America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 8 years ago by twink. 111 replies replies.
3 Pages<123>
Obama vetos defense bill- puts our military at risk
Brewha Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
Covfireman wrote:
Lol teddyballgame once again you show your stupidity we are talking about the defense bill and you were owned . You and the rest of the tea party idiots think if someone disagrees with you on one thing they disagree with everything you want . You show a narrow-minded simplistic view that has helped get this country in the state it is today . With a congress that is incapable of doing its job without lining the pockets of their owners .

But in Teddy's defense, I hear he can peel bananas with his feet.....
DrafterX Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
Think
I'm gonna have to try that... Think
teddyballgame Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
tonygraz wrote:
54 % of what the gvt. spends is on the military. 20 billion just for air conditioning a year when the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was on.



Nice fiction


As of 2013

18% of the budget is spent on military.

Social security 24% Medicare/medicaid/healthcare 24%
Entitlements make up about 1/2 of our spending.

54% does not equal 18% tony, you failed at math didn't you?
DrafterX Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
c'mon Tony.. let's hear some of them Gazintas... ThumpUp
riverdog Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 03-28-2008
Posts: 2,600
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Ever see the movie "Dr. Strangelove


YeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeHawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!
banderl Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
teddyballgame wrote:
Nice fiction


As of 2013

18% of the budget is spent on military.

Social security 24% Medicare/medicaid/healthcare 24%
Entitlements make up about 1/2 of our spending.

54% does not equal 18% tony, you failed at math didn't you?




Aren't there taxes being collected to pay (at least partly) for SS and Medicare?
DrafterX Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
Think
aren't taxes suppose to cover pretty much everything..?? Think
banderl Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
That's what I thought.
I just love when clowns call SS and Medicare "entitlements".
Especially since I've been paying into them for 40+ years.
teddyballgame Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
By the way, the money that was supposed to be held for SS has been spent and there are government IOUs instead.

The Fed spent all the money as it came in, it was never "lock boxed"- so Just as Rick Perry stated in 2012, it is a ponzi scheme. The government can never spend enough of our hard earned dollars.

Entitlements also include welfare programs.

But it still doesn't change the fact that 18% does not equal 54%, not even if you use common core.
tonygraz Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,280
Where do you get your numbers - fox news or do you just pull them out of your azz like most pubs ?

try this for 2015: https://www.warresisters.org/sites/default/files/2015%20pie%20chart%20-%20high%20res.pdf
fiddler898 Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 06-15-2009
Posts: 3,782
tonygraz wrote:
Where do you get your numbers - fox news or do you just pull them out of your azz like most pubs ?

try this for 2015: https://www.warresisters.org/sites/default/files/2015%20pie%20chart%20-%20high%20res.pdf


Please, let's not confuse polemic with reason!
frankj1 Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
teddyballgame wrote:
By the way, the money that was supposed to be held for SS has been spent and there are government IOUs instead.

The Fed spent all the money as it came in, it was never "lock boxed"

ruh roh!!! you didn't just open the door to educate everyone on Reagan's biggest scam of all, did you? Or do you not know how this really started?

WOW! What a mistake! HA!!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
<<<<<< BAWHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmin5WkOuPw


Teddyballgag...you're really Ted Cruz in drag!

Wring that jock strap and drink it all in! You own it!
frankj1 Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
DrMaddVibe wrote:
<<<<<< BAWHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmin5WkOuPw


Teddyballgag...you're really Ted Cruz in drag!

Wring that jock strap and drink it all in! You own it!

good beat, you can dance to it...I give it 8.5 stars
frankj1 Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
somewhere out in the San Diego area, google machines are hard at work trying to find any scrap of info to deny the truth.
Speyside Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
In 1956 President Eisenhower started paying disabilities from social security. In 1983 President Reagan started borrowing from social security. If a man earns $50,000.00 dollars a year for 44 years and deposited the 12.4% per year of social security tax in an investment that averaged a moderate 5% that investment would be worth about $984,000.00 dollars. So it seems to me that rather than an entitlement social security is a bad investment forced on us by the government.

Though started by a Democrat, social security was destroyed by Republicans. Also the is this little story that surplusses were supposed to be invested in T bills. OOP'S guess what, borrowed money was never repaid and borrowed mony cannot buy T bills and make interest.
Speyside Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Oh yeah. I forgot beneficiary payments.
frankj1 Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
and let's clarify the confusion...SSI is not Social Security money.
Speyside Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Using the same math for medicare that same man would have $230,000.00 when he retired. Again not an entitlement but rather an investment. At 5% this would net $11,500 annually. I do not know what premiums would be for this person for health insurance. But I do think this money would pay for healthcare for quite some time. So let's stop this BS of calling social security and medicare entitlements, they are not.
Speyside Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Thanks Frank, my bad, I did not realise that.
teddyballgame Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
tonygraz wrote:
Where do you get your numbers - fox news or do you just pull them out of your azz like most pubs ?

try this for 2015: https://www.warresisters.org/sites/default/files/2015%20pie%20chart%20-%20high%20res.pdf



really tony?

"war resisters league?" Can you be more intellectually dishonest. I expected so much more from a "so called" former republican.
There is No Way that sight would give faulty information as they have no axe to grind Sarcasm

Try these reputable sites:

http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_defense_spending_30.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/

FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE:

https://www.cbo.gov/taxonomy/term/17/featured

PULL QUOTE:

"About one-sixth of federal spending goes to national defense."

So in your math 1/6 = 56%

I know now where you get your numbers. If you scrub the interwebs hard enough, you will find something that agrees with your faulty view of how things are.

Keep hitting those math books, 3rd grade is right around the corner.

"Man I'm tired of being right!"

...Far far right
Covfireman Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 09-03-2015
Posts: 809
Teddyballgag like a good ted cruz imitation you ignore it when you're proven wrong and resort to hurling insults

Defense spending is 56% of the US discretionary budget , somewhere around 61% if you add in veterans services . You know the people who are hurt or injured to make your cowardly ass safe.

If you reduce the military budget by 50% you can almost balance the budget on that alone . Isn't that something you right wing nut jobs want?

If you want to balance the budget and start reducing the national debt simplify the tax code and eliminate the tax loopholes created for big business . To do this you'll have to take big money out of politics I'd suggest eliminating super pacs by eliminating the Citizens United decision.

Medicare and Social Security are part of mandatory spending. The only thing lawmakers can do about them is to change eligibility. If you are so opposed to both programs I'm sure you would rather your SS and Medicare payments went toward defense spending .
teddyballgame Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
try and keep up Maynard,

Percent of the total budget, that is discretionary and mandatory spending-the ENTIRE budget.

The whole enchilada.

Factor in entitlements IN the budget.

All together.

In total.

In toto.

tonygraz Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,280
Teddy you are a Fiorino moron. Lie and swear to it even after proved wrong. You are and always have been nothing but a useless pub troll, just like I said a while ago. And I still don't believe you are a cigar smoker. I wouldn't be surprised if you were just an unemployed ultra-right wing California pub.
DrafterX Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
Wow, you guys are mean... Mad
frankj1 Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
Speyside wrote:
Thanks Frank, my bad, I did not realise that.

I wasn't correcting anything you said!
Just that lots of people think it stands for Social Security Income
Speyside Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
I thought because social security administers it, it came out of social security taxes which is not the case. So this FOG learned something which is always a good thing.

I am tired of congress deceiving the public into thinking social security and medicare are entitlements, they are not. I saw that posted here 1 to many times and felt the need to elaborate.
Speyside Offline
#78 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Covfireman, depending on what I read I saw 20% to 58%. This huge difference made no sense to me. Thank you for pointing out that 1 figure was mandatory only. Now it makes sense.
teddyballgame Offline
#79 Posted:
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
tonygraz wrote:
Teddy you are a Fiorino moron. Lie and swear to it even after proved wrong. You are and always have been nothing but a useless pub troll, just like I said a while ago. And I still don't believe you are a cigar smoker. I wouldn't be surprised if you were just an unemployed ultra-right wing California pub.




You are an angry, angry little man tony.

I just supplied 4 links that prove me factually NOT wrong and you supply one link from a hack site and swear by it.
One was from the Washington ComPost even. I am sure I could supply 10 trusted sources for every suspect one you supply.

Facts don't matter to liberals though, do they?


FYI

Invoice Item # Description Qty B/O Ship Ship Date Unit Price Total
A C5-BKB8052 Brick House Toro
5-PACK 3 0 3 10/14/2015 $18.00 $60.00

what? is that an invoice from something I ordered a couple weeks back? Along with a 150 capacity zebrawood humidor I bought here earlier and various other purchases to help fill aforementioned humidor.

I also have an account at CI.

but I don't pretend to own my own "shpo" like you probably do.

I also particularly don't really much care about "what you believe" - I am in Cali and have educated bigger libs than you.
I already know what democrat drones believe in.
Brewha Offline
#80 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
Tony, please don't be so angry, angry. And remember to sit up!

Teddy, it is nice of you to buy a zebra wood humi for your wife. The girls really love those pretty woods.
ZRX1200 Offline
#81 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,627
Speyside, there was never any surplus.
banderl Offline
#82 Posted:
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v75n1/v75n1p1.html


Surpluses since the 80s.
tonygraz Offline
#83 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,280
The military is the biggest drain on the federal government. Spending by the government includes some things, notably social security and medicare, which are funded by taxes. The military numbers are really higher than they look. Hope your wife likes the jewelry box teddybear.
Speyside Offline
#84 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
There are many articles that state the government has borrowed and not repaid between 2.6 and 2.8 trillion dollars from social security. A 2011 article from Forbes lists the dollars borrowed at 2.6 trillion. This money would have been a surplus if it had not been borrowed.
frankj1 Offline
#85 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
Speyside wrote:
There are many articles that state the government has borrowed and not repaid between 2.6 and 2.8 trillion dollars from social security. A 2011 article from Forbes lists the dollars borrowed at 2.6 trillion. This money would have been a surplus if it had not been borrowed.

started by Reagan and Greenspan, they didn't borrow, they stole. they were determined to cover up that "supply side" (AKA voodoo economics) and tax cuts for the wealthy predictably failed to work as promised. They figured they had decades left for future presidents/congresses to cover the $$$ that would be needed for the baby boomers that would be retiring around 2010. They were wrong, and it has been devastating. As other moves made then have also proven to be.

Sadly, Bush/Clinton/Bush continued the ruse and abuse of Social Security...which was in absolutely no danger even though Reagan and comrades perpetuated the lie at the time.
tonygraz Offline
#86 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,280
teddyballgame wrote:

I also particularly don't really much care about "what you believe" - I am in Cali and have educated bigger libs than you.
I already know what democrat drones believe in.



Ramblings of a pompous azzhole.
Covfireman Offline
#87 Posted:
Joined: 09-03-2015
Posts: 809
tonygraz wrote:
Ramblings of a pompous azzhole.


Hey be nice azzholes don't need to be associated with teddyballgag.
DrafterX Offline
#88 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
I think the surplus was just a projected dream.. woulda been nice but just a dream. .. Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#89 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
DrafterX wrote:
I think the surplus was just a projected dream.. woulda been nice but just a dream. .. Mellow

I love ya, but it was a nightmare cuz of Ron.
sorry, my friend. and I am the anti google, but checked this out cuz my memory may have been compromised...but this is the way it went down back then (sorry teddy, I really don't hate you)

The public trust of the government was strengthened when Ronald Reagan became President in 1981. Millions of Americans had welcomed Reagan into their homes for years, as the host of “Death Valley Days” and “The General Electric Theatre.” He was loved by many from the day he entered the White House. No matter what went wrong during his years as President, Reagan seemed to almost never be blamed directly. He was often called the Teflon President because almost nothing of a negative nature seemed to stick to him. As a trained professional actor, Reagan had an uncommon degree of charisma. He soon became America’s most loved modern-day president, and he was seen by many as an elder statesman, and even a beloved grandfather figure. Some people even suggested that his likeness should be carved onto Mt. Rushmore with other great former presidents.

A man with the talents of Ronald Reagan could tell a lot of big lies and possibly never get caught. Reagan told more than one whopper. His first one was straight out of fantasy land. Reagan said he would cut income tax rates by 30 percent over a three-year period, and end up with more revenue than before the cut in rates. You don’t have to be an economist to figure out that, if the government wants to increase revenue, it would usually raise tax rates—not lower them.

Reagan’s big lie about getting more revenue with lower tax rates led to his biggest lie of all. Once it became clear that supply-side economics was not working, Reagan had a big crisis on his hands. His promises to reduce the deficits and lower the national debt flew right out the back door. Reagan did not want to admit that his economic plan had failed and he didn’t want to rescind his cuts in income tax rates. He desperately needed to find a new source of revenue to offset the revenue which had been lost because of the cut in income tax rates.

Alan Greenspan, who was worth his weight in gold as an advisor to Reagan, came to the rescue. He pointed out that there was a way to get more revenue without touching the income tax cuts. Greenspan told Reagan that they could raise payroll taxes, and say they were doing it to strengthen Social Security. Then they could use the surplus revenue just like income- tax revenue.

It was a clever plan. The surplus Social Security revenue from the payroll-tax increase wouldn’t be needed to pay actual benefits for 30 more years. Why not just put the money in the general fund, for now, and let future presidents worry about replacing it. It probably didn’t seem like such and evil deed to Reagan and Greenspan at the time. After all, they were only “borrowing” the money. Hopefully some future president would repay it. But the real effect of their action was to take money from working baby boomers, in the form of increased payroll taxes, and give that money to some of the richest Americans in the form of big income tax cuts.

It must not have taken Greenspan very long to convince Reagan to begin embezzling the Social Security surplus revenue, because Reagan took his first action toward getting his hands on the money by writing a letter, which greatly exaggerated the plight of Social Security, to Congressional Leaders on May 21, 1981, just four months after taking the oath of office as President. Excerpts from that letter are reproduced below.

“As you know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Over the next five years, the Social Security trust fund could encounter deficits of up to $111 billion, and in the decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions. Unless we in government are willing to act, a sword of Damocles will soon hang over the welfare of millions of our citizens…

Social Security was definitely not “teetering on the edge of bankruptcy” in 1981 as Reagan claimed in his letter to Congressional leaders. The 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform, headed by Alan Greenspan, issued its “findings and recommendations” in January 1983. The Commission accurately foresaw major problems for Social Security when the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But that was nearly three decades down the road. In addition to the long-term problem of the baby boomers, the Commission found a possible short-term problem for the years 1983-89. But the outlook improved and became favorable for the 1990s and early 2000s. The possible minor problem for the years 1983-1989 was based on very pessimistic economic assumptions. So, at the time Reagan informed Congressional leaders that Social Security was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, the overall condition of Social Security funding was fairly sound for the next three decades.
Reagan wrote a follow-up letter to Congressional leaders dated July18, 1981, which included:

“The highest priority of my Administration is restoring the integrity of the Social Security System. Those 35 million Americans who depend on Social Security expect and are entitled to prompt bipartisan action to resolve the current financial problem.
At the same time, I deplore the opportunistic political maneuvering, cynically designed to play on the fears of many Americans, that some in the Congress are initiating at this time…
…In order to tell the American people the facts, and to let them know that I shall fight to preserve the Social Security System and protect their benefits, I will ask for time on television to address the Nation as soon as possible.”
This second letter to Congressional leaders was still another big lie. Social Security was certainly not Reagan’s “highest priority.” Like other conservatives, Reagan had hated Social Security from the day it became law in 1935. He was a hardliner when it came to all government social programs. He called unemployment insurance “a prepaid vacation plan for freeloaders.” He said the progressive income tax was a “brainchild of Karl Marx.” And, he called welfare recipients “a faceless mass waiting for handouts.” Reagan referred to Social Security as a “welfare program” and, during the 1976 Republican Presidential Primary, Reagan proposed making Social Security voluntary, which would have essentially destroyed the program. There is no way that anyone who knew Reagan’s record would accept his claim that Social Security was his highest priority. He had always wanted the program eliminated, or at least privatized.
Reagan’s scare tactics worked. Congress passed the Social Security Amendments of 1983, which included a hefty increase in the payroll tax rate, in a record time of three months. The tax increase was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years. The public was led to believe that the surplus money would be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury Bonds, which could later be resold to raise cash with which to pay benefits to the boomers. But that didn’t happen. The money was all deposited directly into the general fund and used for non-Social Security purposes. Reagan spent every dime of the surplus Social Security revenue, which came in during his presidency, on general government operations. Social Security, which Reagan claimed he was trying to fix with the legislation, never saw a penny of that money.

It would have been bad enough if Reagan had been the only president to raid the Social Security trust fund. But his successor, George H.W. Bush picked up right where Reagan left off. Bush had promised the voters during the campaign that he would not raise taxes by saying, “Read my lips. No new taxes.” With the Social Security surplus as a huge slush fund, Bush did not need to raise taxes, but he raided the trust fund and spent the money, just like Reagan. However, the secret practice of looting the Social Security trust fund did not remain a secret for very long. Members of Congress began to see what was happening to the Social Security surplus, and they did not like what they saw.

Some members of Congress were appalled by the embezzlement, and a few tried to end the theft. On October 13, 1989, Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) lambasted the Bush administration for its mishandling of Social Security funds. Excerpts from the speech are reproduced below:

“Of course, the most reprehensible fraud in this great jambalaya of frauds is the systematic and total ransacking of the Social Security trust fund in order to mask the true size of the deficit…The Treasury is siphoning off every dollar of the Social Security surplus to meet current operating expenses of the Government…The hard fact is that, in the next century, the Social Security system will find itself paying out vastly more in benefits than it is taking in through payroll taxes. And the American people will wake up to the reality that those IOU’s in the trust fund vault are a 21st century version of Confederate banknotes.’
A year later, on October 9, 1990, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada made the following statement on the Senate floor:

“The discussion is are we as a country violating a trust by spending Social Security trust fund moneys for some purpose other than for which they were intended. The obvious answer is yes…
The trust funds resources are there for the well-being of those who have paid into the Social Security System. We should use those resources to see that Social Security recipients are treated well but also treated fairly and treated equitably.
It is time for Congress, I think, to take its hands—and I add the President in on that—off the Social Security surpluses. Stop hiding the horrible truth of the fiscal irresponsibility that we have talked about here the past 2 weeks. It is time to return those dollars to the hands of those who earned them—the Social Security beneficiaries and future beneficiaries…
I think that is a very good illustration of what I was talking about, embezzlement, thievery. Because that, Mr. President, is what we are talking about here…On that chart in emblazoned red letters is what has been taking place here, embezzlement. During the period of growth we have had during the past 10 years, the growth has been from two sources: One, a large credit card with no limits on it, and, two, we have been stealing money from the Social Security recipients of this country.

”I think that is a very good illustration of what I was talking about, embezzlement, thievery. Because that, Mr. President, is what we are talking about here…I publicly commend and applaud the vigorous activity generated by the Senator from New York because… on that chart in emblazoned red letters is what has been taking place here, embezzlement.”

Out of this heated debate on the issue of government misappropriation of Social Security money, came Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s proposal to cut Social Security taxes in order to deny the government access to the tempting surplus Social Security money. Senator Moynihan, who had been a strong supporter of the 1983 efforts to strengthen the Social Security system, was outraged that, instead of being used to build up the size of the Social Security Trust Fund for future retirees, as was intended, the Social Security surplus was being used to pay for general government spending.

President George H. W. Bush was furious over Moynihan’s proposal. In response to reporters’ questions, Bush replied, “It is an effort to get me to raise taxes on the American people by the charade of cutting them, or cut benefits, and I am not going to do it to the older people of this country.”

But President Bush was in fact taking money from a fund that was supposed to be used to provide for “the older people of this country” and using it to fund general government. Despite the strong efforts, way back in 1990, to put an end to the raiding of the Social Security trust fund, President George H.W. Bush continued to loot and spend every dollar of the Social Security surplus.

Later that day, Senator Moynihan responded to the president’s statement in a speech on the Senate floor. Moynihan said, “Mr. President…If there is a problem of dissimulation, I would suggest that it resides with the present practice of using Social Security trust funds as general revenues. My distinguished friend, the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Heinz, has used a very direct word for this. He says it is called “embezzlement.”

Because Moynihan believed the American people were being deceived and betrayed, he proposed undoing the 1983 legislation by cutting Social Security taxes and returning the system to a “pay-as-you-go” basis which would have provided only enough revenue to take care of current retirees. Moynihan’s position was that, if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the jar should be emptied so there would be no Social Security surplus

George H.W. Bush looted every penny of the Social Security surplus generated during his term, and Bill Clinton continued to treat the surplus as if it were general revenue. The money continued to be “embezzled” and spent, with almost nobody aware that the crime was taking place. However, the crime finally came to light again during the 2000 presidential campaign.

The unlawful spending of Social Security money for non-Social Security purposes, became a major campaign issue in 2000. Al Gore and George W. Bush both acknowledged that the government was spending Social Security revenue for non-Social Security purposes, and both candidates pledged to end the looting.
During his acceptance speech at the Democratic national convention, Al Gore announced that, if he was elected president, he would put Social Security funds into a Social Security lockbox for Social Security and for Social Security only. Gore’s dramatic announcement brought the looting of Social Security back into the limelight. When Senator Moynihan’s 1990 bill to repeal the 1983 payroll tax hike failed to become law, the looting of Social Security continued, unchanged, for another decade until the issue resurfaced during the 2000 presidential election campaign.

Bush also promised to keep his hands off Social Security money. Bush reiterated this pledge to the American people over and over, and further cemented it with a statement in his first State of the Union address, delivered on February 27, 2000. In no uncertain terms, Bush said, “To make sure the retirement savings of America’s seniors are not diverted to any other program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, and for Social Security alone.”

Like so many of his other promises, Bush broke that promise. He “embezzled” and spent every dollar of the surplus Social Security revenue generated during his two terms as president, making him the biggest contributor of all to the real Social Security problem.

In addition to the embezzlement under both Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush looted and spent all of the Social Security surplus revenue that flowed in during their presidencies. So we can’t blame the whole problem on Reagan. He was just the one who figured out a way to use Social Security money as general revenue, and his successors followed his example.

I'm feeling too dirty to look up why he said he "couldn't recall" that Ollie was living in his basement, but his lies were worse for the nation than Big Bill denying a hummer.
DrafterX Offline
#90 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
Damn... I'll read it later. .. love you too man... Laugh
frankj1 Offline
#91 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
sad but true. bipartisan damnation, but really Ronnie's invention, Bush 1's stupidity, Clinton's advantage, and Bush/Cheney's making it worse.

And Z, there should be a huge surplus.
frankj1 Offline
#92 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
and Teddy, I'm just trying to show you why we need to keep both ends alive. It's the only way to stay in the middle, where most of the country lives well, by going back and forth through natural process (voting).

Don't kill off the opposition...a benevolent dictator (such as yourself) is still a dictator, and we can not have a dictator, by definition.
ZRX1200 Offline
#93 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,627
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/07/13/what-happened-to-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/
frankj1 Offline
#94 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
ZRX1200 wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/07/13/what-happened-to-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/

yes, sort of a cliff notes version of why there is no surplus. I believe the rather lengthy article above explains how this happened...unpopular as it may be for most to accept.

no single side owns morality, nor all the blame.
tonygraz Offline
#95 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,280
But the people on social security don't get a COLA increase. They say it's because of the decrease in gas prices, but retired people don't have the commute to work.
DrafterX Offline
#96 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
Gotta fund the death panels somehow... Mellow
Brewha Offline
#97 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
DrafterX wrote:
Gotta fund the death panels somehow... Mellow

I thought the mooslums said they'ed do it for free?
ZRX1200 Offline
#98 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,627
Teddy, Trolly doesn't pretend to own a shpo.

He smokes yard gars
banderl Offline
#99 Posted:
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
frankj1 wrote:




I know that you don't like to be quoted, so I didn't. This is in reply to the book that you posted above concerning Raygun.


Are you implying that he was a lying POS and that this country would have been much better off if Hinkley had been a better shot?
Brewha Offline
#100 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
ZRX1200 wrote:
Teddy, Trolly doesn't pretend to own a shpo.

He smokes yard gars

Please forgive my stupidity - what does "shpo" stand for?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>