How Trump exposed the Tea Party

[Darkwind]

Like I said.....never correct about anything.

In this case yes he is.
Social Security History

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.

Yeah...the problem is.....it is still treated as "on-budget".......

If were off budget as he claims, then Obama (or any President for that matter) would not have the authority to stop payments to the retired because the government did not have any funds......

Taxes and the Budget: What does it mean for a government program to be "off-budget"?
In the late 1960s the federal government adopted a unified budget that included trust fund operations along with budgets for almost all other federal activities. Since then various agencies have attempted to escape budget discipline by moving off-budget, but most have been brought back under pressure from advocates for fiscal responsibility. Today there are only two off-budget entities that were once on-budget: the Social Security system and the U.S. Postal Service. In the case of Social Security, only the trust funds (for Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and for Disability Insurance) are off-budget; administrative costs are on-budget. The Federal Reserve System and the various government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have always been off-budget.

• Social Security was temporarily taken off-budget by the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act of 1985, and its off-budget status was made permanent by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. There were a number of reasons for taking Social Security off-budget:

What does it mean for a government program to be "off-budget"?

Please post your evidence to the contrary.

I did....remember the argument.....liberals support ss and medicare...

Since we know that medicare is not only in the letter of the law, but treated as on budget...it is not locked away from political meddling..

We see that SS is also used as a political tool in both the budgetary process and in party posturing....

REAL support for SS AND Medicare would place both programs beyond the reach of any political party by ensuring that NO BUDGETARY process includes the two programs....

In other words, no party, in no branch of government, could touch the money in these trust funds.......for any purpose.....

Do you support that? If so, I'll grant that YOU may be right on this single, limited issue.....but you'll have to provide Me background in the form of past posting history as well as votes for politicians who support that policy.

NO, you said SS was on-budget and you were wrong.

You're stupid.

Fucking Moron. I said you and the progressives did not care about SS and medicare because you won't do anything about them and use them for a political weapon.

Get fucking bent loser.

 

[Stephanie]

This is a pretty freakin' interesting piece:

How Trump Exposed the Tea Party

It addresses the screamingly obvious fact that the GOP base is more populist than Libertarian, as evidenced by the fact that they're constantly forgiving his more moderate views and statements, which certainly are pushing smaller government.

Tea Partiers, your thoughts?
.

Trump is definitely getting Tea Party--extreme right support--even though many of his policies do not reflect conservative values. He's supported by the far Christian right, even though he is and always has been pro-choice, no matter how much he lies about it now.

The grass roots movement died a long time ago. Many tea party roots are only fed by Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, Mark Levin, Glen Beck--and basically FOX news. This is how they get their "so-called" news.

I doubt that within this group that 5% actually do their homework on the candidates they support, by investigating news sources. In fact, I doubt that any of them will read the opt's link. That's too much trouble.

Right now--they actually believe since Trump is all over immigration that he is a cough--cough conservative--so they run with him. He's misrepresented himself so much right now that it is laughable. Yet they swallow it all hook, line & sinker. I've even given several viable links to some of these people-&-they just ignore the TRUTH about Donald Trump. He's smart enough to "preach" to them what they want to hear, and that's all they want to know. Donald Trump is not trying to win this election, he's here to drive this election into Hillary's lap.

I used to believe that only left wing liberals were stupid, but it's clear there is a section of the Republican party, called the extreme right in this country--that are way way below--the bar on the common sense and intelligence scale. The old elevator just doesn't make it to the top floor with these people.

Yeah yeah, the tea party is extreme and Trump isn't so you hard core leftwinger should be chomping at the bit to vote for him. Being the champions for abortion is just everyday normal to everyone in this country. you all wish. . the people didn't KICK your party out of power of Congress under one of the most extremist Presidents, Obama, for NO REASON. but dream what you want

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't have to be unbiased to be right.

The left hasn't been correct about anything in a very long time.

Like what?

You have difficulty with words?

What does anything mean to you in your pink sky world?

It means you think liberals are wrong to support preserving Medicare and Social Security.

It means no such thing. Liberals don't support preserving Medicare and Social Security.....Otherwise, they would move it off budget (put it in an untouchable lock-box and return it to actually belonging to the people who contribute to it) and support sensible reforms......

Oh, talk sense, and stop the mumbling. The money is invested in US securities.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think that Trump is just the latest outlet for the misdirected rage of the White Working Class.

If these people realized that it was the 1% who were the source of most of their misery, we'd see real change.

Trump is rejecting the homophobia and religious bigotry and just going direct with racism and misogyny.

There's no racism or misogyny. Thats just more emotional goo manufactured by libs. However, Im not a trump fan. His views on taxation, bigger govt progs are antithetical to the constitution.

Yes, some teapers are racists and misogynists.

 

[peach174]

You all should realize that most who are supporting Trump now, just want to shake up the Republican elites.
If they don't get it, then their voters will drop them and register as independent.

 

[JoeB131]

Knee Grow, Please

Maybe you'll grow up one day, get a real job, be of service to someone and see what that feels like.

The Marxism is for loser and really, really borinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng

Nobody advocated "Marxism", guy.

I advocate we go back what we had before that senile old fuck Reagan came along.

Working people had unions, got fair wages and protections.

The rich paid their fair share.

But the funny thing is, the rich took that away and got dumb white people like you to blame the darkies and the feminists and the gays.