You mean to pay for the rising debt instead of writing it off as intergovernmental holdings? Not that is ever materialized, hell, to this day people still believe there was some kind of Clinton surplus. But it doesn't matter.. I could put money in my retirement account and then go into massive debt everywhere else. At the end of the day, the creditors get my retirement funds, so for all intents and purposes, I decided not to save for retirement. It sounds nice that the government has labeled the taxes as FICA, but that is just for show. I mean, for 108 years the federal government collected a 3% excise tax on long distance calls. That tax was meant to pay for the Spanish American war. Is that what you believe it was doing for that 108 years? ( http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2006-05-25-phone-tax_x.htm )



It is NOT paying for itself when you go into debt in other areas. It is like claiming ownership of water on one side of a bucket.

The rest of that paragraph made no sense.



Well you are wrong, but focusing on saving ANY group is wrong. Welfare for the rich is just as bad as welfare for the poor. At least I admit it. I don't believe you should confiscate peoples money and give it to others, whether they are rich or poor. It is not YOUR money.



Have baked eh? Yeah I think you have..



I think we should eliminate FICA and the entitlements and all subsidies, whether it is oil, green energy, agriculture, or whatever the flavor of the month is. It is crony capitalism. I surely am not the one defending that.



Oh yeah, bleeding hearts can't cut anything, I know.. We can't cut ANYTHING because it might hurt someone. How convenient. As we all swirl down the drain together, we can at least be comforted that we didn't hurt anyone on our way down.. Good luck with that..

Well you seem to have a handle on it, so good luck with that!

In the end, after all is said and done, that just might be the only redeeming legacy of our trails and labors, if it were true: we can be comforted that we didn't hurt anyone on our way down........

Rather, we dragged everyone down together.. Some legacy..

No, you are mistaken. "We" didn't drag anbody down. That feat will have been accomplished by greedy capitalists and their champions.

No your wrong. That feat will be accomplished with social justice and the occupy types who think everything must be equal..

I'm almost afraid to ask, but WTF is your problem with social justice and equality? And, of course, by equality I mean fairness.

I have come to notice that in order to achieve "social justice" you must redistribute the wealth of others and accept every tenet of liberal dogma. I also find that most people are concerned with outcome equality, rather than actual fairness when they talk about equality. For example, if I earn more money than my neighbor, it is somehow unequal, when in fact I work much harder than he does. In other words, everyone wants a tie game rather than an equal playing field.

To weigh in here...

heraclitis' argument at least makes sense.

You would not make a good debater or attorney. You do sound like you would make a good politician. No regard for facts...

Ah, good old fashioned RED BAITING! Now that is a novel approach (????)

I was wrong and will admit it. I was incorrect in one of my comments. A small percentage of Medicare has been paid by the funded budget in the past two years. Doesn't really change the fact that someone didn't know what the hell they were talking about when they said entitlements have contributed to the National Debt in a very bellicose and rhetorical way.

I am not arguing about the future, there are real issues but up to now their impact has been minimal for the services they have provided.

Let us at least have an intellectually honest argument here (see attachment)

Please add up the entitlements here and tell me what you get.

Or is it your contention that spending does not contribute to debt. I would love to hear you explain that one.

I have posted plenty of facts. All I have gotten in return are "C'mon man" and "bullshit". Yeah, that makes a lot of sense..

Jump to minute 14:40 please (or watch it all if you want):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv96YIFsZfQ

And finally, the 2010 Federal Budget humorously titled "A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Unite ... ral_budget



So please, don't tell me that $2+ trillion dollars in spending has nothing to do with debt. It is dishonest considering the fiscal deficit for that year was $1.17 trillion.

So the logic here is if you don't like spending all that money you just don't pay the bills you don't like?