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

Last post 8 years ago by tonygraz. 166 replies replies.
4 Pages<1234>
Uncle Ben Is A Loony Liar!
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
teddyballgame Offline
#101 Posted: Wed, Nov 18 2015, 9:27 AM EST
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
I have issues with all the candidates.
Christie talks a big game, but his record in NJ sucks.
Bernie should be in a home for senior socialists who long for mother Russia.

Hillary is going to get the nod, the Dem debates are only for show, a formality.
Thus a debate on Sat night, when no one watches T.V.

I don't get your vitriol against Cruz, Rubio and Carson. Insane?

If we don't elect a conservative in this cycle, America is going to suffer immensely. A Trump ( I don't think he gets in), Cruz, Carson, Paul, or Rubio (uphill battle as well) would beat Hillary Kankles.
As long as they don't "McCain/Romney" it and put on the kid-gloves.

We are in trouble in the D.C. front anyway. If the states don't try to take back their power via Article V, I don't see a turn around- too many sell outs ''playing ball."

We haven't put up anything near a conservative as the nominee since Reagan and we get beat up in the general as a result.

I liked Ron Paul, except I found his foreign policy stance to be dangerous.
tonygraz Offline
#102 Posted: Wed, Nov 18 2015, 1:09 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,284
A little more on Carson's expertise: http://www.occupydemocrats.com/ben-carsons-long-history-of-medical-malpractice-will-shock-you/
victor809 Offline
#103 Posted: Wed, Nov 18 2015, 1:17 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
You really have no idea what it takes to win an election, do you...

I say this without any malice or joy... I want the republicans to be able to field a viable candidate. I want to be able to actually choose between two viable presidential candidates, because I would like to have options in my life.

But not a single one of the candidates you rattled off (except Paul) has a snowballs chance in he-ll of appealing to the independent voter. They are all heavy on the christian values crap, moral majority which has driven the republicans into a fringe group.

Ironically, Trump is the most likely of the republican candidates to not be heavy on the christianty, but now there's so much record of him being bat-sh#t crazy that he's unelectable.

I think Paul has some interesting opportunities. But he's so far down in the single digits that I'm not holding my breath on him being even a VP option.

The republican field (at least the ones that make it to the big-boy debate table) is a study in what's wrong with trying to double-down on appealing to your base. They're all in such a hurry to appeal to the most far-right religious fringe to win the primary that they've ensured they will fail in the actual election.
banderl Offline
#104 Posted: Wed, Nov 18 2015, 1:23 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
tonygraz wrote:
A little more on Carson's expertise: http://www.occupydemocrats.com/ben-carsons-long-history-of-medical-malpractice-will-shock-you/



Tony, I agree with you more than I disagree with you.
However, I recently called out TCM for his wacked sources, I need to do the same to you.
News sources like USAGOP and Occupydemocrats are what's wrong with this country.
banderl Offline
#105 Posted: Wed, Nov 18 2015, 1:24 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
victor809 wrote:
You really have no idea what it takes to win an election, do you...

I say this without any malice or joy... I want the republicans to be able to field a viable candidate. I want to be able to actually choose between two viable presidential candidates, because I would like to have options in my life.

But not a single one of the candidates you rattled off (except Paul) has a snowballs chance in he-ll of appealing to the independent voter. They are all heavy on the christian values crap, moral majority which has driven the republicans into a fringe group.

Ironically, Trump is the most likely of the republican candidates to not be heavy on the christianty, but now there's so much record of him being bat-sh#t crazy that he's unelectable.

I think Paul has some interesting opportunities. But he's so far down in the single digits that I'm not holding my breath on him being even a VP option.

The republican field (at least the ones that make it to the big-boy debate table) is a study in what's wrong with trying to double-down on appealing to your base. They're all in such a hurry to appeal to the most far-right religious fringe to win the primary that they've ensured they will fail in the actual election.




Oh yeah,

Zip it libtard!
victor809 Offline
#106 Posted: Wed, Nov 18 2015, 1:46 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tonygraz wrote:
A little more on Carson's expertise: http://www.occupydemocrats.com/ben-carsons-long-history-of-medical-malpractice-will-shock-you/


I'm with that libtard banderl on this one...

I don't like carson, but he made it to the top of the neurosurgery field at a time when being black would make it very hard to even be a doctor. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his career, especially since the success of his surgical career is kind of irrelevant to his presidential capability.

Think about it... he's a neurosurgeon. No one gets their head cut open unless there are a lot of things already going wrong. I'm not surprised there would be a lot of deaths, complications and of course, this being america, follow up lawsuits.
DrafterX Offline
#107 Posted: Wed, Nov 18 2015, 1:51 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,560
I have a neurosurgeon for my back... Mellow
DrMaddVibe Offline
#108 Posted: Wed, Nov 18 2015, 3:19 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,507
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/politics/ben-carson-is-struggling-to-grasp-foreign-policy-advisers-say.html?_r=0&referer=http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBTzpW3ExWzRAAuhZx.9w4;_ylu=X3oDMTByNXQ0NThjBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM1BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1447906519/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.nytimes.com%2f2015%2f11%2f18%2fus%2fpolitics%2fben-carson-is-struggling-to-grasp-foreign-policy-advisers-say.html/RK=0/RS=OrOTEp2PwruOcgsIGpbHO.ZSjmk-


His own advisors...not me. ..not the DNC...


C'mon. ..he's nucking futs. Just admit it already.
banderl Offline
#109 Posted: Wed, Nov 18 2015, 3:23 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Oh, I agree.
That SNL skit that you posted was hysterical.
tonygraz Offline
#110 Posted: Wed, Nov 18 2015, 5:47 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,284
He needed a map every day to get to the hospital.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#111 Posted: Wed, Nov 18 2015, 10:37 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,507
teddyballgame wrote:
I don't get your vitriol against Cruz, Rubio and Carson. Insane?

If we don't elect a conservative in this cycle, America is going to suffer immensely. A Trump ( I don't think he gets in), Cruz, Carson, Paul, or Rubio (uphill battle as well) would beat Hillary Kankles.
As long as they don't "McCain/Romney" it and put on the kid-gloves.

We are in trouble in the D.C. front anyway. If the states don't try to take back their power via Article V, I don't see a turn around- too many sell outs ''playing ball."

We haven't put up anything near a conservative as the nominee since Reagan and we get beat up in the general as a result.

I liked Ron Paul, except I found his foreign policy stance to be dangerous.



Cruz - a religious zealout that wants to ram down his beliefs unto the non-believers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRIE7irvr3Q

Rubio - Is a homophobe, wants to privatize SS and issue vouchers for healthcare, and anti-immigration EXCEPT for the failed H1B1 visa scam perpetrated by politicians scamming the system. He wants more of what Disney did to their IT workers.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/08/jeff-sessions-targets-marco-rubio-on-h-1b-visas-says-hes-quashing-americans-dreams/

http://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2015/06/03/250-walt-disney-world-tech-employees-replaced-by-contract-workers-brought-in-from-other-countries

Carson...look...I've already covered that goof. He's unelectable and every time he opens his mouth...some tall tale or lunacy is going to fall out!


As for Ron Paul's foreign policy...there is NOTHING...absolutely NOTHING wrong with his ideas.


Yeah...let's see all these guys...these totally inept buffoons take the gloves off and beat up a woman. That's the game Hillary wants. NOBODY plays the victim card harder than her. NOBODY.


So there's your precious saviors sliced and diced with enough for anyone with a brain to want to run away from them. They are fake conservatives with very thin political records to back up the crap they espouse. They're saying whatever they can to get a vote and hoping nobody uses the internet to fact check on what they actually DO! They are terrible and deserve the beating they're going to get. Enough of the sham. Enough of the people like yourself thinking they're going to be different once elected. They're not.

Notice I didn't cover any of the other train wrecks?

Yeah...there really isn't a reason is there?
tamapatom Offline
#112 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 6:48 AM EST
Joined: 03-19-2015
Posts: 7,381
So we got some opinions here. I am guessing no one is changing their minds sooooo.....Round 7.
danmdevries Offline
#113 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 10:45 AM EST
Joined: 02-11-2014
Posts: 17,437
victor809 wrote:
I'm with that libtard banderl on this one...

I don't like carson, but he made it to the top of the neurosurgery field at a time when being black would make it very hard to even be a doctor. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his career, especially since the success of his surgical career is kind of irrelevant to his presidential capability.

Think about it... he's a neurosurgeon. No one gets their head cut open unless there are a lot of things already going wrong. I'm not surprised there would be a lot of deaths, complications and of course, this being america, follow up lawsuits.


Never trust a surgeon.

That's easily the greatest population of psychopathic god complex people I've ever met.

tailgater Offline
#114 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 11:52 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
danmdevries wrote:
Never trust a surgeon.

That's easily the greatest population of psychopathic god complex people I've ever met.



Says the doctor with the stethoscope avatar.
That's the visual equivalent of insisting that acquaintances address you as "doctor" even when outside the work environment.
I mean, it's not like you're a Maestro...
tailgater Offline
#115 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 11:53 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
I'm with that libtard banderl on this one...

I don't like carson, but he made it to the top of the neurosurgery field at a time when being black would make it very hard to even be a doctor. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his career, especially since the success of his surgical career is kind of irrelevant to his presidential capability.

Think about it... he's a neurosurgeon. No one gets their head cut open unless there are a lot of things already going wrong. I'm not surprised there would be a lot of deaths, complications and of course, this being america, follow up lawsuits.


How tough is it to be President?
I mean, it's not like its brain surgery...

victor809 Offline
#116 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 12:16 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
....well there seem to be fewer malpractice suits for one.
dstieger Offline
#117 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 12:35 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
victor809 wrote:
....well there seem to be fewer malpractice suits for one.



geezz...don't give Ailes and the Kochs any ideas
tonygraz Offline
#118 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 12:40 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,284
I had an acquaintance that was an oral surgeon. From what I hear he was as good as they get. He wouldn't take patients that had lawyers in the family and had most of his assets in his wife's name. Other than oral surgery, he was a clod and I wouldn't have voted for him for dog catcher.
teddyballgame Offline
#119 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 12:45 PM EST
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Cruz - a religious zealout that wants to ram down his beliefs unto the non-believers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRIE7irvr3Q

Rubio - Is a homophobe, wants to privatize SS and issue vouchers for healthcare, and anti-immigration EXCEPT for the failed H1B1 visa scam perpetrated by politicians scamming the system. He wants more of what Disney did to their IT workers.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/08/jeff-sessions-targets-marco-rubio-on-h-1b-visas-says-hes-quashing-americans-dreams/

Carson...look...I've already covered that goof. He's unelectable and every time he opens his mouth...some tall tale or lunacy is going to fall out!

So there's your precious saviors sliced and diced with enough for anyone with a brain to want to run away from them. They are fake conservatives with very thin political records to back up the crap they espouse. They're saying whatever they can to get a vote and hoping nobody uses the internet to fact check on what they actually DO! They are terrible and deserve the beating they're going to get. Enough of the sham. Enough of the people like yourself thinking they're going to be different once elected. They're not.

Yeah...let's see all these guys...these totally inept buffoons take the gloves off and beat up a woman. That's the game Hillary wants. NOBODY plays the victim card harder than her. NOBODY.

?



I am no fan of Rubio's immigration policies and he is trying to walk that back and change his stance, but he has been on board with that B.S. way too long. So you are not going to get an argument from me there.

So you are sighting the "ring of fire?" That show should have died with Air America.

Privatizing SS is a great idea. Chile did it 30 yrs ago and it has FLOURISHED. In fact 10 other countries have followed the Chilean model. Our SS is going broke and per the actuaries will be bankrupt in 20 yrs or less.
According to Investors Business Daily, the average annual rate of return for Chilean workers over the last 30 years has exceeded 9% annually, after inflation, whereas “U. S. Social Security pays a 1% to 2% (theoretical) rate of return, and even less for new workers.”

But lets just keep the status quo, right? Lets not explore what works.

And Ron Paul's foreign policy was always dangerous and short sighted- and that is why I question Rand Paul

But I know where you stand. You think you sliced and diced, but your knife is dull and it looks to be made of plastic.

Cruz ran a grass roots campaign against the establishment in Tex. pulled a major upset and ticked off all the entrenched Rinos in D.C. and in Tex- who did not back him. (Rubio did the same in Fla). This sounds like a guy you would back, but then you pull out "ring of fire" off youtube. So Cruz has shown more backbone against the way D.C. works and you don't like him either.

Just keep voting libertarian instead of trying to "take back the Republican party" from within as Reagan said.

Your points don't hold water and any conservative Constitutionalist with a brain can see that.
teddyballgame Offline
#120 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 12:45 PM EST
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
tonygraz wrote:
I had an acquaintance that was an oral surgeon. From what I hear he was as good as they get. He wouldn't take patients that had lawyers in the family and had most of his assets in his wife's name. Other than oral surgery, he was a clod and I wouldn't have voted for him for dog catcher.



A "fluffer" is NOT an oral surgeon.

..just sayin'
tonygraz Offline
#121 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 12:50 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,284
You would know.
victor809 Offline
#122 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 12:55 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Wait... one of tony's friends is a fluffer?

Man.... tony's cooler than I had thought.
Speyside Offline
#123 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 12:56 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
OK TBG, I am curious. What is wrong with being a Civil Libertarian?
frankj1 Offline
#124 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 1:33 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
I'll check into it TeddyBG, but I seem to recall friends of ours who are from Chile talking about the privatized system in their home country and the pressure being put upon the government to fix it.
I may be recalling incorrectly, but all 3 families made it sound quite a bit different than you. Plus, they are professionals with investment savvy.


but DON'T QUOTE ME!
teddyballgame Offline
#125 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 1:55 PM EST
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
Speyside wrote:
OK TBG, I am curious. What is wrong with being a Civil Libertarian?



Nothing wrong at all about being a libertarian. It is just a wasted vote in the system we have. Like the Green Party would be a wasted vote on the left side.

Hell I voted for Ross Perot I was so pissed at Bush 1 for lying with his "read my lips" remark.

In fact many of libertarian and conservative principles cross over as they both strive to adhere to first principles.
This is especially true when talking about utilizing a free market system.

This I found interesting from the Libertarian Party's platform on their own website:

2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system.


tonygraz Offline
#126 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 3:29 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,284
Back to Carson - latest is his map of the US that has New England totally screwed up and his adviser who says he can't learn about foreign policy. Oops, almost forgot about sliding Palestine out of Israel and into Egypt. Carson said that the adviser was not an advisor for the campaign, but rather someone who came in every week or two to give suggestions.

I'm thinking drug testing might not be a bad idea for all the republican candidates. Carson sure seems to be in the calm zone.
TMCTLT Offline
#127 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 4:42 PM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
tonygraz wrote:
Back to Carson - latest is his map of the US that has New England totally screwed up and his adviser who says he can't learn about foreign policy. Oops, almost forgot about sliding Palestine out of Israel and into Egypt. Carson said that the adviser was not an advisor for the campaign, but rather someone who came in every week or two to give suggestions.

I'm thinking drug testing might not be a bad idea for all the republican candidates. Carson sure seems to be in the calm zone.




Fair enough....drug test the Pubs and IQ test the Dims....let the cards fall where they may!!!!

Tony we've had seven years of leadership who said he's been to ALL 57 States in the US, you really want to talk stupid?????
teddyballgame Offline
#128 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 5:34 PM EST
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
don't forget he phonetically pronounced CORPSman- multiple times..the smarty pants.

Should be "core- man"

Without a teleprompter he is a complete wasteland of intellect.

But boy he sure talks good when he has the teleprompter.
tonygraz Offline
#129 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 6:00 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,284
TMCTLT wrote:
Fair enough....drug test the Pubs and IQ test the Dims....let the cards fall where they may!!!!

Tony we've had seven years of leadership who said he's been to ALL 57 States in the US, you really want to talk stupid?????


He still sounds a lot smarter than you or T-ball, or the fool me once...moron you probably voted for TWICE.
teddyballgame Offline
#130 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 6:11 PM EST
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
He may "sound" smarter when he has the teleprompter, but his policies are foolish and idiotic and in the matter of foreign policy, downright dangerous.

He is an intrenched ideologue that will not take advice from others as he has the "God complex" like no other.
"My way or the highway, I won 2 elections."

I wager he was not even that good a student.. otherwise his college report card would be slathered all over the place.

You back a feckless, lazy president with a dangerous ideology and disastrous policies.

Thank you for helping ruin my country!
banderl Offline
#131 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 6:15 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
LMAO!
tonygraz Offline
#132 Posted: Thu, Nov 19 2015, 10:04 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,284
I think he was talking about Bush. He seems to have forgotten about Carson.
TMCTLT Offline
#133 Posted: Fri, Nov 20 2015, 7:11 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
tonygraz wrote:
He still sounds a lot smarter than you or T-ball, or the fool me once...moron you probably voted for TWICE.



You really are a lowly unintelligent A Whole
tonygraz Offline
#134 Posted: Fri, Nov 20 2015, 8:07 AM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,284
Says the moron who voted for Bush twice.
TMCTLT Offline
#135 Posted: Fri, Nov 20 2015, 8:54 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
tonygraz wrote:
Says the moron who voted for Bush twice.




I'll happily admit to voting for that idiot twice versus this Racist SOB you voted for twice
tonygraz Offline
#136 Posted: Fri, Nov 20 2015, 12:06 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,284
Like they say, Ignorance is bliss.
TMCTLT Offline
#137 Posted: Fri, Nov 20 2015, 12:17 PM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
tonygraz wrote:
Like they say, Ignorance is bliss.




They = YOU Speak to the hand
DrMaddVibe Offline
#138 Posted: Fri, Nov 20 2015, 2:43 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,507
teddyballgame wrote:
Nothing wrong at all about being a libertarian. It is just a wasted vote in the system we have. Like the Green Party would be a wasted vote on the left side.

Hell I voted for Ross Perot I was so pissed at Bush 1 for lying with his "read my lips" remark.

In fact many of libertarian and conservative principles cross over as they both strive to adhere to first principles.
This is especially true when talking about utilizing a free market system.

This I found interesting from the Libertarian Party's platform on their own website:

2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system.





Ok...then just give me all the money in lump sum that I've put in. Non-taxed too.
teddyballgame Offline
#139 Posted: Fri, Nov 20 2015, 5:07 PM EST
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
That can't be done because the D.C. guys spent it all and put in IOUs.

Otherwise I would be right behind you with that same demand.
banderl Offline
#140 Posted: Fri, Nov 20 2015, 6:36 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
teddyballgame wrote:
That can't be done because the D.C. guys spent it all and put in IOUs.

Otherwise I would be right behind you with that same demand.



Yeah, that ****, Ronnie.

http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/
teddyballgame Offline
#141 Posted: Fri, Nov 20 2015, 6:56 PM EST
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
Please, this started LONG before Reagan. Lyndon Johnson's party raided SS to help pay down the debt for the Vietnam War.

This has probably been going on since FDR.

And it has always been wrong. And doesn't the House hold the purse strings for spending?

Or are you saying the president can reach in and randomly spend SS funds?
frankj1 Offline
#142 Posted: Fri, Nov 20 2015, 7:20 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
banderl wrote:
Yeah, that ****, Ronnie.

http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/

I didn't check your link to see if it is the same source, but I posted an article about Reagan's Biggest Scam (costarring Greenspan) on Halloween in the thread about Obama killing the military and got virtually zero reaction (Z posted a Forbes quickie).

The truth is that it was invented and instituted by Ted's idol (sorry my friend) and no one else. RR will forever own it, and all just to make supplyside/trickle down/voodoo economics appear to be working. He and Greenie figured future presidents would repay the stolen money in plenty of time to fund the retiring baby boomers.

Sadly, the theft continued for several presidencies, and iirc Gore brought it up when he introduced the idea of a "lock box" to end the shameful, immoral practice.

And so I repeat...no side owns morality. Way past time to be decent and stop preaching at opponents.


feel free to quote me.
banderl Offline
#143 Posted: Fri, Nov 20 2015, 7:42 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
teddyballgame wrote:
Please, this started LONG before Reagan. Lyndon Johnson's party raided SS to help pay down the debt for the Vietnam War.

This has probably been going on since FDR.

And it has always been wrong. And doesn't the House hold the purse strings for spending?

Or are you saying the president can reach in and randomly spend SS funds?



That prick Raygun created a BS story so that he could raise the SS funds collected and use them to prop up his failed economic policies.
Wear that!
banderl Offline
#144 Posted: Fri, Nov 20 2015, 7:44 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
frankj1 wrote:
I didn't check your link to see if it is the same source, but I posted an article about Reagan's Biggest Scam (costarring Greenspan) on Halloween in the thread about Obama killing the military and got virtually zero reaction (Z posted a Forbes quickie).

The truth is that it was invented and instituted by Ted's idol (sorry my friend) and no one else. RR will forever own it, and all just to make supplyside/trickle down/voodoo economics appear to be working. He and Greenie figured future presidents would repay the stolen money in plenty of time to fund the retiring baby boomers.

Sadly, the theft continued for several presidencies, and iirc Gore brought it up when he introduced the idea of a "lock box" to end the shameful, immoral practice.

And so I repeat...no side owns morality. Way past time to be decent and stop preaching at opponents.


feel free to quote me.



That is the crux of the biscuit.
frankj1 Offline
#145 Posted: Fri, Nov 20 2015, 8:00 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
oooh! I forgot about Stockman and the faked budget forecasts!
teddyballgame Offline
#146 Posted: Fri, Nov 20 2015, 10:58 PM EST
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
frankj1 wrote:
oooh! I forgot about Stockman and the faked budget forecasts!



You also forgot about the black helicopters and how Reagan fostered aids and drugs in the inner city.


Here, from the Social Securities own website :

https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.



The tax on SS was passed by an overwhelming bi-partisan vote. Because bills are voted on in the congress before President can sign it.

So it is not really "true" that Reagan is the evil dark lord that frank claims here, is it?
frankj1 Offline
#147 Posted: Sat, Nov 21 2015, 12:29 AM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
teddyballgame wrote:
You also forgot about the black helicopters and how Reagan fostered aids and drugs in the inner city.


Here, from the Social Securities own website :

https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.



The tax on SS was passed by an overwhelming bi-partisan vote. Because bills are voted on in the congress before President can sign it.

So it is not really "true" that Reagan is the evil dark lord that frank claims here, is it?


I don't know how old you were when this happened, but after 3 hours of googling like crazy to justify your dogmatic beliefs...you are simply incorrect.

ask your Dad.
teddyballgame Offline
#148 Posted: Sat, Nov 21 2015, 2:06 AM EST
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
just a quick google search turned that up.. from the Soc.Sec own website. I am guessing more reliable than "fed smith/"

Your dislike for Reagan is preventing the open mind thingy.
tonygraz Offline
#149 Posted: Sat, Nov 21 2015, 8:48 AM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,284
"is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself." Sounds only like an accounting change in the way it was reported.
frankj1 Offline
#150 Posted: Sat, Nov 21 2015, 10:00 AM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,223
teddyballgame wrote:
just a quick google search turned that up.. from the Soc.Sec own website. I am guessing more reliable than "fed smith/"

Your dislike for Reagan is preventing the open mind thingy.

searching for evidence to back what you'd like to believe is what is closed minded. I was very much alive when this all went down. Sometimes our "side" does the wrong thing and no revisionist history can change that.

I do despise two or three hideous events of RR's administration, I consider them illegal acts, unAmerican at least. But I do not harbor the deep hatred of opposing views that I pick up in your posts. I wouldn't have survived this long on these boards if I was closed minded...several conservatives here would probably attest to my ears being available to hear and consider. That's why I am here, to maybe learn, not on some forum where everyone is nodding in agreement and becoming stale. Dogma is not attractive to me.

I'm just riding ya when I say "your hero". There are pros and cons to almost every administration and RR certainly had his positives. Would you admit that about any Dem administration? Unlikely.

But this money scheme was horrendous with negative impact for decades, maybe generations.

By all means, have strong convictions, but don't stop learning.
By definition, clinging to dogma makes one closed minded, not refusing to agree with your "plain truth" pronouncements.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234>
Back to Top