How Trump exposed the Tea Party

[NYcarbineer]

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......

It's already in a lockbox. It's invested in US securities and cannot be used for anything other than paying recipients.

Stop being an ass.

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.

 

[Darkwind]

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......

It's already in a lockbox. It's invested in US securities and cannot be used for anything other than paying recipients.

Stop being an ass.

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.

 

[Mac1958]

Trump doesnt have consistent views on any of these things. Trump is a clown, a carnival barker. And the rubes are going for it. smh.

Here's another thought:

I'm listening to Rush right now, and he's crowing about Trump's poll numbers, about how Trump is shocking everyone.

Surely Limbaugh & Hannity & Levin are fully aware of Trump's, uh, fluid and moderate stands on at least some of the issues. And these are guys who have been step-by-step with the Tea Party since Day One. I know these guys aren't fond of the "RINO's" in the party, yet Trump is okay with them.

What do you think those guys are doing?
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's already in a lockbox. It's invested in US securities and cannot be used for anything other than paying recipients.

Stop being an ass.

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.

 

[Stephanie]

How can anybody get excited about an essay that makes an inane issue about the difference between libertarians and populists when neither is clearly defined. It's pretty sad when the left thinks it has a gotcha moment when the Tea Party (which isn't really a political party) turns out to be a little bit populist and a little bit rock and roll.

well it puts down people they hate, so of course it excites them. Nothing has been heard from the Tea Party, so it was time to drag them up and dump all over them while putting down Trump at the same time

 

[Stephanie]

Trump doesnt have consistent views on any of these things. Trump is a clown, a carnival barker. And the rubes are going for it. smh.

Here's another thought:

I'm listening to Rush right now, and he's crowing about Trump's poll numbers, about how Trump is shocking everyone.

Surely Limbaugh & Hannity & Levin are fully aware of Trump's, uh, fluid and moderate stands on at least some of the issues. And these are guys who have been step-by-step with the Tea Party since Day One. I know these guys aren't fond of the "RINO's" in the party, yet Trump is okay with them.

What do you think those guys are doing?
.

Well he's a talk show host, he's not going to talk about his numbers? good grief

 

[Mac1958]

Trump doesnt have consistent views on any of these things. Trump is a clown, a carnival barker. And the rubes are going for it. smh.

Here's another thought:

I'm listening to Rush right now, and he's crowing about Trump's poll numbers, about how Trump is shocking everyone.

Surely Limbaugh & Hannity & Levin are fully aware of Trump's, uh, fluid and moderate stands on at least some of the issues. And these are guys who have been step-by-step with the Tea Party since Day One. I know these guys aren't fond of the "RINO's" in the party, yet Trump is okay with them.

What do you think those guys are doing?
.

Well he's a talk show host, he's not going to talk about his numbers? good grief

He's doing far, far, far more than that on Trump's behalf.

Come on.
.

 

[The Rabbi]

Trump doesnt have consistent views on any of these things. Trump is a clown, a carnival barker. And the rubes are going for it. smh.

Here's another thought:

I'm listening to Rush right now, and he's crowing about Trump's poll numbers, about how Trump is shocking everyone.

Surely Limbaugh & Hannity & Levin are fully aware of Trump's, uh, fluid and moderate stands on at least some of the issues. And these are guys who have been step-by-step with the Tea Party since Day One. I know these guys aren't fond of the "RINO's" in the party, yet Trump is okay with them.

What do you think those guys are doing?
.

Reporting and commenting on the news, which is sort of their jobs.

 

[Mac1958]

Trump doesnt have consistent views on any of these things. Trump is a clown, a carnival barker. And the rubes are going for it. smh.

Here's another thought:

I'm listening to Rush right now, and he's crowing about Trump's poll numbers, about how Trump is shocking everyone.

Surely Limbaugh & Hannity & Levin are fully aware of Trump's, uh, fluid and moderate stands on at least some of the issues. And these are guys who have been step-by-step with the Tea Party since Day One. I know these guys aren't fond of the "RINO's" in the party, yet Trump is okay with them.

What do you think those guys are doing?
.

Reporting and commenting on the news, which is sort of their jobs.

It's the "commenting" part that I'm talking about.
.

 

[The Rabbi]

Trump doesnt have consistent views on any of these things. Trump is a clown, a carnival barker. And the rubes are going for it. smh.

Here's another thought:

I'm listening to Rush right now, and he's crowing about Trump's poll numbers, about how Trump is shocking everyone.

Surely Limbaugh & Hannity & Levin are fully aware of Trump's, uh, fluid and moderate stands on at least some of the issues. And these are guys who have been step-by-step with the Tea Party since Day One. I know these guys aren't fond of the "RINO's" in the party, yet Trump is okay with them.

What do you think those guys are doing?
.

Reporting and commenting on the news, which is sort of their jobs.

It's the "commenting" part that I'm talking about.
.

Well it's in the news, it's political, so of course they're going to comment on it. Ihavent heard RUsh endorsing Trump. Not that I've listened to him recently i any case.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The shockbots are kissing Trump's arse because they know where is the power.

Yah, they are sell outs.

All of you supposedly small government less tax teapers are who support Trump.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, there's a whole world outside of mom's basement. Put down The Little Red Book and take a stroll down Main street. When you see the shopkeepers bear in mind they're not running your life.

We aren't talking about "shopkeepers". Most of them are out of business in a year, anyway.

We are talking about the 1%ers who get stupid people like you distracted while they've stolen your middle class lifestyle. And you're so stupid you let them do it.

"Damn Mexicans!!!"

 

[JoeB131]

Polutico jumped the shark of being UNBIASED when Sarah Palin was running for Vice President of the country. they led the charge in VILE and hate that was put out about her. You see what they put out with this garbage article about the Tea party. they've become just another leftwing HATE site in my book

Um, everyone admits now that Picking Palin was a huge-ass mistake. Even Fox News, which fired her.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Joe, there's a whole world outside of mom's basement. Put down The Little Red Book and take a stroll down Main street. When you see the shopkeepers bear in mind they're not running your life.

We aren't talking about "shopkeepers". Most of them are out of business in a year, anyway.

We are talking about the 1%ers who get stupid people like you distracted while they've stolen your middle class lifestyle. And you're so stupid you let them do it.

"Damn Mexicans!!!"

Yeah. Clearly everything you learned about business came from The Little Red Book. Hopefully, you'll be a real grown up one day

 

[Stephanie]

there's a lot of things Trump Exposed and it sure had nothing to do with the Tea party.

It showed how damn disgusting the people are on the left/Dems/commies. Even more now than when Mrs. Palin ran for office.

And it show how the Establishment Republican elitist asses are no damn better than these lowlife stinking Progressive/Democrats. They both only give a shit about themselves and their JOBS and could care less about We the people.

But when we allowed for them to make a CAREER hanging out in Congress sucking a living off us until they have to be wheeled out on a freaking gurney, which gives them time to become bought and corrupted. it was bound to happen. I think it's too late now. they know they can SHIT all over us and not suffer any Consequences. Soon we'll have to start addressing them as: Master.

What a bunch of snakes we have running Our Government and our lives. and this jerk of that article is all bent over the Tea Party

 

[JakeStarkey]

Joe, there's a whole world outside of mom's basement. Put down The Little Red Book and take a stroll down Main street. When you see the shopkeepers bear in mind they're not running your life.

We aren't talking about "shopkeepers". Most of them are out of business in a year, anyway.

We are talking about the 1%ers who get stupid people like you distracted while they've stolen your middle class lifestyle. And you're so stupid you let them do it.

"Damn Mexicans!!!"

Yeah. Clearly everything you learned about business came from The Little Red Book. Hopefully, you'll be a real grown up one day

If you support Trump, you sold out, Frank.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Joe, there's a whole world outside of mom's basement. Put down The Little Red Book and take a stroll down Main street. When you see the shopkeepers bear in mind they're not running your life.

We aren't talking about "shopkeepers". Most of them are out of business in a year, anyway.

We are talking about the 1%ers who get stupid people like you distracted while they've stolen your middle class lifestyle. And you're so stupid you let them do it.

"Damn Mexicans!!!"

Yeah. Clearly everything you learned about business came from The Little Red Book. Hopefully, you'll be a real grown up one day

If you support Trump, you sold out, Frank.

Sure, whatever your name is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Trump is a Prggressive Statist, Frank, and you support statism if you support him.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Trump is a Prggressive Statist, Frank, and you support statism if you support him.

I support progressive statism as I believe in civilization! We need taxes for infrastructure, science, education and a safetynet. Sure, I will vote for a moderate republican as I do have some social conservative beliefs but the tea party is the loon party to me!

 

[ScienceRocks]

The shockbots are kissing Trump's arse because they know where is the power.

Yah, they are sell outs.

All of you supposedly small government less tax teapers are who support Trump.

I wouldn't call anyone that supports the war on drugs small government! These people are extremely big government on somethings.