On Sep 16, 3:33�am, Michael Coburn > wrote:

> Let me address each part of your charge he
>
> 1. I have a deep seated hatred for latter day Republicans. But that does
> not CREATE their constant failed policies and initiatives. �They do.

If you mean the Republican Congress bewteen 2001 and 2007, I agree.
They wasted money and really did nothing good(Both parties were for
the wars).

Congress has the power, they control the laws and money. They have
oversight on how the other levels of government operate, they didn't
do their job. Problem is neither did the Democrats. The Democrats have
been control of the Congress for almost 3 years now and things
continue to go down hill. The first few yaers they were more concerned
about putting bills and other things up just to hurt the President and
ignored their rule of oversight, this is part of the reason we are at
this point right now.

Yes the problems are starting to slow down, but it was by way of the
biggest spending programs in our history. See how our grandkids feel
when we hand them the bill.



>
> 2. The part of the article to which I responded was not "clearly" talking
> about Medicare "A" because it simply used the unadorned word "Medicare"
> an added Social Security to it. �The clarification (Which may or may not
> have been a clarification) came in the paragraph that followed and which
> was not in the post to which I responded). �If Republican apologists want
> to talk specifically about Medicare HI then they can damned well make it
> clear and not mix it with Social Security. �And then you and they can use
> the word "clearly".


But you read the article before you posted, here's what you said

Michael Coburn
>"The Article said _MEDICARE_ and Social Security and gave no link to the
>"supposed" Reports that on page ^$%^ said the Martians are coming to eat
>the kids."

Your only excuse then was there were no links in it.

Yes, Medicare and Social Security are going belly up, so where is the
error? And the writer, under like you, didn't say Medicare is going BK
bcause of SS, or SS is going BK because of Medicare. He clearly didn't
say anything about Part 'B' and 'D because they are not the part
supported by the tax. You misread that into what he wrote, you even
accure him of insinuating that these were to be supported by Medicare
tax. He said nothing of the sort, Medicare 'A' is supported by the
tax, not "B" or "D" so it was claer what he was talking about. You are
the one that lumped in "D" AND "B". here's what you wrote

"Let us understand that Medicare "B" and "D" are the primary
shortfalls
but that the article is perpetrating a lie of sorts in insinuating
that
these were to be supported by the Medicare tax."

But all this doesn't matter because if you knew the subject you would
have known the reason Medicare was going BK is because of Medicare "A"
and has nothing to do with "B" and "D". Medicare is going BK long
before anything to do with "B" and "D".

>
> Twas not I who lumped. �The article "clearly" lumps Medicare and Social
> Security.

Geez, again he didn't claim Medicare is causing SS to go BK, unlike
you claiming part "D" and "B" was the reason Medicare was going BK. He
didn't link them together as one causing the other to go BK. There was
nothing incorrect on what he wrote, but what you wrote was incorrect.

> Looks like to me that taxing aggregate AGI as opposed to taxing wages
> would result in a 40% increase in Medicare receipts while giving the
> lower income people a small tax break. �That should keep the Medicare HI
> program solvent for a while without a rate increase, i.e. The rate of
> 2.9% is applied to AGI instead of to wages. �
>
> And the actual fear mongering concerning medicare seems to be based on
> demographics. �The demographics part may require an increase in the tax
> rate. So be it. �Taking the system OUT of government will not solve any
> of the problems. �And it will make the control of costs all the more
> difficult. �It will make matters worse.

You are not taxing AIG, you are taxing the people that are insured by
AIG. AIG will just pass the tax on to the insured, increasing the cost
of health care, not reducing it.

Haha, the government can't even control the program it now runs.


> The purpose of "Off Budget" for social insurance systems is to "clearly"
> delineate these programs as to source of revenue and actual outlays. It
> keeps people from claiming that social insurance programs have ANYTHING
> to do with the regular government budget or with INCOME taxes _UNLESS_
> those claims are actually true (as Medicare "B" and "D"). �The FICA tax
> is actually a whole life insurance premium more than it is a tax. �All
> the pig manure about government growth while pointing to "entitlements"
> is dishonest. �Claims about "entitlements" being a HUGE part of the
> federal budget and in the same breath yakking about taxes is misleading. �
> It is misleading because the word "taxes" is assumed to be INCOME taxes
> by all that use the term at the Federal level. �Tax cuts and tax
> increases are assumed to be INCOME tax cuts and increases. �Too many
> people talk about the "unified" budget and such talk is too imprecise.

Tell us how much money is in the SS trust fund.