Question:
How come Libs can never answer either of these two questions?
truthisback
2007-08-29 07:17:56 UTC
(1) What's the PROOF of man-made global warming?

(2) What rights have you lost?
39 answers:
2007-08-29 07:21:11 UTC
Because in both cases the answer is none, zip, notta. Libs are used to getting something from Nothing, like WELFARE.
Captain Jack ®
2007-08-29 07:54:32 UTC
It's because:



There is no proof of man made global warming. While some man made emissions may have had some effect on climate change, it is mainly simple climate change that has happened over and over in natural history. Ever notice that people who use this as a platform, like Al Gore, have a carbon footprint bigger than Texas? It's just a ploy to get votes.



No rights have been lost. I don't understand these pinkos that think enemy combatants should be protected under the constitution. They are not Americans. They are foreign nationals that have perpetrated violence on Americans.



Wiretapping has been used to track suspicious activity. Anyone who really thinks they're listening to you talk to your Aunt Martha in Scotland, or your Mother in law in Germany are way off the mark.



The supreme court has been rather conservative for quite a while now, but isn't rushing to strike down Roe v. Wade. Even Chief Justice Roberts has stated that he doesn't personally belive in R v. W, but it is the law of the land, which is his duty to uphold.



Libs have long preyed on those who really don't understand how a federalist government works. The President cannot just wave his/her hand and make it so. It's crazy how many democratic supporters think the president can magically lower oil prices, improve the ecconomy, institute national health care, withdraw troops and many other things the dems bark on to get elected. The President is merely an executive who can make their opinon known, but can only pass or veto mesures sent up from both houses. Military Learership, The houses of congress, corporate america and the world ecconomy control most of the things they claim they'll change. They can't.



Dems don't want you to rememeber it was them that got us involved in Nam, or how many times they have destroyed a prossperous ecconomy created by GOP leadership.



Wake Up America !!!
Becca
2007-08-29 07:45:05 UTC
I don't have proof of man-made global warming but I do have a theory. That theory has to do with the Space program which was not around 100 years ago. When the shuttle is launched, gallons of fuel are burned to propell it through the atmosphere...and then when the shuttle returns it has to be protected from 'heat' of re-entry. I don't know if this is the cause or not, but to me it just makes common sense that there has to be some damage being done to the ozone layer with the constant up and down of the shuttle. I can also state from my own experience that when i was a child, we didn't have to worry about sun block when we went outside or UV rays.....and we didn't burn like you will today if you don't wear it.



What rights? Well the only one that I can relate to is the smoking in public places ban...but that doesn't bother me because I understand the reasoning behind it. I don't get into the radical thinking about 'big brother' watching every move I make,that's just paranoid.
pip
2007-08-29 07:27:04 UTC
We have a thousand times over.. you just don't want to hear the answers.



http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm



Check out that first chart.. it's called a Keeling chart.. it shows the temperature variations and CO2 variations over the past 400 thousand years... isn't it amazing how they mimic one another? Also.. CO2 is higher now than it has been at any point since man has roamed the planet.. coincidence? I think not.



As for rights... we have fought to keep Bush from invading our privacy with warrant less wiretapping.. It wasn't a complete victory.. but it wasn't a total loss either.







Quick Edit: You talk about how small a % the CO2 makes up.. all greenhouse gases make up only 1% of the atmosphere.. yet they regulate about 40% of the heat that is retained.. in other words they are very efficient and it doesn't take a large change to create a noticeable impact. So it's not a far fetched idea that they could change the global temperature by a degree or two... and here's the thing.. according to the ice cores only 2-3 degrees of global shift separate an ice age from an arid period.







Edit: The time frame that you are referring to suggest that CO2 is actually part of a FeedBack loop. One of those things that has exacerbated the cycles in the past. Feedback loops ALL cause global warming.. this is just the first time that an outside stimulus (man) has pushed a feedback loop to be a cause. Other feedback loops are ocean warming/expanding, more heat absorbed due to smaller area of reflective ice.. that sort of thing.



Edit: Is man the only cause? Of course not! The planet naturally circles the sun in a way that causes our orbit to become more elliptical every thousand years or so, bringing on more and less energy from the sun... The natural wobble of our axis also shift some from time to time.. all of these have an effect as well and it's quite possible that this is also part of the problem. But the sun only accounts for 0.2 degress C of the warming.. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801174450.htm



So where do you suggest the rest of the heat is coming from?
gone
2007-08-29 08:08:26 UTC
Antarctica melting rapidly. This all began with industrialization of the globe. Take a look at China's quality of air. If you are foolish enough to think that all the crap this globe spews doesn't and won't effect the Earth you are a fool.



As far as what rights have we lost. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

If you can't admit to yourself that our Constitution has been trampled by this administration again you are a fool.



As far as the fact that the people you deem as opposition not answering these questions. Baloney. I have seen these questions answered many times.
outcrop
2007-08-29 07:40:20 UTC
1. Climate change is not a liberal-only issue.



And I have pertinent question in that realm for you to answer:



Please cite the Physical and Chemical Laws that suggest almost doubling the CO2 content (by anthropogenic means) of the atmosphere has no subsequent thermodynamic effects.



That fact is absolute proof is not always forthcoming, however, there are many discrete lines of evidence that indicate the a priori assumption that for "every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" as it concerns manipulating the atmosphere.



We have long known that ALL biology interacts with the atmosphere and indeed changes it. It is the rate of change no that is especially alarming.



2. Concerning rights: How would I know if my privacy has been violated and that my communications have been secretly intercepted? Further, if you KNOW your rights have been violated in the name of national security, it would be difficult, if not illegal to reveal it.
Overt Operative
2007-08-29 08:07:02 UTC
In response to your first question, one shouldn't rely so much on scientific proof over common sense. Since mankind first stood upright, it was comon sense that told mankind that sex created babies. Science couldn't prove that until the turn of the 20th century.

It's pretty much a no brainer that when you overstuff a closed environment with any kind of living thing, that closed environment will get mucked up as a result. In my lifetime, the world population has increased from 3 billion to over 6 billion. It's again a no brainer to believe that many people are altering not only the face of the planet but the weather as well. Just the lost of forest alone to house these people has changed the weather.

Here's the nuts and bolts. We got twice as many people in the world using up energy and pumping CO2 into the air than we did just 40 years ago. We have less trees on the planet sucking the CO2 out of the air. We have less rain forest producing moisture. So is it silly to assume the planet will get drier and hotter? Are you going to wait 10 thousand years for science to prove the point or rely on what common sense tells you?



As to you second question, I can't think of any "rights" that have been lost.



btw. I'm not a liberal.
Incognito
2007-08-29 08:01:19 UTC
1) There is no PROOF. There is very little PROOF of anything, if you choose to look at it like that. Where's the PROOF that it's not man-made, or is man-kind innocent until PROVEN guilty on this one? There are mounds of evidence that say mankind is having and has had a profound affect on the environment. The real question is, why choose to ignore it?



2) I personally have not lost any rights. But if others are losing their rights or the government is making laws taking them away, it stands to reason that mine are in jeapordy.
C.S.
2007-08-29 07:33:46 UTC
uhhhhh



1. Constant warming trends that coorespond to increase CO2 from world industrial activity. Check http://www.ipcc.ch for the explanation from 3,000 of the world's top atmospheric scientists. This statement is what these 3,000 scientists found by looking at ALL the published evidence. They found that the evidence is incontrovertible that the earth is warming and it is 95% certain that this is cause by anthropogenic actions.



Since you are making stuff up in your edited response, I'll actually quote from the IPCC fourth assessment report:



"The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm3 in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores."



"The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution."



"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone."



"Eleven of the last twelve years (1995–2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature9 (since 1850). The updated 100-year linear trend (1906 to 2005) of 0.74°C [0.56°C to 0.92°C] is therefore larger than the corresponding trend for 1901 to 2000 given in the TAR of 0.6°C [0.4°C to 0.8°C]. The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C [0.10°C to 0.16°C] per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. The total temperature increase from 1850–1899 to 2001–2005 is 0.76°C [0.57°C to 0.95°C]."



Any questions on my proof? You got any sources? Any proof?



2. What is important in American legal structure (so says my intro to political science book that I haven't cracked in years) is that rights are negative rights. The Bill of Rights says what the government cannot do: it does not say what individuals can or are able to do. This is why a right to healtcare or other rights cannot be amended into the constitution because they will not make sense in the flow. Anyway. The result is that we cannot 'lose' rights in any real sense. However, if the govenrment gets the right to do more, that reduces the permissive space for citizens to act. Allowing the government to do wiretaps (which were illegal) or allowing them to do detentions without judicial review both reduce the rights that Americans have. This is also why in most areas a citizen does not need to be a victim of government overstretch in order to sue the goverment for violation of their rights: the mere possibility of the government overstretching its bounds is enough to make the lawsuit actionable. This is a fundamental basis of all laws in America. Cool?
Mitchell .
2007-08-29 07:27:54 UTC
1) I'm not sure there is conclusive proof. Obviously if there was there would be no issue. It does stand to reason that the pollution we pump into the atmosphere would contribute to such an outcome; how much of an outcome is still in question. However, if we could reduce out pollution consumption and conserve our resources more efficiently, is there any downside to that.



2) Me personally? Nothing that I know of so far. Buthere are some examples from other people:



A) David Banach was charged with temporarily blinding the pilot and co-pilot of an airplane with a laser beam, claiming he was simply using the device to look at stars with his 7-year-old daughter. Federal authorities used the Patriot Act to charge him with interfering with the operator of a mass transportation vehicle and making false statements to the FBI. If convicted, Banach could be sentenced to 25 years in prison and fined $500,000. The FBI acknowledged the incident had no connection to terrorism.



B) Denver resident Mike Maginnis was physically assaulted by Denver police during Vice President Dick Cheney's visit to the city and then held for hours while being verbally assaulted by men who represented themselves as federal agents working for the Secret Service. The latter, Maginnis claims, threatened to charge him as a "terrorist" under the USA Patriot Act. Maginnis apparently tried to phone a Denver area newspaper, only to have his phone call disconnected when authorities discovered who he was contacting.



C) Activist Bev Harris was told not to reveal to anyone the fact that she and her website were being investigated under the Patriot Act. It is illegal for a government agency to go in and demand the list of all the members of a group. And you can't investigate leaks to journalists by going in and grabbing the reporter's computer.



D) Seventh-grader John McLean, a 12-year-old kid at Boys' Latin middle school, researches a paper on the Bay Bridge, and suddenly the Joint Terrorist Task Force shows up in the headmaster's office.



E) In May 2004, Brandon Mayfield, an attorney in Portland, Ore., and a convert to Islam, was arrested in connection with the March 11, 2004, Madrid bombings that left 191 people dead. He was held for two weeks as a "material witness."



Mayfield was released after the FBI admitted his fingerprint had been mistakenly matched with one found at the scene of the Madrid attacks.



But the government has admitted to Mayfield that his home was searched secretly under a special court order authorized for intelligence purposes, when if fact agents were looking for evidence to use in a criminal prosecution.



I ANSWERED YOUR TWO QUESTIONS. WILL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT?
Showtunes
2007-08-29 07:32:48 UTC
1. There isnt any.



2. Not me personally-I wouldnt be around to right this if Id lost the same rights as US citizen Jose Padilla for a charge that was later dropped, then a second charge that was dropped.



Free speech zones were setup in Atlanta to prohibit churches and other religious groups from holding signs or protesting a gay rights rally.



Evidence from a case where the police had a knock warrant and barged in without knocking was able to be used in court.



There are many other cases.
Bush Invented the Google
2007-08-29 07:31:13 UTC
1) Because only conservatives call it "man-made global warming;" all liberals say is that things that we do contribute to the effects of a naturally-occurring weather phenomenon; and



2) I have lost my right to speak on the telephone without my government listening to me without permission from a court.



Wow, those were easy. Got any more?
2007-08-29 07:25:02 UTC
1) We know that CO2 traps heat within the atmosphere, and we know that its level in the air has increased dramatically and the rate at which it increases is accelerating as well. There are no other measurable large sources for this increase than industrial technology.



2) Americans have been arrested without charge or legal representation. The mere fact that the government can do this to anyone at all means that they eventually can broaden the categories and numbers of people that they do this to. This is a serious attack on our Democracy.
2007-08-29 07:58:32 UTC
Thanks Usama_Bin_Limbaugh for setting this repub straight. I can't figure out why when a liberal answers a question like you just did you get thumbs down. I guess repubs don't like the truth. Why is it repubs can believe in something with no proof; ie God, heaven and hell, but can't believe in something backed up by science?
clint_slicker
2007-08-29 07:27:37 UTC
1) Even scientist claim that global warming isn't man made. Global Warming is a natural occurrence. I think you mean contributed to by Man, even so it's contested field with enough evidence to prove or disprove either way.



2) Lots of right have been lost. In the USA look at the patriot act. How about the right to smoke in Pubs and clubs? It's not just the UK and Ireland that has these laws. How about rights that you don't have like the right to health.
Kevy
2007-08-29 07:27:34 UTC
The proof is staring you in the face, but you won't look. Scientists are contemplating that they may have to add a category 6 to hurricane classifications.



Well lets see, the government can now tap my phone for no reason, without a court order (Amendment 4[The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.])

Gov't can arrest people and detain them without charging them. (amendment 5[No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ])



That's just two. And If you say that he hasen't done that to me yet, who cares? Just knowing hte administration thinks they can get away with it is a terrible slap in the face to everyone that has ever died fighting for this great counrty.
alphabetsoup2
2007-08-29 07:24:18 UTC
There is mountains of data on global warming, please seek out abstracts published in Science and Nature. Both are the finest publications in English containing scientific abstracts of the first order with greater than 200 years of publishing history between them.



What rights have I lost? Well, liberalism is generally about awarding MORE rights to people, not, taking them away. The civil rights movement culminating in the 60's with legislation led by LBJ is a stellar example of liberalism at its best.
Kim
2007-08-29 07:28:18 UTC
1. The Polar ice caps are melting. The ozone....dont you ever watch the discovery channel or PBS????

2. as already stated- wire tapped...being monitored and having no privacy at the whim of our government based on "national security"....



And to also add, I think you are shallow minded ( this label you do deserve). You don't do yourself justice putting labels on people or making a false judgment by stating that Libs cant answer these questions. The fact is most people cant answer those questions no matter their party line- and its people like you who pollute others minds with your messages that are incorrect.



try asking questions that matter instead of pointing the finger,
captain_koyk
2007-08-29 07:26:48 UTC
1) What's the PROOF of man made global warming? try READING



http://www.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html



2) What rights have I lost? try the 4th amendment



The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



How bout that more than a few LIBERALS answered your question -- LIAR



Because you steadfastly refuse to LOOK at evidence does NOT mean that edvidence does not exist.



The liar now pretends he's never heard of the push for warantless searches or the FBI violating the patriot act, going beyond even ITS draconian nature
?
2007-08-29 07:30:05 UTC
Is this gonna be today's theme,you know,like how you carried on about the mooslims all day yesterday?
Christopher H
2007-08-29 07:25:43 UTC
Hey USMA, he said proof of man made global warming. You didn't supply any such thing. And the right to privacy has always been trumped by national security. Get a grip.
docie555@yahoo.com
2007-08-29 07:28:14 UTC
You guys are like turkeys - one goes over the cliff, the rest follow. I can answer both questions, but I have done the research. You are just too lazy to do the same and when it all comes down, don't come crying to us.
2007-08-29 07:23:13 UTC
(1): Look around you! Global warming is most definitely influenced by humans. The conditions of the environment worsens with our increasing capitalists views on life!
2007-08-29 07:21:00 UTC
1. My skin is melting, melting.



2. The right to slap people around without getting wired tapped.



Oh I am not a liberal or conservative.



Edit: Truth, I don't know why people are arguing with you!



Edit: Oh Truth you never let us down!!!!!!! Ya!!!!!!



Edit: Truth can you send me the hard-copy of your new book?



Edit: How about in paperback?



Edit: Not even a hand written note?
Mom of 2
2007-08-29 07:24:20 UTC
Truth is, global warming is the result of our founding fathers rolling over in their graves.



I've lost the right to not pay for illegals to go to my kids schools.
2007-08-29 07:28:39 UTC
They have no answer.



They just spout the talking points of the day.
Leof
2007-08-29 07:25:28 UTC
Because both questions don't need an answer. Their answers are on every bill board and only a fool won't read from the correct script.
2007-08-29 07:21:21 UTC
1. There is none

2. More and more every day (like smoking in the pub)



Oooh, I'm not a liberal.
chuckna21
2007-08-29 07:26:25 UTC
Read:

(1) Scientific articles on global warming

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17695881&ordinalpos=10&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17695841&ordinalpos=11&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSumhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17678412&ordinalpos=14&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17671499&ordinalpos=15&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

The last article in particular demonstrates human use of fossil fuels on temperature increases.



(2)Critiques of American Rights

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/loss/assessing/assessingnewnormal.htm

Here's just one of many...the right to information as a citizen on the actions and reactions of the executive and legislative branches of our government (the loss of accountability through freedom to access files/documents due to "executive privilege").
2007-08-29 07:25:20 UTC
It's all B.S. man it's just people exercising their right to grip about anything they can.
FootballFan1012
2007-08-29 07:22:36 UTC
When your floating by the Empire State Building, don't come crying to me. If you'd just read into it, you'd see it's real. Watch " An Inconvenient Truth" or " The 11th Hour" and see how you feel then.
2007-08-29 07:42:05 UTC
1.) WASHINGTON — "We have met the enemy, and he is us," the comic-strip character Pogo said decades ago. A new analysis of last year's near-record temperatures in the United States suggests he was right.

Warming caused by human activity was the biggest factor in the high temperatures recorded in 2006, according to a report by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.



The analysis, released Tuesday, is being published in the September issue of Geophysical Research Letters, published by the American Geophysical Union.



In January, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reported that 2006 was the warmest year on record over the 48 contiguous states with an average temperature 2.1 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal and 0.07 degree warmer than 1998, the previous warmest year on record.



In May, however, NOAA revised the 2006 ranking to the second warmest year after updated statistics showed the year was actually .08 F cooler than 1998.



FIND MORE STORIES IN: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | El Nino | Warming

At the time the agency said it was not clear how much of the warming was a result of greenhouse-gas induced climate change and how much resulted from the El Nino warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that was underway.



"We wanted to find out whether it was pure coincidence that the two warmest years on record both coincided with El Nino events," Martin Hoerling of NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., said in a statement.



His study looked at the effects of El Nino in the past as well as the effects of the release of gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by human industrial activities.



The analysis of past El Nino events in the 20th century found that the result was a slightly colder than normal annual average temperature over the 48 contiguous states.



To double check that, the researchers conducted two sets of 50-year computer simulations of U.S. climate, with and without the influence of El Nino. They again found a slight cooling across the nation when El Nino was present.



Then they looked at the effect of the increased greenhouse gases — which are given that name because they can help trap heat from the sun somewhat like a greenhouse traps heat.



They ran 42 different tests using complex computer models to simulate changes in the atmosphere under various conditions and concluded that the "2006 warmth was primarily due to human influences."



While Hoerling's study focused on the United States, NOAA also tracks world climate. Worldwide, 2005 was the warmest year on record, topping 1998, according to the agency.



The research was supported by NOAA's office of Global Programs.



2.) Following are examples of freedoms which President Bush and his fellow Republicans in Congress have already expunged (as reported by the Associated Press):



*FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.



*FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.



*FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.



*RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.



*FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.



*RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.



*RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.



These rights have already been lost! Whether individual Americans have been personally subjected to the resultant tyranny or not doesn't change the fact that they have already lost these freedoms! This fact, alone, should be enough for any studious lover-of-liberty to be outraged



NOW YOUR TURN



1.) WHERE IS BIN LADEN



2.) Who's going to pay for this 9 trillion dollar deficit that Bush has saddled our country with?



Normal FLIP FLOP GOP ANSWERS ARE



Flip

(however, since the president declared on Sept. 13, 2001, that "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our No. 1 priority and we will not rest until we find him.")

Flop

"I don't know where bin Laden is," he said a year after deputizing himself. "I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." Even as bin Laden harassed him with videotaped taunts, Bush declared himself "truly not that concerned about him," turning his beady eyes toward Baghdad.



Flip

We are the fiscal conservative party



Flop

What do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan Greenspan.

Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a massive tax cut in the summer of 1981.

The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code, he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't come up with the revenues he needed to run the government.

Coincidentally, the actuaries at the Social Security Administration were beginning to get worried about the Baby Boomer generation, who would begin retiring in big numbers in fifty years or so. They were a "rabbit going through the python" bulge that would require a few trillion more dollars than Social Security could easily collect during the same 20 year or so period of their retirement. We needed, the actuaries said, to tax more heavily those very persons who would eventually retire, so instead of using current workers' money to pay for the Boomer's Social Security payments in 2020, the Boomers themselves would have pre-paid for their own retirement.

Reagan got Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan together to form a commission on Social Security reform, along with a few other politicians and economists, and they recommend a near-doubling of the Social Security tax on the then-working Boomers. That tax created - for the first time in history - a giant savings account that Social Security could use to pay for the Boomers' retirement.

This was a huge change. Prior to this, Social Security had always paid for today's retirees with income from today's workers (it still is today). The Boomers were the first generation that would pay Social Security taxes both to fund current retirees and save up enough money to pay for their own retirement. And, after the Boomers were all retired and the savings account - called the "Social Security Trust Fund" - was all spent, the rabbit would have finished its journey through the python and Social Security could go back to a "pay as you go" taxing system.

Thus, within the period of a few short years, Reagan dramatically dropped the income tax on America's most wealthy by more than half, and roughly doubled the Social Security tax on people earning $30,000 or less. It was, simultaneously, the largest income tax cut in America's history (almost entirely for the very wealthy), and the most massive tax increase in the history of the nation (which entirely hit working-class people).

But Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy.

No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015.

Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did George W. Bush.

The result is that all that money - trillions of dollars - that has been taxed out of working Boomers (the ceiling has risen from the tax being on your first $30,000 of income to the first $90,000 today) has been borrowed and spent. What are left behind are a special form of IOUs - an unique form of Treasury debt instruments similar (but not identical) to those the government issues to borrow money from China today to fund George W. Bush's most recent tax cuts for billionaires (George Junior is still also "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund).

Former Bush Junior Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recounts how Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Cheney was either ignorant or being disingenuous - it would be more accurate to say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter if you rip off the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for them, and don't report that borrowing from the Boomers as part of the deficit."
2007-08-29 07:20:13 UTC
Hey you have to give them credit, they do try.
What Do I Know?
2007-08-29 07:22:03 UTC
Naïve Conservative
time_wounds_all_heelz
2007-08-29 07:22:04 UTC
It is fun to watch them try to skirt around the questions though.
booman17
2007-08-29 07:22:10 UTC
Easy, there is none and there are none!
edubya
2007-08-29 07:26:47 UTC
Only the Repubs know the truth and Con's are they way to god, doesn't everyone know this?
2007-08-29 07:22:48 UTC
Because they are too stupid to answer these simple questions.
2007-08-29 07:20:33 UTC
what's a lib


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...