Here is a question for the left wing college elite

Please tell us the company name or at least the actual business it's in.

 

perhaps you are ignorant on what a treasury is.
The government takes the money in exchange for the bill/note. The gov spends the money, and the debt note is a promise to pay in the future.
This is not complicated. Sorry for your confusion

 

Nice try but your opinion doesn't outweigh any of the facts I have presented. You don't have any interest in discussion as usual.

 

what does "(I am a R1 university chemistry professor)" mean.
Maybe i misinterpreted your statement. If i did it was an honest mistake.

 

All of these are entitlements.
Adding spending on entitlements to the total of entitlement spending is not 'padding'.
I proved my point, and disproved yours, at the same time, with the same unimpeachable source.
Feel free to post numbers - from a similar unimpeachable source - that prove otherwise.

Irrelevant to both your points and mine, as is any argument derived from same.
You;re tying to move the goalpost, and you know it.

 

but the people didn't have a FED to supply them with endless free credit to leverage up to the hundreds of trillions.
That's the real difference.

Thinking you can get rich of your home is one thing, being the equivalent of a global crime syndicate with the blessing of government and the FED is another.

 

The facts you presebted do not, in even the most minimal or marginal way, prove the points you claim.
Tell us how <94,000 is "well above 100k'.

 

not likely.
The neocons warmongering chickenhawks are getting everything they want out of him. Why would they change ?

 

It was more a game of telephone, there wasn't one single master planner, just a bunch of people who let something slide. Then by the time it was too late, it was too late....

If anything, the government regulators were already in place and didn't do their job. No new regulations would have changed that.

But plenty of intelligent people saw it coming and made a killing off the impending doom and not just all rich people either.

 

not when your debt is greater than 100% of a full years income without having paid payed taxes, living expenses, car expenses or eating.

 

Regulators never do their job when it comes to corporatism and government.
the bankers made a fortune and then made more fortunes with trillions in free money via the FED and the gov.
They should have died the fiscal death they deserved. And none of it would have been possible without Gramm Leech Bliley which allowed the mixing of commercial and finance banking business activities

 

I never made that statement. Seriously, click the link to my post:

"So value in that specific situation is all that matters?"

 

that government is broke and can't pay it's current liabilities without borrowing a trillion a year.
Oh yeah, and SS is the government. Event simpletons understand that you can't borrow from yourself.
All that is left is IOUs from the government to the government.

 

Perhaps I was a financial planner with far more training than I expect you have had in securities and planning. And I am sorry for YOUR confusion. What you told me is that the government borrowed the money yet you seem to want to blame the lender and source of the fund for the debt.

Now answer my question. If you have a net worth of $2 million and you invest $1 million of it in Treasury bills, what is your net worth then?

 

the lender was the borrower.
In this case, the net worth would be $2 million minus the $1 million that the you spent.

 

I already said I couldn't find the source of that and backed off the claim. It was something I read offline somewhere. Sorry you missed it I guess. Maybe if you actually tried to understand the things I am posting rather than come up with an instant obstinate rejection you might not have.

 

If you recall, all I asked was for you to provide citations for your claims.

 

I apologize, but with how often I get purposefully misquoted on here by people, its really pisses me off.

 

No they're not. You are using the word "entitlement" incorrectly. Typically, entitlements are based on concepts of principle which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement. Entitlement can also be informally to do with social relationships, social conventions and social norms. But they are not programs that are paid for by those who benefit from them. Otherwise your coverage granted you under your home and auto insurance would be "entitlements". Entitlements are paid for by general tax dollars and are received by many who have not paid for them.

It certainly is since S.S. and Medicare are not entitlements because those who receive them are those who paid into them.

Stop claiming victory prematurely. It's childish.

 

Except that it's probably not. http://www.dailycal.org/2011/11/07/...-debt-despite-rise-less-than-nations-average/

 

Which I did. Then you said they were out of context and added some meaningless opinion that you felt invalidated them. That's fine, but it's clear you are unwilling to look at evidence that doesn't fit your narrow paradigm.

 

That's not the fault of S.S. or Medicare.

LOL!!!!!!! Can you say "TRANSPARENT"? You entirely eliminated the worker whose payroll taxes funded the Trust Fund securities.
You are no longer a serious contender. You lose.

 

Weasel words, eh?

 

This is not true and you know it.
You know your statement is false.
You would rather knowingly make false statements than admit you were wrong.

 

A right is something you can exercise on your own without placing a burden on someone else.

An entitlement is something you cannot exercise unless you put a burden on someone else.

Entitlements handed out by government can be taken away just as easily. Read the fine print on SS and Medicare. You are "entitled" to exactly nothing. If the funding runs out the government actually has no contractual responsibility to make any recipient whole.