discussion was “more political in nature” than phone calls with other foreign leaders, and included what she viewed as specific references to the president’s “personal political agenda.”

In order to testify she would have had to disobey the White House order not to testify. She works directly for Pence. Did he not order her to not testify? Was he complicit? Is Pence really a mastermind running a checkmate game against Dumbo Trump to take the presidency?

[Seran]

Since entitlements, those so called "social services" account for 3/5ths of the budget as of 2015 and since it was estimated that in 3007 or so, we had between 40 and 70 trillion dollars in unfunded social mandates, those so called "social services" that you are so eager to give away, that means that at the present levels of spending on "social services" will keep us in an ever growing deficit until our economy collapses. So, just to put that in perspective, there is about 35 trillion dollars worth of money in the world. The richest few percent of people in the US have a combined 2 to 2.5 trillion dollars of wealth. That isn't enough to feed the entitlement monster for more than about 5 months. Curiously enough, a good stint of high inflation would wipe out the debt but in the mean time, the poor would be ravaged, our economy would tank and all the other bad things that happened in the 70's.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/b...-101/spending/

So interestingly enough, until 2010 the entirety of Social Security entitlements were paid for by a combination of payroll taxes and trust fund interest. Where it went into the red was the first of the "boomers" retiring, with a combination of less able-bodied individuals in the workforce and that workforce by and large making a taxable salary which isn't increasing with inflation, you have the current entitlements crisis. What is the easiest solution? Increasing payroll taxes by something like 2.3-2.4% under the social security line item would make Social Security solvent again. Medicare and Medicaid are a MUCH bigger animal to tackle, by in large because the cost of caring for the poor and disadvantaged exceeds the ability of the working majority to pay for.

Fast forward to 2009 and we have the Affordable Care Act, which as a result the cost of Medicare was $70 billion less and Medicaid $250 billion less than budgeted for 2017. Why? More people insured, receiving annual exams and non-emergent treatment has drastically reduced the governments burden for paying for uncovered emergent treatment. Per the same study, insurer cost for 2017 was $170 billion less than the acturial projected growth for the same reason; people are receiving better, more consistent care that keeps them out of hospitals. This reason alone is why so many Republicans no longer wish to repeal the ACA.

[~Rocktar~]

Aside from the obvious pot shots and insults this has been one of your more cogent posts. Thanks for the link. Its pretty informative and presents the information in an easy to understand way.

I have posted virtually the same argument with the same link something like 5 or 6 times now.

So you want fewer options? Most people like having lots of options. You must confuse the shit out of the cashier at Burger King when you order you food their way.

A bunch of carbon copy idiots trying to out Leftist each other is not real choice. Picking between economic slavery with the Left and less economic slavery with the Right, I chose the less painful option.

Also, disgruntled employees are notoriously biased and unreliable witnesses.

[~Rocktar~]

So interestingly enough, until 2010 the entirety of Social Security entitlements were paid for by a combination of payroll taxes and trust fund interest. Where it went into the red was the first of the "boomers" retiring, with a combination of less able-bodied individuals in the workforce and that workforce by and large making a taxable salary which isn't increasing with inflation, you have the current entitlements crisis. What is the easiest solution? Increasing payroll taxes by something like 2.3-2.4% under the social security line item would make Social Security solvent again. Medicare and Medicaid are a MUCH bigger animal to tackle, by in large because the cost of caring for the poor and disadvantaged exceeds the ability of the working majority to pay for.

The trust fund is a myth that has been dead for decades. The issue with more people retiring than are working is true. Increased payroll taxes as a solution ignores the fact that as taxes increase, demand for benefits increase and the whole thing repeats until there is nothing left to tax. It is and always has been a Ponzi scheme from the beginning. Increased lifespan was not met with increased retirement age, benefits have been increased over time and include more and more with less and less being paid in. It cannot continue forever.

Fast forward to 2009 and we have the Affordable Care Act, which as a result the cost of Medicare was $70 billion less and Medicaid $250 billion less than budgeted for 2017. Why? More people insured, receiving annual exams and non-emergent treatment has drastically reduced the governments burden for paying for uncovered emergent treatment. Per the same study, insurer cost for 2017 was $170 billion less than the acturial projected growth for the same reason; people are receiving better, more consistent care that keeps them out of hospitals. This reason alone is why so many Republicans no longer wish to repeal the ACA.

These studies don't take into account that you have 6 years of "benefits" paid for by 10 years of taxes, the CBO showing the revised estimates being 2 to 3 times the initial costs AND the increased burden of cost to the consumer. Since many were forced to buy plans they didn't want, their costs rose, since coverage was standardized to a dismal minimum coverage decreased and many people quit working in order to just have the government and welfare pay for them. None of these studies address these issues. The private cost of coverage went up, deductibles, co-insurance and copays went up (which means coverage went down) and you have a large increase in legal costs to administer and maintain this load of shit.

Good news, being a middle aged male, I have maternity coverage and I am covered for a pap smear all that I am forced to pay for because "mug feels".

A small, less onerous and less expensive expansion of medicaid and perhaps a law to address pre-existing conditions could have addressed the major ills to assuage Leftist guilt that no all people are created equally miserable and wretched. Instead, we got the ACA.

[Seran]

The trust fund is a myth that has been dead for decades. The issue with more people retiring than are working is true. Increased payroll taxes as a solution ignores the fact that as taxes increase, demand for benefits increase and the whole thing repeats until there is nothing left to tax. It is and always has been a Ponzi scheme from the beginning. Increased lifespan was not met with increased retirement age, benefits have been increased over time and include more and more with less and less being paid in. It cannot continue forever.

Current benefits are always a percentage of the retiring income, so while you're technically correct that it cannot last forever, I disagree with your reason. The Social Security trust fund is not a trust funds as many think of it, which would be similar to an escrow or investment account. In fact the "trust fund" is interest bearing general bonds which are held as payroll taxes fail to meet a current obligation. The last accounting I saw was $2.93 trillion.

So, while you're technically correct in that it cannot last forever, the easy fix of increasing benefits age, lowering benefit or raising payroll taxes periodically increase the longevity of it's solvency.

Now, Social Security Retirement was meant as a basic income, to supplement savings, so that retiree's weren't living on the streets. The downward trend in homeownership and stagnant wages mean there's no savings or cost reductions such as having paid off your mortgage. This isn't the failure of SSA, but rather the government in leaving the minimum wage unchanged.