Politics, Politics, Politics
- Thread starter falcondfw69
- Start date
The Republicans' deficit scam is exposed for all to see
Up until fairly recently, federal officials believed the nation would have to raise the debt ceiling by late March or early April. Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office said action will be required even sooner – because the Republican’s $1.5 trillion tax cut is already starting to affect U.S. finances. According to the budget office, the borrowing limit will most likely need to be raised in early March after the “extraordinary measures” to extend borrowing employed by the Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, are exhausted. The budget office previously projected that the debt limit would need to be raised beyond its current level of $20.5 trillion in late March or early April. The reason for ...
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/b2b...15fe085/ss_the-republicans'-deficit-scam.html
Up until fairly recently, federal officials believed the nation would have to raise the debt ceiling by late March or early April. Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office said action will be required even sooner – because the Republican’s $1.5 trillion tax cut is already starting to affect U.S. finances. According to the budget office, the borrowing limit will most likely need to be raised in early March after the “extraordinary measures” to extend borrowing employed by the Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, are exhausted. The budget office previously projected that the debt limit would need to be raised beyond its current level of $20.5 trillion in late March or early April. The reason for ...
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/b2b...15fe085/ss_the-republicans'-deficit-scam.html
"Trickle Down" at work, my man! It works the same way every time, just some refuse to admit it. What you have to look for, however, is the infamous "shell game" the Republicans pull to adjust for their shortages. In this case, one of them is the SNAP program. Reagan implemented 11 different revenue increases of which practically all impacted the poor & middleclass. So, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. I expect inflation to hit this year or next, big time, just like the late '70's early '80s, then you'll really start seeing the impact of this wonderful Trickle Down philosophy at its "worst".
Donald Trump Loses Out To Barack Obama, Yet Again
Lee Moran,HuffPost
The TV-viewing figures for President Donald Trump’s first State of the Union address are in, and he’s not winning.
Trump averaged around 45.6 million viewers during his 80-minute speech to Congress and a TV audience on Tuesday night, according to media research company Nielsen, which collated data from 12 broadcast and cable networks.
That’s a 2.1 million dip from the 47.7 million people who watched Trump’s inaugural address to a joint session of Congress in 2017, and was lower than the number of people who watched former President Barack Obama’s speeches on similar occasions.
Obama scored 52.3 million for his inaugural address to a joint session of Congress in 2009, and just over 48 million for his first State of the Union speech in 2010.
Viewing figures for the State of the Union speech usually decline during a president’s time in office. Obama’s final speech in 2016 was only seen by 31.3 million people.
Trump has not fared well in comparison to Obama in other areas in recent months.
At the end of the 2017, three of Obama’s tweets made Twitter’s “most retweeted” list, and two appeared in the “most liked” category. Trump failed to feature on either list.
Obama also edged out Trump as America’s “Most Admired Man,” according to a Gallup poll in December.
when will someof you learn he is second rate at best
Lee Moran,HuffPostThe TV-viewing figures for President Donald Trump’s first State of the Union address are in, and he’s not winning.
Trump averaged around 45.6 million viewers during his 80-minute speech to Congress and a TV audience on Tuesday night, according to media research company Nielsen, which collated data from 12 broadcast and cable networks.
That’s a 2.1 million dip from the 47.7 million people who watched Trump’s inaugural address to a joint session of Congress in 2017, and was lower than the number of people who watched former President Barack Obama’s speeches on similar occasions.
Obama scored 52.3 million for his inaugural address to a joint session of Congress in 2009, and just over 48 million for his first State of the Union speech in 2010.
Viewing figures for the State of the Union speech usually decline during a president’s time in office. Obama’s final speech in 2016 was only seen by 31.3 million people.
Trump has not fared well in comparison to Obama in other areas in recent months.
At the end of the 2017, three of Obama’s tweets made Twitter’s “most retweeted” list, and two appeared in the “most liked” category. Trump failed to feature on either list.
Obama also edged out Trump as America’s “Most Admired Man,” according to a Gallup poll in December.
when will someof you learn he is second rate at best
Deficitby President: What Budget Deficits Hide
ByDollar and Percent
WhichPresident ran the largest budgetdeficits? There are two ways to answer that question. The mostpopular way is to add up the deficits for each year the President wasin office. But a President doesn’t control the first year’sdeficit. The previous President and Congress already approvedthat federalbudget. That's because the Federal government's fiscalyear runs from October 1 through September 30.
Asa result, a new President has no influence on the deficit forJanuary through September 30 of that first year.
So,the best way is to look at the budget each President created. Then add the deficits for those budgets. That reflects thePresident's priorities in black and white. It measures the impact of deficit spending and tax changes in dollars and cents.
5 Factors That Influence the Deficit
ThePresident is ultimately responsible for the budget deficit. But thereare five influential factors.
First, thePresident has no control over the mandatorybudget or its deficit. That includes Socia lSecurity and Medicare benefits. They are the twobiggest expenses any President has. The mandatory budget estimates what these programs will cost. The Acts of Congress that created the programs also mandate the spending. Unless the President can get Congress to remove or change them, he's got to live with that spending.
Second,the Constitution gave Congress,not the President, the power to control spending. The President’s budget is starting point. Each house of Congress prepares a discretionary spending budget. They combine them into the final budget that the President reviews and signs. For more, see Budget Process
Third, each President inherits many of his predecessors' policies. For example, every President suffered from lower revenue. That's aresult of President Reagan's and President Bush's taxcuts. Presidents who raise taxes quickly become unpopular. Asa result, tax cuts rarely disappear.
Fourth,some Presidents had to deal with catastrophic events. President Obama responded to the worst recession sincethe Great Depression. President Bush reacted to the 9/11terrorist attack and Hurricane Katrina. Their required responses came with economic price tags.
Fifth, each year's deficitadds to the debt. But the total amount added to the debteach year is usually more than the deficit. That's because Presidents can "borrow" from the SocialSecurity Trust Fund. That's the largest of the federal retirementfunds that run a surplus. That makes the deficit smaller than what'sadded to the debt. For example, President Bush's stated budgetdeficits totaled $3.294 trillion. But he added $5.849 trillionto the debt.
He borrowed the rest from Social Security in an off-budget transaction.See HowMuch Each President Contributed to the Debt.
President Barack Obama
PresidentObama has the largest deficits. By the end of hisfinal budget (FY 2017), his deficits will total$6.616 trillion. Obama took office during the GreatRecession. He immediately needed to spend billions to stop it.
He convinced Congress to add the $787 billion economic stimulus package to Bush’s FY 2009 budget. It added$253 billion to the FY 2009 budget. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act added the remaining $534 billion over the rest of Obama’s terms.
In2010, the Obama tax cut added $858 billion to the debt in its first twoyears. Obama increased defense spending, adding as much as $800 billion a year. Federal income decreased due to lower tax receipts from the 2008financial crisis.
BothPresidents Bush and Obama suffered from higher mandatory spending than their predecessors did. SocialSecurity and Medicare benefits eating up more of the budget. That'sbecause healthcare costs were rising as the American population aged. In 2010,Obama launched the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act. It sought to reduce healthcare spending. That would lower the debt by $143 billion by 2020. Formore, see National Debt Under Obama.
President George W. Bush
President Bush is next, racking up $3.293 trillion over two terms. Heresponded to the attackson 9/11 with the Waron Terror. That sent military spending to a higher level of $600billion a year. The Bushtax cuts, also known as EGTRRA and JGTRRA,cut taxes to address the 2001 recession. Unfortunately, the cutsdid not sunset when the recession was over. That worsened thehousing boom and depleted revenues during the 2008 recession. Heattacked the 2008financial crisis with the $700billion bailout. Congress added it to the mandatory budget.There it became the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
President Ronald Reagan
President Reagan added $1.412 trillion in deficits, nearly doubling the debt. He fought the 1982 recession by cutting the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. Reagan cut the corporate rate from 48 percent to 34 percent. He also increased government spending by 2.5 percent a year. That included a 35 percent increase in the defense budget and an expansion of Medicare.
President George H.W. Bush
PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush created a $1.03 trillion deficit in one term. Heresponded to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait with Desert Storm. He oversawthe $125 billion bailout that ended the 1989Savings and Loan crisis. The 1991 recession cut into taxrevenue.
Whilemost U.S. presidents over the past 75 years haverun budget deficitsfor many if not all of their years in office, there are four whosedeficits have far exceeded those of their peers. The four presidentswho have run the largest deficits are, in order from most to least,Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Thereare two ways to look at the U.S. budgetdeficitwhen determining which president has run the largest deficit. Thefirst is to look at each president's term or terms in office, totalthe deficits run over the course of their four or eight years andbase your conclusions on those numbers. According to this method,Barack Obama's budget is projected to run a deficit of $7.3 trillionover his eight years, making him the president with the largestbudget deficit. George W. Bush is second, with a deficit of $3.29trillion over his eight years. Ronald Reagan is third at $1.412trillion deficit in eight years and George H.W. Bush comes in fourthwith a $1.03 trillion deficit in his single term.
Whiletotaling the deficit over each president's term to see who has runthe largest deficit seems to be common sense on the surface, theresponsibility for the budget is not so black and white a question.For one thing, Congress has to vote to approve the U.S. budget andthe allocation of government spending for things such as economicstimuluspackages or affordable health care that add to the deficit. Foranother, mandatory spending is automatically built into the budgetfor national programs such as SocialSecurity,welfare and Medicare. These programs are acts of Congress and wouldrequire further acts to amend or eliminate them. The federal fiscalyear runs from October 1 to September 30; for the first nine months anew president is in office, he is working with the budget laid downby his predecessor.
Thelaws governing the federal fiscalyearare the reason that a second way to look at budget deficits is on ayear-by-year basis. In years when a new president is elected, thereare two plans at work: the old plan laid out by the previousadministration and the new plan brought in by the new president. Thesingle largest budget deficit in U.S. history happened during such ayear; the 2009 fiscal year clocked a $1.412 trillion deficit. For thefirst third of that year, President George W. Bush was in office,while for the last eight months, Barack Obama took the White House.In October 2008, after Bush's budget was approved for the 2009 fiscalyear, the Dow dropped dramatically, recording three of its 10worst-ever days in a single month. After Obama took office, fears ofa looming recessionencouraged Congress to pass an economic stimulus package, immediatelyadding a further $253 billion to Bush's already-approved budget, andmaking the $1.412 trillion deficit the work of two administrations.
ByDollar and Percent
WhichPresident ran the largest budgetdeficits? There are two ways to answer that question. The mostpopular way is to add up the deficits for each year the President wasin office. But a President doesn’t control the first year’sdeficit. The previous President and Congress already approvedthat federalbudget. That's because the Federal government's fiscalyear runs from October 1 through September 30.
Asa result, a new President has no influence on the deficit forJanuary through September 30 of that first year.
So,the best way is to look at the budget each President created. Then add the deficits for those budgets. That reflects thePresident's priorities in black and white. It measures the impact of deficit spending and tax changes in dollars and cents.
5 Factors That Influence the Deficit
ThePresident is ultimately responsible for the budget deficit. But thereare five influential factors.
First, thePresident has no control over the mandatorybudget or its deficit. That includes Socia lSecurity and Medicare benefits. They are the twobiggest expenses any President has. The mandatory budget estimates what these programs will cost. The Acts of Congress that created the programs also mandate the spending. Unless the President can get Congress to remove or change them, he's got to live with that spending.
Second,the Constitution gave Congress,not the President, the power to control spending. The President’s budget is starting point. Each house of Congress prepares a discretionary spending budget. They combine them into the final budget that the President reviews and signs. For more, see Budget Process
Third, each President inherits many of his predecessors' policies. For example, every President suffered from lower revenue. That's aresult of President Reagan's and President Bush's taxcuts. Presidents who raise taxes quickly become unpopular. Asa result, tax cuts rarely disappear.
Fourth,some Presidents had to deal with catastrophic events. President Obama responded to the worst recession sincethe Great Depression. President Bush reacted to the 9/11terrorist attack and Hurricane Katrina. Their required responses came with economic price tags.
Fifth, each year's deficitadds to the debt. But the total amount added to the debteach year is usually more than the deficit. That's because Presidents can "borrow" from the SocialSecurity Trust Fund. That's the largest of the federal retirementfunds that run a surplus. That makes the deficit smaller than what'sadded to the debt. For example, President Bush's stated budgetdeficits totaled $3.294 trillion. But he added $5.849 trillionto the debt.
He borrowed the rest from Social Security in an off-budget transaction.See HowMuch Each President Contributed to the Debt.
President Barack Obama
PresidentObama has the largest deficits. By the end of hisfinal budget (FY 2017), his deficits will total$6.616 trillion. Obama took office during the GreatRecession. He immediately needed to spend billions to stop it.
He convinced Congress to add the $787 billion economic stimulus package to Bush’s FY 2009 budget. It added$253 billion to the FY 2009 budget. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act added the remaining $534 billion over the rest of Obama’s terms.
In2010, the Obama tax cut added $858 billion to the debt in its first twoyears. Obama increased defense spending, adding as much as $800 billion a year. Federal income decreased due to lower tax receipts from the 2008financial crisis.
BothPresidents Bush and Obama suffered from higher mandatory spending than their predecessors did. SocialSecurity and Medicare benefits eating up more of the budget. That'sbecause healthcare costs were rising as the American population aged. In 2010,Obama launched the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act. It sought to reduce healthcare spending. That would lower the debt by $143 billion by 2020. Formore, see National Debt Under Obama.
President George W. Bush
President Bush is next, racking up $3.293 trillion over two terms. Heresponded to the attackson 9/11 with the Waron Terror. That sent military spending to a higher level of $600billion a year. The Bushtax cuts, also known as EGTRRA and JGTRRA,cut taxes to address the 2001 recession. Unfortunately, the cutsdid not sunset when the recession was over. That worsened thehousing boom and depleted revenues during the 2008 recession. Heattacked the 2008financial crisis with the $700billion bailout. Congress added it to the mandatory budget.There it became the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
President Ronald Reagan
President Reagan added $1.412 trillion in deficits, nearly doubling the debt. He fought the 1982 recession by cutting the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. Reagan cut the corporate rate from 48 percent to 34 percent. He also increased government spending by 2.5 percent a year. That included a 35 percent increase in the defense budget and an expansion of Medicare.
President George H.W. Bush
PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush created a $1.03 trillion deficit in one term. Heresponded to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait with Desert Storm. He oversawthe $125 billion bailout that ended the 1989Savings and Loan crisis. The 1991 recession cut into taxrevenue.
Whilemost U.S. presidents over the past 75 years haverun budget deficitsfor many if not all of their years in office, there are four whosedeficits have far exceeded those of their peers. The four presidentswho have run the largest deficits are, in order from most to least,Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Thereare two ways to look at the U.S. budgetdeficitwhen determining which president has run the largest deficit. Thefirst is to look at each president's term or terms in office, totalthe deficits run over the course of their four or eight years andbase your conclusions on those numbers. According to this method,Barack Obama's budget is projected to run a deficit of $7.3 trillionover his eight years, making him the president with the largestbudget deficit. George W. Bush is second, with a deficit of $3.29trillion over his eight years. Ronald Reagan is third at $1.412trillion deficit in eight years and George H.W. Bush comes in fourthwith a $1.03 trillion deficit in his single term.
Whiletotaling the deficit over each president's term to see who has runthe largest deficit seems to be common sense on the surface, theresponsibility for the budget is not so black and white a question.For one thing, Congress has to vote to approve the U.S. budget andthe allocation of government spending for things such as economicstimuluspackages or affordable health care that add to the deficit. Foranother, mandatory spending is automatically built into the budgetfor national programs such as SocialSecurity,welfare and Medicare. These programs are acts of Congress and wouldrequire further acts to amend or eliminate them. The federal fiscalyear runs from October 1 to September 30; for the first nine months anew president is in office, he is working with the budget laid downby his predecessor.
Thelaws governing the federal fiscalyearare the reason that a second way to look at budget deficits is on ayear-by-year basis. In years when a new president is elected, thereare two plans at work: the old plan laid out by the previousadministration and the new plan brought in by the new president. Thesingle largest budget deficit in U.S. history happened during such ayear; the 2009 fiscal year clocked a $1.412 trillion deficit. For thefirst third of that year, President George W. Bush was in office,while for the last eight months, Barack Obama took the White House.In October 2008, after Bush's budget was approved for the 2009 fiscalyear, the Dow dropped dramatically, recording three of its 10worst-ever days in a single month. After Obama took office, fears ofa looming recessionencouraged Congress to pass an economic stimulus package, immediatelyadding a further $253 billion to Bush's already-approved budget, andmaking the $1.412 trillion deficit the work of two administrations.
RAIDINGTHE TRUST FUND
The Big Lie
The Looting of Social Security
Throughout history, governments around the world have misled and deceived thei rcitizens, at least some of the time. Sometimes the deception could be justified on the basis of national security concerns. But, at other times, the only thing at stake has been political power and greed.That is the case with the embezzlement of $2.7 trillion of Social Security money and the spending of that money for wars, tax cuts andother non-Social Security programs.
The United States of America has had its share of government scandals from Teapot Dome,under President Harding, to the Watergate scandal, which brought downRichard Nixon, to the Iran Contra scandal under Reagan, and the Monica Lewinsky affair under President Bill Clinton. These scandalshave garnered a lot of news coverage and resulted in political casualties. They have also called into question the integrity ofgovernment, in general, during the periods of heavy news coverage.But, in each of these scandals, public concern over government dishonesty, in general, has been only temporary.
MostAmericans want to trust and feel good about their government, andgovernment distrust is usually limited to politicians of the oppositepolitical party. In other words, Democrats usually do not trustRepublicans, and Republicans do not trust Democrats. When one partyis caught up in a political scandal, the other party goes on theoffensive until they have made as much political hay of the incidentas possible. But what if there are offenses against the public inwhich members of both parties are equally guilty? There is nopolitical gain from exposing misconduct in one party if the otherparty is equally guilty. On the contrary, secrets that both partieswant to keep from the public are very hard to expose.
WhenI first discovered that the government was systematically embezzlingSocial Security money, and using it for non-Social Security purposes,I didn’t want to believe what I had found. I did a lot of researchin an effort to disprove my findings, but the deeper I dug, the moreevidence I found that the crime of mishandling Social Security fundshad enjoyed bipartisan support from the very beginning. The only waythe government could have gotten by with the scam for so many yearswas by extensive bipartisan support and a trusting public.
Thepublic trust of the government was strengthened when Ronald Reaganbecame President in 1981. Millions of Americans had welcomed Reaganinto their homes for years, as the host of “Death Valley Days”and “The General Electric Theatre.” He was loved by many from theday he entered the White House. No matter what went wrong during hisyears as President, Reagan seemed to almost never be blamed directly.He was often called the Teflon President because almost nothing of anegative nature seemed to stick to him. As a trained professionalactor, Reagan had an uncommon degree of charisma. He soon becameAmerica’s most loved modern-day president, and he was seen by manyas an elder statesman, and even a beloved grandfather figure. Somepeople 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 andpossibly never get caught. Reagan told more than one whopper. Hisfirst one was straight out of fantasy land. Reagan said he would cutincome tax rates by 30 percent over a three-year period, and end upwith more revenue than before the cut in rates. You don’t have tobe an economist to figure out that, if the government wants toincrease revenue, it would usually raise tax rates—not lower them.
******************************************************************************
Reagan’sbig lie about getting more revenue with lower tax rates led to hisbiggest lie of all. Once it became clear that supply-side economicswas not working, Reagan had a big crisis on his hands. His promisesto reduce the deficits and lower the national debt flew right out theback door. Reagan did not want to admit that his economic plan hadfailed 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 therevenue which had been lost because of the cut in income taxrates.
****************************************************************************************
AlanGreenspan, 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 morerevenue without touching the income tax cuts. Greenspan told Reaganthat they could raise payroll taxes, and say they were doing it tostrengthen Social Security. Then they could use the surplus revenuejust like income- taxrevenue.
***************************************************************************************
Itwas a clever plan. The surplus Social Security revenue from thepayroll-tax increase wouldn’t be needed to pay actual benefits for30 more years. Why not just put the money in the general fund, fornow, and let future presidents worry about replacing it. It probablydidn’t seem like such and evil deed to Reagan and Greenspan at thetime. After all, they were only “borrowing” the money. Hopefullysome future president would repay it. But the real effect of theiraction was to take money from working baby boomers, in the form ofincreased payroll taxes, and give that money to some of the richestAmericans in the form of big income tax cuts.
It must nothave taken Greenspan very long to convince Reagan to begin embezzlingthe Social Security surplus revenue, because Reagan took his firstaction toward getting his hands on the money by writing a letter,which greatly exaggerated the plight of Social Security, toCongressional Leaders on May 21, 1981, just four months after takingthe oath of office as President. Excerpts from that letter arereproduced below.
“Asyou know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge ofbankruptcy. Over the next five years, the Social Security trust fundcould encounter deficits of up to $111 billion, and in the decadesahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions.Unless we in government are willing to act, a sword of Damocles willsoon hang over the welfare of millions of our citizens…
SocialSecurity was definitely not “teetering on the edge of bankruptcy”in 1981 as Reagan claimed in his letter to Congressional leaders. The1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform, headed by AlanGreenspan, issued its “findings and recommendations” in January1983. The Commission accurately foresaw major problems for SocialSecurity when the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. Butthat was nearly three decades down the road. In addition to thelong-term problem of the baby boomers, the Commission found apossible short-term problem for the years 1983-89. But the outlookimproved and became favorable for the 1990s and early 2000s. Thepossible minor problem for the years 1983-1989 was based on verypessimistic economic assumptions. So, at the time Reagan informedCongressional leaders that Social Security was teetering on the edgeof bankruptcy, the overall condition of Social Security funding wasfairly sound for the next three decades.
Reagan wrote a follow-up letter to Congressional leaders dated July18, 1981, whichincluded:
“The highest priority of my Administration is restoring the integrity of the Social Security System. Those 35million 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 arethere for the well-being of those who have paid into the Social Security System. We should use those resources to see that SocialSecurity 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 fiscall 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 aretalking 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 onit, and, two, we have been stealing money from the Social Security recipients of this country.
”Ithink that is a very good illustration of what I was talking about, embezzlement, thievery. Because that, Mr. President, is what we aretalking about here…I publicly commend and applaud the vigorous activity generated by the Senator from New York because… on thatchart 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…Ifthere 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 ofcurrent retirees. Moynihan’s position was that, if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, thejar 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 no body 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 2000presidential 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 $2.6trillion 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.
The Big Lie
The Looting of Social Security
Throughout history, governments around the world have misled and deceived thei rcitizens, at least some of the time. Sometimes the deception could be justified on the basis of national security concerns. But, at other times, the only thing at stake has been political power and greed.That is the case with the embezzlement of $2.7 trillion of Social Security money and the spending of that money for wars, tax cuts andother non-Social Security programs.
The United States of America has had its share of government scandals from Teapot Dome,under President Harding, to the Watergate scandal, which brought downRichard Nixon, to the Iran Contra scandal under Reagan, and the Monica Lewinsky affair under President Bill Clinton. These scandalshave garnered a lot of news coverage and resulted in political casualties. They have also called into question the integrity ofgovernment, in general, during the periods of heavy news coverage.But, in each of these scandals, public concern over government dishonesty, in general, has been only temporary.
MostAmericans want to trust and feel good about their government, andgovernment distrust is usually limited to politicians of the oppositepolitical party. In other words, Democrats usually do not trustRepublicans, and Republicans do not trust Democrats. When one partyis caught up in a political scandal, the other party goes on theoffensive until they have made as much political hay of the incidentas possible. But what if there are offenses against the public inwhich members of both parties are equally guilty? There is nopolitical gain from exposing misconduct in one party if the otherparty is equally guilty. On the contrary, secrets that both partieswant to keep from the public are very hard to expose.
WhenI first discovered that the government was systematically embezzlingSocial Security money, and using it for non-Social Security purposes,I didn’t want to believe what I had found. I did a lot of researchin an effort to disprove my findings, but the deeper I dug, the moreevidence I found that the crime of mishandling Social Security fundshad enjoyed bipartisan support from the very beginning. The only waythe government could have gotten by with the scam for so many yearswas by extensive bipartisan support and a trusting public.
Thepublic trust of the government was strengthened when Ronald Reaganbecame President in 1981. Millions of Americans had welcomed Reaganinto their homes for years, as the host of “Death Valley Days”and “The General Electric Theatre.” He was loved by many from theday he entered the White House. No matter what went wrong during hisyears as President, Reagan seemed to almost never be blamed directly.He was often called the Teflon President because almost nothing of anegative nature seemed to stick to him. As a trained professionalactor, Reagan had an uncommon degree of charisma. He soon becameAmerica’s most loved modern-day president, and he was seen by manyas an elder statesman, and even a beloved grandfather figure. Somepeople 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 andpossibly never get caught. Reagan told more than one whopper. Hisfirst one was straight out of fantasy land. Reagan said he would cutincome tax rates by 30 percent over a three-year period, and end upwith more revenue than before the cut in rates. You don’t have tobe an economist to figure out that, if the government wants toincrease revenue, it would usually raise tax rates—not lower them.
******************************************************************************
Reagan’sbig lie about getting more revenue with lower tax rates led to hisbiggest lie of all. Once it became clear that supply-side economicswas not working, Reagan had a big crisis on his hands. His promisesto reduce the deficits and lower the national debt flew right out theback door. Reagan did not want to admit that his economic plan hadfailed 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 therevenue which had been lost because of the cut in income taxrates.
****************************************************************************************
AlanGreenspan, 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 morerevenue without touching the income tax cuts. Greenspan told Reaganthat they could raise payroll taxes, and say they were doing it tostrengthen Social Security. Then they could use the surplus revenuejust like income- taxrevenue.
***************************************************************************************
Itwas a clever plan. The surplus Social Security revenue from thepayroll-tax increase wouldn’t be needed to pay actual benefits for30 more years. Why not just put the money in the general fund, fornow, and let future presidents worry about replacing it. It probablydidn’t seem like such and evil deed to Reagan and Greenspan at thetime. After all, they were only “borrowing” the money. Hopefullysome future president would repay it. But the real effect of theiraction was to take money from working baby boomers, in the form ofincreased payroll taxes, and give that money to some of the richestAmericans in the form of big income tax cuts.
It must nothave taken Greenspan very long to convince Reagan to begin embezzlingthe Social Security surplus revenue, because Reagan took his firstaction toward getting his hands on the money by writing a letter,which greatly exaggerated the plight of Social Security, toCongressional Leaders on May 21, 1981, just four months after takingthe oath of office as President. Excerpts from that letter arereproduced below.
“Asyou know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge ofbankruptcy. Over the next five years, the Social Security trust fundcould encounter deficits of up to $111 billion, and in the decadesahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions.Unless we in government are willing to act, a sword of Damocles willsoon hang over the welfare of millions of our citizens…
SocialSecurity was definitely not “teetering on the edge of bankruptcy”in 1981 as Reagan claimed in his letter to Congressional leaders. The1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform, headed by AlanGreenspan, issued its “findings and recommendations” in January1983. The Commission accurately foresaw major problems for SocialSecurity when the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. Butthat was nearly three decades down the road. In addition to thelong-term problem of the baby boomers, the Commission found apossible short-term problem for the years 1983-89. But the outlookimproved and became favorable for the 1990s and early 2000s. Thepossible minor problem for the years 1983-1989 was based on verypessimistic economic assumptions. So, at the time Reagan informedCongressional leaders that Social Security was teetering on the edgeof bankruptcy, the overall condition of Social Security funding wasfairly sound for the next three decades.
Reagan wrote a follow-up letter to Congressional leaders dated July18, 1981, whichincluded:
“The highest priority of my Administration is restoring the integrity of the Social Security System. Those 35million 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 arethere for the well-being of those who have paid into the Social Security System. We should use those resources to see that SocialSecurity 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 fiscall 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 aretalking 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 onit, and, two, we have been stealing money from the Social Security recipients of this country.
”Ithink that is a very good illustration of what I was talking about, embezzlement, thievery. Because that, Mr. President, is what we aretalking about here…I publicly commend and applaud the vigorous activity generated by the Senator from New York because… on thatchart 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…Ifthere 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 ofcurrent retirees. Moynihan’s position was that, if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, thejar 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 no body 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 2000presidential 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 $2.6trillion 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 know the Dems this and the Dems that....but it has been worked on and put under control far better than the republicans.....for the right it is always a campaign issue...until they get in...and it shoots way up again...Clinton at one time even had a surplus...Obama did work on paying it down......do you see any effort now to do that?
NONE!
More firings and resignations in Trump's first year of office than Obama during his entire EIGHT YEARS as President. The Rats are abandoning his ship as fast a they come on board. CDC Brenda Fitzgerald resigns this week, Gowdy says he's not running for his Republican office again and returning to private practice as Trump continues defying and violating the Constitution almost on a daily basis, killing more regulations than any President in history.
Now I hear mumblings at work that some Republicans say the train wreck in Virginia yesterday is possibly a conspiracy to get rid of Republicans in office ... LOL God, you got to love these fanatics ... anything to get the dogs to track another scent. Unfortunately, this republican administration has a very strong odor of
that just can't be washed away easily.
With all these resignations and firings, could the problem POSSIBLY be with the person who's HIRING and not with the one's being HIRED?
Doesn't this possibly reveal the fractures of Donald Trump's decision making skills? Personally, I think so. His administration sees, on a daily basis, the dishonesty and lying going on and do NOT wish to be on board a ship that is bound to sink. They recall when Nixon resigned, he didn't go to jail, but a bunch of his administration DID .... Trump simply isn't worth that price. Just wait until his RUSSIAN PORN pictures come out. That is going to be the biggest shocker for the "evangelical crowd" .... bet they'll go off in a private room just to masturbate.
Now I hear mumblings at work that some Republicans say the train wreck in Virginia yesterday is possibly a conspiracy to get rid of Republicans in office ... LOL God, you got to love these fanatics ... anything to get the dogs to track another scent. Unfortunately, this republican administration has a very strong odor of
that just can't be washed away easily. With all these resignations and firings, could the problem POSSIBLY be with the person who's HIRING and not with the one's being HIRED?
Doesn't this possibly reveal the fractures of Donald Trump's decision making skills? Personally, I think so. His administration sees, on a daily basis, the dishonesty and lying going on and do NOT wish to be on board a ship that is bound to sink. They recall when Nixon resigned, he didn't go to jail, but a bunch of his administration DID .... Trump simply isn't worth that price. Just wait until his RUSSIAN PORN pictures come out. That is going to be the biggest shocker for the "evangelical crowd" .... bet they'll go off in a private room just to masturbate.
Last edited:
Thank you for keeping politics in this thread...truthfully, I thought "What dumbass decided to have a political discussion here?" I'm glad you created a thread where it can stay. I come here to get away from all of that, and discuss something we can AGREE on! THANK YOU!
problem is...we have also lost a lot of career diplomats and etc...that will be hard to replace when it comes time to dealing with other countries
same with some in law enforcement....as for the republicans....think they see the handwriting on the wall...they have fucked the country once to often
I read where they expect things to hit a brick wall sometime this summer...and hit hard!
they are already planning on raising the debt ceiling early because the tax cuts are hitting income already
but you can bet your bottom dollar it won't be trumps fault!
he is playing a shell game with the economy...just like he did his own....but there is a big difference.....(actually if he paid off what he owes and he can't because even his assets aren't enough.(.he owes a German Bank a ton....China bank over 30 million...that's just a start...US banks won't loan to him anymore)...he is getting all his money from Russia...through development sales?...very fishy word for money laundering....but the US economy has no such option....and under the current head wind created by these republicans....we are not looking good down the road!
Last edited:
I honestly believe that it is the secret desire of the conservatives to crash the US market & economy so we are ****** to eliminate Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Won't impact the creeps in Washington, DC and its the only way they see as accomplishing their goal of accomplishing their war on entitlements without incurring a landslide loss in future elections.
wouldn't be surprised at all
The G.O.P. Tax Cut Is Draining the Treasury Faster Than Expected
The Hive
One of the many things confirmed by the great tax-bill melodrama of 2017 is that Republicans only pretend to care about “fiscal responsibility” either when Democrats are in power, or when tax cuts are not on the line. With the opportunity to slash the corporate rate nearly in half, cries of “I won’t endorse a bill that adds one penny to the deficit!” evaporated, and tacking on $1.5 trillion became no big deal. Tax cuts, we will soon be reminded, don’t grow on trees, and the social safety net must be pared back in exchange. For now, though, Republicans are still in the trickle-down honeymoon phase, seeing in every corporate press release more confirmation that America has been made great again. ...
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/076af271-0870-30bf-8787-8efc1505e811/ss_the-g.o.p.-tax-cut-is.html
The Hive
One of the many things confirmed by the great tax-bill melodrama of 2017 is that Republicans only pretend to care about “fiscal responsibility” either when Democrats are in power, or when tax cuts are not on the line. With the opportunity to slash the corporate rate nearly in half, cries of “I won’t endorse a bill that adds one penny to the deficit!” evaporated, and tacking on $1.5 trillion became no big deal. Tax cuts, we will soon be reminded, don’t grow on trees, and the social safety net must be pared back in exchange. For now, though, Republicans are still in the trickle-down honeymoon phase, seeing in every corporate press release more confirmation that America has been made great again. ...
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/076af271-0870-30bf-8787-8efc1505e811/ss_the-g.o.p.-tax-cut-is.html
and I'll bet trump hasn't a care in the world!....still wants his wall....defense spending...and infrastructure
and not a peep from Ryan or McConnell
they will be cutting social programs right and left here soon
and not a peep from Ryan or McConnell
they will be cutting social programs right and left here soon
Here living in the land of the Kennedy's - completely surrounded by looney bin liberals - I have become just about totally immune to your nonstop tirades and propaganda. You can tell me your right and I'm wrong as much as ya wanna - taint gonna change my mind - strengthens my resolve to oppose - and to try to keep an open mind to the facts. Insult me - degrade me - attack me - tis indeed the way of the rabid left - try as ye may - you will NOT wear me down !
Trump tells GOP retreat he's ready for Mount Rushmore
President Trump appeared to be in a jovial mood at a GOP retreat in West Virginia on Thursday, boasting about how his administration has “fulfilled far more promises than we’ve promised.” And without quite saying so himself, he claimed Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, once told him that he is “the greatest president in the history of our country.”
“And I said, ‘Does that include Lincoln and Washington?’” Trump recalled. “And he said, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘I love this guy.’”
A spokesman for Hatch told a reporter for the Guardian newspaper that the senator has said Trump “can be” the greatest president ever to hold the office, but never said he “is” the greatest ever.
Trump’s remarks at the annual gathering of Republican members of Congress at the Greenbrier Resort in White Sulphur Springs, W.V., came a day after the train taking lawmakers there hit a dump truck, killing the driver of the vehicle.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-tells-gop-retreat-hes-ready-mount-rushmore-202916278.html
although there are a few conservatives on here that would believe that...to hear them defend the man...and yet claim to not be for him...confusing...but I'm sure they would tell you he is the greatest..better than Washington or Lincoln like trump says...after all look what he did for them in taxes and health care
President Trump appeared to be in a jovial mood at a GOP retreat in West Virginia on Thursday, boasting about how his administration has “fulfilled far more promises than we’ve promised.” And without quite saying so himself, he claimed Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, once told him that he is “the greatest president in the history of our country.”
“And I said, ‘Does that include Lincoln and Washington?’” Trump recalled. “And he said, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘I love this guy.’”
A spokesman for Hatch told a reporter for the Guardian newspaper that the senator has said Trump “can be” the greatest president ever to hold the office, but never said he “is” the greatest ever.
Trump’s remarks at the annual gathering of Republican members of Congress at the Greenbrier Resort in White Sulphur Springs, W.V., came a day after the train taking lawmakers there hit a dump truck, killing the driver of the vehicle.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-tells-gop-retreat-hes-ready-mount-rushmore-202916278.html
although there are a few conservatives on here that would believe that...to hear them defend the man...and yet claim to not be for him...confusing...but I'm sure they would tell you he is the greatest..better than Washington or Lincoln like trump says...after all look what he did for them in taxes and health care
Similar threads
