There is no lock box, never has been.

I see you attended Justin's School of Social Promotion. My question was -- "Bush's record federal deficits wouldn't be higher if the money people are dunned for Social Security went into a lockbox?"

Notice the words "if" and "a" in the sentence this time? Your poor reading comprehension seems to have led you to believe I was asserting a lockbox exists. Words have meanings. Try to understand them.

Your original statement:

Just heard an interview with Kerry where he said that Bush is taking money out of Social Security to offset the deficit.

As everyone but you seems to know, the Social Security surplus is currently spent by the government and that expenditure makes the record deficits run up by the Bush administraiton (and the Republican-controlled Congress) appear less than they really are.

Obviously, you can't be trusted to render an accurate account of what Kerry said, but the gist of what (you claim) he said is correct.

That is a lie. Case closed, Nuff said, Kerry is a liar. If he will lie about that he will lie about anything.

At your intellectual level, it probably did seem like a lie. Let's move on to the errors in your more recent post.

Of course, any first year econ student knows that the deficits are lower than they would have been had there been no tax cut.

Kinda funny how often conservatives use the word "know" in combination with an non-fact. This is an excerpt from the 2003 Economic Report of the President released by Bush's Council of Economic Advisors:

"The modest effect of government debt on interest rates does not mean that tax cuts pay for themselves with higher output. Although the economy grows in response to tax reductions (because of higher consumption in the short run and improved incentives in the long run), it is unlikely to grow so much that lost tax revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity."

source

This is why Kerry must mumble about middle-class tax cuts with the hope that the motoring public doesn't figure out they stimulate little or nothing.

Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, former chairman of the CEA, disagrees with you:

"We know how to design an effective tax stimulus. We know how to design a tax stimulus which gives a big bang for the buck. But this is not it. In fact, this is ... one would have had to have worked hard to get as little bang for the buck as they’ve succeeded in doing.





"Let me illustrate the general principal ... and I joke and say you don’t need a Nobel prize to figure this out ... is give money to people who will spend it. Link tax cuts to expenditure. So, for instance, expanded unemployment benefits, aid to states and localities, money to low wage workers or investment tax credits, in particular incremental tax credits, will direct money in areas where it will be spent."



<source

And so do the other nine Nobel laureates who signed a statement disparaging Bush's tax cuts.

Statement signed by 10 Nobel laureates

Reminds me of the last time I discussed economics with a conservative on a message board. He claimed to have a degree in economics. When I pointed out that we'd had recessions during the administrations of the last two Republican presidents (three now), he said every president was supposed to have a recession during his time in office and Clinton was selfishly refusing to accept his. LOL. I still laugh every time I think of it.

You haven't generated those kind of laughs yet, but I appreciate your willingness to keep trying.