The Right Side of the News

They are liars when they market totally false, verifiable and actually very basic information. They lie because they know you are too gullible and deplorable to actually check the facts.

Some guy on the radio trumps the law. Standard right-wing response.There is a bullshit right-wing fantasy that claims SS adds to the deficit. SS is required by law to invest in Treasury bills. When SS needs to it cashes in some of those bills. But the money the Treasury coughs up is just reimbursement of the initial deposit plus interest, which is compensated by the fact the government used that money between deposit and withdrawal. Teresa Ghilarducci (professor of economics focusing on retirement security and jobs) explains at Why So Many People (Mistakenly) Believe Social Security Adds To The Deficit:

quote:

---

Arguing that Social Security redeeming its Treasury bills causes the deficit is just as wrong as arguing that government vendors cause the deficit. Hewlett-Packard sells email services to the Navy. Let's say Congress doesn’t collect enough revenue that year to pay for the email services without borrowing. In this case, it is not Hewlett-Packard causing the deficit; it is Congress and the president who cut taxes too much relative to spending. It is irrelevant to take to the streets yelling "Down with HP!" If you don’t like deficits, don't blame Hewlett-Packard or Social Securityentities owed money by the U.S. governmentfor causing it.

---

One would think he knows what he's talking about. But when he makes false statements about his area of alleged expertise, we call it a lie. Because it's a lie.What expertise does he have in the weird corner of economics that is retirement?

That is all you have? He has been repeatedly shown to not be correct. Anyone that can actually read can see that he is wrong. Or more likely a liar. He is so wrong it is laughable. Actually it isn't laughable, because the rubes like you won't question what he says no matter how much evidence is presented to show he is wrong.

I see.From his point of view you are a worthless parasite and the money used to support you would be better spent on fighter jets that can’t shoot straight.And if he has to misrepresent the truth a bit to get that outcome, he’s fine with that.

I'm shocked, shocked I say, that Bolton didn't tattle on Trump while still a member of the administration. He also didn't describe where Trump told him he wanted to withhold the security assistance until Zelensky agreed to investigations of the Democrats and the Bidens.But don't you worry, little lady. Lamar Alexander and Lisa Murkowski have indicated they'll vote against witnesses, making it very unlikely that the vote on witnesses will carry. Neither Bolton nor any witnesses at all will be testifying at the impeachment trial.--Percy

You might want to try getting your information from news sources instead of right-wing talk show hosts and opinion/commentary websites. They're just getting you all worked up so you'll keep coming back.The reason Mark Levin's claims aren't, for the most part, also being reported by PJ Media and Sean Hannity and Alex Jones and so forth (and vice versa) is that they aren't based on reportage. They're just making up conspiracy theories, in this case following the Trump dictum, "If evidence of what you've done begins coming to light, accuse the other side of doing the same thing."--Percy

I've never heard them called mandatories, only entitlements. The payroll deduction for Social Security is mandatory - maybe that's what you're thinking of. Yes, Trump had to walk back his comments a day after making them: Trump Tries to Walk Back Entitlement Comments as Democrats Pounce - The New York Times You didn't cite any video. Please stop listening to Mark Levin. China and Japan do not own our entitlement programs. Most likely Levin is referring to US debt held by China and Japan. Holders of US debt own our country in the same way the finance company owns your car, i.e., not at all. And unlike cars, if we default on out debt that doesn't mean China sends over a boat to take the Statue of Liberty. The debt of countries doesn't work that way. The reason Social Security's in trouble is demographic: fewer children are being born in each succeeding generation (the declining birth rate), so fewer and fewer working people have to pay for increasing numbers of retirees. The obvious solution is to increase immigration.--Percy

This is incredibly ignorant even for you.Consider this example. I mentioned that I testified at a jury trial once. One thing I testified to was where someone had said to the victim, "You tried to hit me." I could not possibly have had any idea whether the victim had tried to hit that person, given the circumstances of the situation. I was merely testifying to what was said, not the truth of what was said. In fact it turns out the person who said that was lying. Fiona Hill's statement was not hearsay, and there's no claim, implicit or otherwise, that the words she testified to Bolton uttering were true.You have raised cluelessness to new heights.--Percy

You are wrong. Hearsay is not what you think it is. Here's another definition for you to misunderstand: Or as I've been calling it, secondhand information.This is the kind of thing I had in mind when I said you go on for pages with your silly objections because when you misunderstand something you are unable to concede error. We could be having an intelligent conversation about the impeachment trial, but instead we're stuck arguing about the definition of a simple concept like hearsay. Or is that the whole idea, to force discussion away from the trial. Maybe you're just too diabolical for us.--Percy

I have no idea why there is a problem. That definition looks like my definition.

Not at all."testimony based on what a witness has heard from another person..." is testifying that what they heard is true or false."direct personal knowledge or experience." is not hearsay, including what the witness heard.Testifying what someone said to you is proper. Testifying whether or not what that person said is true is hearsay, because it's not based on direct personal knowledge or experience.But we know some guy on the radio said Hill's testimony was hearsay, so hearsay must be defined so her testimony is hearsay. No matter what the Federal Rules of Evidence and the definition in every legal dictionary in existence say.

From the Heritage Foundation web site Justin Bogie | The Heritage Foundation :

quote:

---

Senior Policy Analyst in Fiscal Affairs, Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget
Areas of Expertise
Budget and Spending
Debt[...]

​

{snip long paragraph on his many media appearances}

​

In 2016, Bogie took a leave of absence from Heritage and served as budget policy advisor to the Trump presidential campaign and also served as a member of the Presidential Transition Team for the Office of Management and Budget.

​

Before joining Heritage, he spent four years working as a policy advisor for the majority staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Budget under Chairman and now Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and former Health and Human Services Secretary, Tom Price. He has prior experience in state budget issues as well.

​

Bogie holds a bachelor’s degree in political science and a master’s degree in public administration from Auburn University.

---

His "expertise" is not impressive or apparent. Edited by JonF, : Forgot link

We call that wingnut welfare. No expertise in economics at all. He just spouts the crap his audience wants to hear.

The point is that they cant touch those expenses--debt or no debt. You and i depend on social security to keep us from being homeless.