McCain voted twice to remove Social Security from the Balanced Budget figures and in 1997 voted for a Balanced Budget Amendment.
Yes, he has supported legislation, even an Amendment, towards that goal.
More McCain distortions
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
Yes, he has supported legislation, even an Amendment, towards that goal.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Privatization does NOT mean funds HAVE to go into the stock market. Privatization means the individual controls his/her assets.... instead of the government.
It means we would end the rob Peter to pay Paul ponzi scheme that is destined to blow up in our faces.
Privatization efforts have clearly been aimed at YOUNGER workers. Those receiving benefits currently (or in the near future) would continue receiving those benefits.
It is B.S. scare tactics from the left that are used to spook seniors into a panic everytime someone attempts to fix social security. 'oh my... they gunna steal your retirement money... don't vote for them'
like this....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092101207.html
uscitizen
Villified User
uscitizen
Villified User
yeah right like individuals have proven they can manage their assets....
SSI waqs set up as something the individual could not mess up. A final safety net.
Spin is attempting to say that a balanced budget amendment would not quit "spending the surplus". You are attempting to hack at a level far beyond your capacity, or apparent word comprehension skill level. You were schooled on something you thought nobody could answer, and now attempt to cover the pile of poo you were sitting on with a torn piece of napkin that you should be using to wipe it off your seat.
Daayum you are good at wordplay Damo
I was almost distracted from my origional stance about spending the surplus.
LMAO
Which Balancing the Budget stops.... Excellent second attempt, but attempting to pick up the torn napkin after already wiping it in the pile is worthless.Daayum you are good at wordplay Damo
I was almost distracted from my origional stance about spending the surplus.
You still have selective reading comprehension going on in your weak attempt to spin out of something you didn't know and didn't expect anybody else to know. If I were you I'd be embarrassed about that poo in your chair too.
uscitizen
Villified User
how does it do that ? Taking it out of the budget but still spending it ? Seems to me that just gives the govt a giganto slush fund to play with.
At least if it is still in the budget it is accounted for.
How does balancing the budget stop overspending? Come on. You are better than this.
The removal of Social Security from the figures stops them from spending that money in the general funds, the balancing of the budget stops the overspending. You don't remember the "lock box"?
Stop being so deliberately disingenuous and attempting to read only a portion of a post before you wind up looking like a total tool.
Sit back down on the pile of poo you created so we don't have to look at it, or just fess up and go and clean up.
No. The position was to remove it and NOT TO SPEND THAT (to save it for future generations as it was meant to be). And to also provide a balanced budget amendment.
You are being deliberately foolish and pretending a comprehension problem without merit or based in any reality.
You aren't this stupid, you just play it on TV.
So, hackaberry major, you may want to revisit the question as you asked it. If he "ever" supported legislation that would stop the overspending. Yes, he has.
Yeah, but you refuse to read the "balanced budget amendment" portion of the post and keep pretending that it would somehow mean surplus spending.
It's inane, it is deliberately disingenuous, it is preposterously stupid and you are none of those things. So why not take of the hack jacket and put on your usual clothes?
Read the stuff yourself if you really want to. It's all on record and I even gave you the years.
The reason to remove Social Security from it is to return it to the state that it was originally intended to be.
The Balanced Budget Amendment requires such spending to be off-limits. That is the point of a it. Don't be so obviously and purposefully obtuse. The reason to make it an amendment is to make it unconstitutional to overspend so frivolously. Because we cannot trust either party to spend responsibly.
The two things are separate, but both are fiscally responsible.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
LBJ was the one who first began tapping into SS and we've been spending it away ever since...
Good Luck
New member
Citizen is obviously going to block his brain from actually understanding anything that might put a positive mark on McCain's record in his view.
McCain supported Gore's attempts to take SSI funds out of the budget. (And here we are talking REVENUES, not expenditures. Taking REVENUES out of the budget means YOU DON'T SPEND THEM!!! Like Gore, he wanted to put take SSI surplus revenues off the budget table. Unlike Gore, he also wanted (and still does) to take those revenues and put them where they would generate additional real revenues. Gore wanted to keep putting SSI in T-Notes, but set the money aside (under a mattress somewhere?) and keep adding in interest the T-notes generate. Problem with that is it still adds a burden to the general fund which remains out of balance as it is.
Sorry, Citizen, but it is YOU who is spinning things. You aren't going to vote for McCain - that is fine. No one in this thread is even going toward whom we are planning to vote for. But you start our criticizing McCain's SPEECH on the troubles SSI is headed for. Then when it is pointed out that he basically supports what you believe in, you turn around and try to claim it is "only rhetoric." Then when it is pointed out he has on several occasions supported taking SSI out of the budget, you either lie, or are so completely ignorant as to think taking SSI out of the budget still allows it to be spent.
Fact is McCain ha, for a long time, supported at least PART of what you support: stop spending SSI surplus. That you cannot simply accept that a candidate you basically despise supports ONE idea you agree with just shows how donkey-up-the-butt partisan you really are.
McCain supported Gore's attempts to take SSI funds out of the budget. (And here we are talking REVENUES, not expenditures. Taking REVENUES out of the budget means YOU DON'T SPEND THEM!!! Like Gore, he wanted to put take SSI surplus revenues off the budget table. Unlike Gore, he also wanted (and still does) to take those revenues and put them where they would generate additional real revenues. Gore wanted to keep putting SSI in T-Notes, but set the money aside (under a mattress somewhere?) and keep adding in interest the T-notes generate. Problem with that is it still adds a burden to the general fund which remains out of balance as it is.
Sorry, Citizen, but it is YOU who is spinning things. You aren't going to vote for McCain - that is fine. No one in this thread is even going toward whom we are planning to vote for. But you start our criticizing McCain's SPEECH on the troubles SSI is headed for. Then when it is pointed out that he basically supports what you believe in, you turn around and try to claim it is "only rhetoric." Then when it is pointed out he has on several occasions supported taking SSI out of the budget, you either lie, or are so completely ignorant as to think taking SSI out of the budget still allows it to be spent.
Fact is McCain ha, for a long time, supported at least PART of what you support: stop spending SSI surplus. That you cannot simply accept that a candidate you basically despise supports ONE idea you agree with just shows how donkey-up-the-butt partisan you really are.
uscitizen
Villified User
Bull hockey. They started spending the SS surplus shortly after SS was started.
Good Luck
New member
No, we did not spend it. Prior to LBJs administration, SSI was "invested" in T-bills (as opposed to T-notes) and, being t-bills are short term, the fund was being constantly recycled through, buying t-bills which became mature 3 months later, sell them back plus interest (paid by the general fund) and reinvested in new t-bills.
Under Johnson'ss administration the "investment" was shifted to T-notes, which do not mature for several years. That put the money in the general fund (which is what happens to all money that buys a T-Note) and thus available to be spent since it would not be "needed" for several years. That continued to be the practice, and when the notes became due, they added to the deficit.
Along come Reagan, who adjusts the SSI contribution requirement, significantly boosting the SSI revenues. And along came the democratically controlled house, who forced a compromise that IF they passed the SSI surplus ideas from Reagan, he would support their requirement (as opposed to tradition) of buying T-notes with the surplus and putting the resulting funds on the budget.
Bush Sr. took the funds back off the budget, and required the funds generated by T-note sales be held aside to pay of the next set of notes to come due.
Clinton put the funds back into the budget, supported by the republican controlled congress, so they could use the additional funds to claim a balanced budget and budget surplus. Of course, it was all accountant smoke-and-mirrors. The funds used to "balance" the budget were, in fact, an additional deficit on the general fund pushed off onto a future (as in now) administration. BOTH Gore and McCain opposed the move to put SSI back in the budget, and fought to take it back out of the budget. One of Gore's central planks was taking SSI back out of the budget, and McCain supported Gore, one of the moves that made him less-than-popular with hard core republicans.