Politics, Politics, Politics

[subhub174014]

Medicaid and Medicare are government-sponsored healthcare programs in the U.S. The programs differ in terms of how they are governed and funded, as well as in terms of who they cover.

Medicare is an insurance program that primarily covers seniors ages 65 and older and disabled individuals who qualify for Social Security, while Medicaid is an assistance program that covers low- to no-income families and individuals. Some may be eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare, depending on their circumstances. Under the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a., "Obamacare"), 26 states and the District of Columbia have recently expanded Medicaid, thus enabling many more to enroll in the program.

Comparison chart
Medicaid versus Medicare comparison chart
Medicaid Medicare
Overview Medicaid in the U.S. is an assistance program that covers the medical costs of low- to no-income families and individuals. Children are more likely than adults to be eligible for coverage. Medicare in the U.S. is an insurance program that primarily covers seniors ages 65 and older and disabled individuals of any age who qualify for Social Security. Also covers those of any age with end-stage renal disease.
Eligibility Requirements Strict income requirements related to Federal Poverty Level (FPL). With expansion under the Affordable Care Act, 26 states cover at or below 138% of FPL. States that opted out have a variety of income requirements. Regardless of income, anyone turning 65 can enroll in Medicare so long as they paid into Medicare / Social Security funds. People of any age with severe disabilities and end-stage renal disease are also eligible.

Services Covered Children more likely to have comprehensive coverage in all states than adults. Routine and emergency care, family planning, hospice, some substance and smoking cessation programs. Limited dental and vision. Routine and emergency care, hospice, family planning, some substance and smoking cessation programs. Limited dental and vision.

Cost to Enrollees Varies by state, with some imposing deductibles. Usually low, but much may depend on what little income one has. Part A costs nothing for those who paid Medicare taxes for 10 years or more (or had a spouse who did). Part B in 2014 costs $104.90/mo for most. Part D costs vary, usually around $30/mo. Medicare Advantage costs vary.
Governance Jointly governed by the federal and state governments. Affordable Care Act sought to make more Medicaid rules universal, but the Supreme Court ruled states could opt out. Entirely governed by the federal government.
Funding Variety of taxes, but most funding (~57%) comes from federal government. Sometimes hospitals are taxed at the state level. Along with Medicare, Medicaid accounts for roughly 25% of federal budget. Payroll taxes (namely, Medicare and Social Security taxes), interest earned on trust fund investments, and Medicare premiums. Along with Medicaid, Medicare accounts for roughly 25% of federal budget.
User Satisfaction Relatively high High
Populations Covered All states, D.C., territories, Native American reservations. Around 20% of population on Medicaid. 40% of all childbirths covered by it. Half of all regular AIDS/HIV patients. All states, D.C., U.S. territories, Native American reservations. Around 15% of population on Medicare.

How is Medicare funded?
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is the federal agency that runs the Medicare Program and monitors Medicaid programs offered by each state.
In 2011, Medicare covered 48.7 million people. Total expenditures in 2011 were $549.1 billion. This money comes from the Medicare Trust Funds.

Medicare Trust Funds
Medicare is paid for through 2 trust fund accounts held by the U.S. Treasury. These funds can only be used for Medicare.
Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund
How is it funded?
• Payroll taxes paid by most employees, employers, and people who are self-employed
• Other sources, like income taxes paid on Social Security benefits, interest earned on the trust fund investments, and Medicare Part A premiums from people who aren't eligible for premium-free Part A
What does it pay for?
• Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) benefits, like inpatient hospital care, skilled nursing facility care, home health care, and hospice care
• Medicare Program administration, like costs for paying benefits, collecting Medicare taxes, and combating fraud and abuse
Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund
How is it funded?
• Funds authorized by Congress
• Premiums from people enrolled in Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) and Medicare prescription ******* coverage (Part D)
• Other sources, like interest earned on the trust fund investments
What does it pay for?
• Part B benefits
• Part D
• Medicare Program administration, like costs for paying benefits and for combating fraud and abuse

Who pays for Medicare?
Medicare is funded by the Social Security Administration. Which means it's funded by taxpayers: We all pay 1.45% of our earnings into FICA - Federal Insurance Contributions Act - which go toward Medicare. Employers pay another 1.45%, bringing the total to 2.9%. (If you're self-employed, you must cough up the entire 2.9%.) The Medicare deduction on your paycheck might say FICA-HI. The HI refers to Health Insurance, and it's your premium cost for all Medicare coverage.

While the portion of our FICA taxes that cover payments into the Social Security system are levied only on the first $118,599 in earnings for 2016, the Medicare tax is levied on every penny you earn.
You will also pay some Medicare costs yourself when you start using the plan.


Just something else Ryan wants to get rid of!


Bottom line is... former presidents used the money we put in to give tax breaks to corps and help fund a broke gov.... and Obama used the money to help fund the ACA..... at least the damned money was going back to the people!
and again it is OUR money..... the gov owes it to the fund and instead of paying it back want to just do away with it!

 

[subhub174014]

I know .... to much to read for some of you... so just remain un-educated!

 

[Torpedo]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking people to enter legally....they cry and whine about how long the process is and how hard it is to get in, tough *******...thats our process.

In Russia if your caught entering illegally your sentenced to a prison term. Sometimes as long as 6 months. Here we just deport you. People need to quit crying about our policy, it could be a lot stricter.

Most of the Democratic Parties stance on immigration was done as a matter of self preservation. Back when Bill Clinton was president he gave a SOTU speech that took a hard line on immigration, very similar to Trump's stance minus the wall. Since Obama has taken office the Democrats have lost over 1,000 elected seats in local, state and Federal government. The union's, long staunch supporters of the Democrats have faced declining membership. Until recently organized labor was adamantly opposed to large scale immigration, legal or otherwise.. Their hope was to use the Latino and other immigrant base to rebuild their power base. It failed, abysmally. Right now the Democrats seem to be in the finger pointing stage. The buck is being passed around in a lively fashion. Barring a major miracle we are watching the demise of the Democratic party as we know it. The Republicans shouldn't gloat. Trump has inherited a massive mess. Unless he pulls a couple of rabbits out of his hat the Republicans are going to be looking at a Democratic sized debacle in 2020. The mid terms should be interesting. Third and forth party candidates could be poised to make significant gains. For those that are interested her is Bill Clinton's comments on immigration from his 1995 SOTU address https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu

 

[baddman]

RAIDING THE TRUST FUND


The Big Lie


The Looting of Social Security



Throughout history, governments around the world have misled and deceived their citizens, 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 and other 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 down Richard Nixon, to the Iran Contra scandal under Reagan, and the Monica Lewinsky affair under President Bill Clinton. These scandals have garnered a lot of news coverage and resulted in political casualties. They have also called into question the integrity of government, 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.

Most Americans want to trust and feel good about their government, and government distrust is usually limited to politicians of the opposite political party. In other words, Democrats usually do not trust Republicans, and Republicans do not trust Democrats. When one party is caught up in a political scandal, the other party goes on the offensive until they have made as much political hay of the incident as possible. But what if there are offenses against the public in which members of both parties are equally guilty? There is no political gain from exposing misconduct in one party if the other party is equally guilty. On the contrary, secrets that both parties want to keep from the public are very hard to expose.

When I first discovered that the government was systematically embezzling Social 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 research in an effort to disprove my findings, but the deeper I dug, the more evidence I found that the crime of mishandling Social Security funds had enjoyed bipartisan support from the very beginning. The only way the government could have gotten by with the scam for so many years was by extensive bipartisan support and a trusting public.

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

…

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

Reagan wrote a follow-up letter to Congressional leaders dated July18, 1981, which included:

“The highest priority of my Administration is restoring the integrity of the Social Security System. Those 35 million Americans who depend on Social Security expect and are entitled to prompt bipartisan action to resolve the current financial problem.

At the same time, I deplore the opportunistic political maneuvering, cynically designed to play on the fears of many Americans, that some in the Congress are initiating at this time…

…In order to tell the American people the facts, and to let them know that I shall fight to preserve the Social Security System and protect their benefits, I will ask for time on television to address the Nation as soon as possible.”

This second letter to Congressional leaders was still another big lie. Social Security was certainly not Reagan’s “highest priority.” Like other conservatives, Reagan had hated Social Security from the day it became law in 1935. He was a hardliner when it came to all government social programs. He called unemployment insurance “a prepaid vacation plan for freeloaders.” He said the progressive income tax was a “brainchild of Karl Marx.” And, he called welfare recipients “a faceless mass waiting for handouts.” Reagan referred to Social Security as a “welfare program” and, during the 1976 Republican Presidential Primary, Reagan proposed making Social Security voluntary, which would have essentially destroyed the program. There is no way that anyone who knew Reagan’s record would accept his claim that Social Security was his highest priority. He had always wanted the program eliminated, or at least privatized.

Reagan’s scare tactics worked. Congress passed the Social Security Amendments of 1983, which included a hefty increase in the payroll tax rate, in a record time of three months. The tax increase was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years. The public was led to believe that the surplus money would be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury Bonds, which could later be resold to raise cash with which to pay benefits to the boomers. But that didn’t happen. The money was all deposited directly into the general fund and used for non-Social Security purposes. Reagan spent every dime of the surplus Social Security revenue, which came in during his presidency, on general government operations. Social Security, which Reagan claimed he was trying to fix with the legislation, never saw a penny of that money.

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

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

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

A year later, on October 9, 1990, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada made the following statement on the Senate floor:

“The discussion is are we as a country violating a trust by spending Social Security trust fund moneys for some purpose other than for which they were intended. The obvious answer is yes…

The trust funds resources are there for the well-being of those who have paid into the Social Security System. We should use those resources to see that Social Security recipients are treated well but also treated fairly and treated equitably.

It is time for Congress, I think, to take its hands—and I add the President in on that—off the Social Security surpluses. Stop hiding the horrible truth of the fiscal irresponsibility that we have talked about here the past 2 weeks. It is time to return those dollars to the hands of those who earned them—the Social Security beneficiaries and future beneficiaries…

I think that is a very good illustration of what I was talking about, embezzlement, thievery. Because that, Mr. President, is what we are talking about here…On that chart in emblazoned red letters is what has been taking place here, embezzlement. During the period of growth we have had during the past 10 years, the growth has been from two sources: One, a large credit card with no limits on it, and, two, we have been stealing money from the Social Security recipients of this country.



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

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

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

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

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



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



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



The unlawful spending of Social Security money for non-Social Security purposes, became a major campaign issue in 2000. Al Gore and George W. Bush both acknowledged that the government was spending Social Security revenue for non-Social Security purposes, and both candidates pledged to end the looting.

During his acceptance speech at the Democratic national convention, Al Gore announced that, if he was elected president, he would put Social Security funds into a Social Security lockbox for Social Security and for Social Security only. Gore’s dramatic announcement brought the looting of Social Security back into the limelight. When Senator Moynihan’s 1990 bill to repeal the 1983 payroll tax hike failed to become law, the looting of Social Security continued, unchanged, for another decade until the issue resurfaced during the 2000 presidential election campaign.



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



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



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

Sorry SubHub, I was thinking of LBJ starting the welfare system.......Your are right, and they all should be prosecuted. I was in Finances for years dealing with Trusts.......if I did what they did I'd be in Jail.

 

[Alanm]

An invasive species is a plant, fungus, or ******* species that is not native to a specific location (an introduced species), and which has a tendency to spread to a degree believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy or human health.[1][dubious – discuss]

One study pointed out widely divergent perceptions of the criteria for invasive species among researchers (p. 135) and concerns with the subjectivity of the term "invasive" (p. 136).[2] Some of the alternate usages of the term are below:

• The term as most often used applies to introduced species (also called "non-indigenous" or "non-native") that adversely affect the habitats and bioregions they invade economically, environmentally, or ecologically. Such invasive species may be either plants or animals and may disrupt by dominating a region, wilderness areas, particular habitats, or wildland–urban interface land from loss of natural controls (such as predators or herbivores). This includes non-native invasive plant species labeled as exotic pest plants and invasive exotics growing in native plant communities.[3] It has been used in this sense by government organizations[4][5] as well as conservation groups such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the California Native Plant Society.[2] The European Union defines "Invasive Alien Species" as those that are, firstly, outside their natural distribution area, and secondly, threaten biological diversity.[6] It is also used by land managers, botanists, researchers, horticulturalists, conservationists, and the public for noxious weeds.[7] The kudzu vine (Pueraria lobata), Andean Pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), and yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) are examples.

I'll come stay at your house. You don't even have to invite me, by the way, i'll just show up on your doorstep. I feel it's my right to do so in some effed up way. Then in a couple of months, i'm the one deciding what goes on in your house. I decide who is allowed to visit and who is allowed to stay. Because now it's my house, not your house. But i'll allow you to keep one small room, provided you play by my rules, that is. Unless, later on, i decide to expand my rule over more of the house, then i'll move the walls in the room i've allowed you to keep even smaller. Especially if there is something nice in it which i've decided i wish to have for myself.

You may seem a little perturbed by my rules in what was your house, but since i'm the one who is capable of taking and you are not, then i feel i have a right to rule the roost, and i'm going to get perturbed myself when i find there are some who dislike the rules i've made or if someone tries to visit you or hang out in what was your house, which i've decided is now my house, by virtue of my strength.

Just so you know, i'm never going to know who you are or visit your house nor invade your personal space. This is simply an analogy of what occurred in North and South America. And the folks crossing the Rio Grande? They're North American and, for the most part, were North American when the ancestors of the Europeans and others were all still in Europe (or some not even yet arrived in Europe). They're not the invasive species. The invasive species are those who are the ones treating them as though they're the invasive species.

So are you trying to say just because they were here back before the US was a developed country that they should be allowed to just walk back into the US???

 

[subhub174014]

if I did what they did I'd be in Jail.

funny all of these people supposedly had our trust!

and now the current gov will end up fucking the seniors...not that the former gov's didn't already..... and seniors who need it most being on a fixed income... I read somewhere that very few have any tucked away

 

[Torpedo]

When I first discovered that the government was systematically embezzling Social 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 research in an effort to disprove my findings, but the deeper I dug, the more evidence I found that the crime of mishandling Social Security funds had enjoyed bipartisan support from the very beginning. The only way the government could have gotten by with the scam for so many years was by extensive bipartisan support and a trusting public

This really goes back to Roosevelt. Social Security is structured in such a way that the only entity that can borrow from it is the Federal Government. I have no doubt Roosevelt planned it that way. Roosevelt was a great believer in government programs but there is a pretty valid argument that his meddling actually delayed the economic recovery in the Great Depression. Officially the Great Depression ended in this country in 1939 however when Pearl Harbor was bombed in December 1941 the unemployment rate was 16% to 18% depending on your source and I have seen a couple of recent sources that showed the rate around 12% So however you cut it the economy didn't completely recover prior to WWII.

It would be easier for the government to borrow from the Social Security Trust fund then use tax dollars to repay the loan(s) than it would be to raise taxes to directly pay for government programs.

 

[subhub174014]

It would be easier for the government to borrow from the Social Security Trust fund then use tax dollars to repay the loan(s) than it would be to raise taxes to directly pay for government programs

that's why it's broke!... Reaganomics... didn't work.. so he raised the amount paid into social security and instead of putting it in social security he spent it!... plus borrowed from it!.... all the others just kept using the "raise" to pay for government... until Bush and he robbed it again.... but they all took what we thought was a raise to social security to keep it afloat.... and never once did any of the money go into social security they spent it funding different things in government!..... all of this because Reagan could not face the fact that REAGANOMICS FAILED!

and now they want to do away with it rather than pay it back... even worse they want to do away with Medicare and Medicaid.... because some of it funds the aca

Like I said before I will be curious to see just who steps up a couple years from now and says I voted for Trump!

 

[subhub174014]

I have no doubt Roosevelt planned it that way. Roosevelt was a great believer in government programs

I doubt that Roosevelt ever saw this coming....

.

but there is a pretty valid argument that his meddling actually delayed the economic recovery in the Great Depression.

well that would be just your typical right and left argument.... actually the right was pissed about not getting what they wanted.... all of America was happy with the man..... served 3 terms and probably could have run again... until the right managed to put in term limits!

It would be easier for the government to borrow from the Social Security Trust fund then use tax dollars to repay the loan

if they do away with it they won't have it to borrow from... and that money is still being used to fund things.... and with Trumps tax cuts on corps.... where is the money going to come from to fund... what we have already been paying for...plus what Trump wants to cut.... no other way other than to raise taxes!

social security has been used to fund government since Reagan... with the exception of Obama... he used it to help pay for the aca... at least some people were seeing something for it....they ******* it.....trump cuts corp taxes... they need money...

hopefully they keep it around for those of us close to using it and those that are already on it.... I'm sure they will have some ... age in mind..... but when they "outsource" it... there will be huge fees and costs and etc.... bet people won't be getting as much as they think.... although that is just another program put in to help the people that the right wants to do away with.... before this new pres and Ryan are done.... like the old saying.. Ryan will have the elderly eating cat food... it's all they can afford!

history shows... the right has never been able to manage the money.... they just support big biz.... they have always increased the defict and the wages for the American worker has decreased!

want some facts on that? but I'm betting you already know that.... just hoping this time will be different.... kind of like the rest of the Trump believers... this time will be different....

 

[subhub174014]

and naturally you want to blame the most popular president in history for.... not getting us out of a depression fast enough.... go figure... ok just tell me one republican president that was held in High regards by the American people and helped the economy!..... one... just one.. Ike!... all the others fucked the country

And Reagan who the right holds in such high regard...first his lie and fucking us on social security... less than a year after being in office!.... Iran contra......Oliver North!... ring a bell... hell we peddled ******* for a country that wants to ******* us now!.... star wars.... huge amounts of wasted money only to be thrown out later... hell 22 members of his staff served time!.... and his famous speech about tearing down the wall..... the fucking jerk knew the wall was coming down the Russian economy had tanked and they couldn't afford Germany anymore!
I could go on a lot more about how he fucked the country...American wages started the "stagnet" process under him.. and he knew... and lied about it.... that's why the right holds him in high regards... they could only hope to pull off half the ******* he did and got away with!
and there was Nixon... but he got caught and was an embarrsement to the party so you helped the Dems get rid of him... and replaced him with ford... and that guy could barely walk upright... definitely couldn't walk and chew bubble gum at the same time!

the first Bush wasn't so bad... but he robbed social security... but he was smart enough to know what was going to happen and was ****** to raise taxes... what happened... the right didn't like that and didn't help him get re-elected
Jr. was different story... he flat knew what he was doing... spent a surplus that was there when he came in... and took the rest out of social security forsing it into what it is now!... he knew it and didn't care... under him the number of millionaires tripled in this country!

I guess that's what bothers me so much about Trump making it.... he is following in the same footsteps Reagan did... and he isn't even in office yet and has lied through his teeth.... and the American people don't care!

sorry kind of took off there!

 

[Alanm]

and naturally you want to blame the most popular president in history for.... not getting us out of a depression fast enough.... go figure... ok just tell me one republican president that was held in High regards by the American people and helped the economy!..... one... just one.. Ike!... all the others fucked the country

And Reagan who the right holds in such high regard...first his lie and fucking us on social security... less than a year after being in office!.... Iran contra......Oliver North!... ring a bell... hell we peddled ******* for a country that wants to ******* us now!.... star wars.... huge amounts of wasted money only to be thrown out later... hell 22 members of his staff served time!.... and his famous speech about tearing down the wall..... the fucking jerk knew the wall was coming down the Russian economy had tanked and they couldn't afford Germany anymore!
I could go on a lot more about how he fucked the country...American wages started the "stagnet" process under him.. and he knew... and lied about it.... that's why the right holds him in high regards... they could only hope to pull off half the ******* he did and got away with!
and there was Nixon... but he got caught and was an embarrsement to the party so you helped the Dems get rid of him... and replaced him with ford... and that guy could barely walk upright... definitely couldn't walk and chew bubble gum at the same time!

the first Bush wasn't so bad... but he robbed social security... but he was smart enough to know what was going to happen and was ****** to raise taxes... what happened... the right didn't like that and didn't help him get re-elected
Jr. was different story... he flat knew what he was doing... spent a surplus that was there when he came in... and took the rest out of social security forsing it into what it is now!... he knew it and didn't care... under him the number of millionaires tripled in this country!

I guess that's what bothers me so much about Trump making it.... he is following in the same footsteps Reagan did... and he isn't even in office yet and has lied through his teeth.... and the American people don't care!

sorry kind of took off there!

You guys always say how bad Reagan was well this chart from the US commerce dept. show Reagans GDP growth far better than Obama's

 

[subhub174014]

I will start with this one since it seems to be your "thing"


and then get into good guy Reagan

 

[subhub174014]

and lets not forget Reagan was the one that changed how to read all those numbers... they didn't look good for him... like unemployment... just count the ones drawing instead of all those that are actually out of work... he manipulated a lot of numbers










but you go ahead and defend him... that's what the right does.... but it's your social security out the window also... I know you don't care about that!

 

[subhub174014]

Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?
From the Archive: On Presidents’ Day, opinion polls rate the greatest U.S. presidents, with Ronald Reagan now typically scoring at or near the top — and George W. Bush at or near the bottom. Though the Bush rating is hard to dispute, Robert Parry argued in 2009 that Reagan deserved a similar placement.



By Robert Parry (Originally published June 3, 2009)

There’s been talk that George W. Bush was so inept that he should trademark the phrase “Worst President Ever,” though some historians would bestow that title on pre-Civil War President James Buchanan. Still, a case could be made for putting Ronald Reagan in the competition.

Granted, the very idea of rating Reagan as one of the worst presidents ever will infuriate his many right-wing acolytes and offend Washington insiders who have made a cottage industry out of buying some protection from Republicans by lauding the 40th President.




President Ronald Reagan (Drawing by Robbie Conal, robbieconal.com)

But there’s a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan’s presidency. There’s also a grudging reassessment that the “failed” presidents of the 1970s Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country.

Nixon, Ford and Carter won scant praise for addressing the systemic challenges of America’s oil dependence, environmental degradation, the arms race, and nuclear proliferation all issues that Reagan essentially ignored and that now threaten America’s future.

Nixon helped create the Environmental Protection Agency; he imposed energy-conservation measures; he opened the diplomatic door to communist China. Nixon’s administration also detected the growing weakness in the Soviet Union and advocated a policy of détente (a plan for bringing the Cold War to an end or at least curbing its most dangerous excesses).

After Nixon’s resignation in the Watergate scandal, Ford continued many of Nixon’s policies, particularly trying to wind down the Cold War with Moscow. However, confronting a rebellion from Reagan’s Republican Right in 1976, Ford abandoned “détente.”

Ford also let hard-line Cold Warriors (and a first wave of young intellectuals who became known as neoconservatives) pressure the CIA’s analytical division, and he brought in a new generation of hard-liners, including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

After defeating Ford in 1976, Carter injected more respect for human rights into U.S. foreign policy, a move some scholars believe put an important nail in the coffin of the Soviet Union, leaving it hard-pressed to justify the repressive internal practices of the East Bloc. Carter also emphasized the need to contain the spread of nuclear weapons, especially in unstable countries like Pakistan.

https://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/20/ronald-reagan-worst-president-ever/

10 Real Facts About Ronald Reagan That Republicans Never Choose to Admit

https://mic.com/articles/85379/10-r...-republicans-never-choose-to-admit#.qRIcPBbfM

How Reagan destroyed America

http://www.wearethedog.com/2012/07/22/how-reagan-destroyed-america/

The stupidity of Ronald Reagan.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2004/06/not_even_a_hedgehog.html

The Reagan Myth
Things you won't hear about Reagan

http://prorev.com/reagan.htm

I am assuming you didn't read what he did to social security... to much for you to read!

 

[subhub174014]

US commerce dept.

and your chart IS NOT from the commerce dept! It has been "twisted" by someone on the right!

maybe fox news commerce dept?

 

[Alanm]

and your chart IS NOT from the commerce dept! It has been "twisted" by someone on the right!

maybe fox news commerce dept?

I already new you would say that...Jimmy Carter....hahahaha.....right

 

[subhub174014]

Jimmy Carter....

what???????

 

[subhub174014]

well the commerce dept is NOT going to start out with something that says trickle down Reaganomics verse trickle down socialism

well my day starts again in about 5 hours so got to call it a night.... spend to much time on the other thread arguing with those Trumpies.... knew I should have just stayed gone!... nothing else to really discuss
but one guy on here sent a real nasty message I saw it and couldn't let it slide... and now here I am doing this ******* again

But wanted to point out the plans the right has and how they will fuck America... in my opinion... and opinions are like assholes... we all have one!

 

[Alanm]

what???????

Ummm.....Jimmy Carter was a bad President...from his Panama canal treaty....bad idea! To his dealings during the iran hostage situation. He was just a weak leader and made some really bad decisions.

 

[subhub174014]

Jimmy Carter was a bad President...from his Panama canal treaty....bad idea! To his dealings during the iran hostage situation. He was just a weak leader and made some really bad decisions.

he tried to do things ... right... religion kind of effected his decisions I think.... he didn't make anymore bad decisions than several others.... they all have had their share of fuck-ups!
as for iran... just like Russia today... they used the hostages as a big deal to effect the election and it worked... the hostages were released right after Reagan won! If you remember right he did send in a team to try and get them... and just like with Bin laden... helicopter problems... only with his attempt several choppers got fucked up in the sand and they had to abort the mission... so he did try
but he did lack..... balls on several other issues.... I wouldn't say he is near as bad as say.... well Reagan.... Reagan knew what he was doing... lying to congress and the public to cover his fuck-ups!.... or Bush knowing social security was already in trouble.... and still milking the money to fund other things!

interesting to see how trump turns out... he could be a great savior ... or really fuck us all to death...Trump was a Dem for a lot of years and likes and trusts Schummer (who campaigned against him)... and likes a couple other Dems... they have had his ear... I really like his position on Lobbyist... says they have served their purpose and time to get rid of them....so we will see... problem is trump has surrounded himself with some real assholes that have their own adjenda.... interesting... I see he has already changed his plans on taxes.... have to see what his new idea is... as for all those Trumpies (Everyone that did not vote for Hillary! is a trump supporter in one way or another)... but they wanted change from a gov not doing anything....trouble is the two main people who are the cause of that... Ryan and McConnell... just got a big boost in doing nothing... they are now the scary ones... people just voted straight republican and ... oh well going to be very interesting in the next year or so to see where trump fits in... right beside Reagan... or up there with Ike!