How many times did GOP icon Ronald Reagan raise the debt ceiling? 5, 10, 15 times? No, he raised it 17 times.

by ὤTṻnde΄ӂ Posted 2011/07/01 02:46:15

Related Topics: Ronald Reagan, Debt, Obama, GOP, Democrat, Conservative, Editor, Clinton, Limbaugh, Trump, Conflict, Debt Ceiling, Kennedy, Debt Limit, National Debt, Ronald

Read More

Read all 76 opinions

Letter: Reagan beats all in debt limit increases

EDITOR:

During this time of intense conflict over increasing the national borrowing limit, it becomes interesting to consider the limit increases put into effect during past administrations.

During each of the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton Democrat administrations, seven or fewer increases occurred. Obama has increased the limit three times in his first administration.

The champion of all over the past 60 years? What a surprise to learn that during the conservative Ronald Reagan's administrations, the national debt limit was increased 17 times.

Ranting anti-Obama obnoxocrats Limbaugh, Hannity and Trump should take notice.

norm 2011/07/27 20:18:58

+3
And all were short term increases, something that Obama refuses to do. Reagan's works out to someting like, one every six months ! Obama's increases in 21/2 years more then doubles Reagan's during eight years. What a loser the American people have elected as their president !!
>> See Replies

More polls by ὤTṻnde΄ӂ

always 2011/08/05 17:35:02

Here are two interesting reads.

http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm...

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

reply
William H Carney 2011/07/28 21:49:14

+1
Ronald sucked. You know why the Conservatives applaud him so? That's because all the other Conservative presidents sucked. The Liberals have Lin oln, Grant, McKinley, Cleveland, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, JFK, Robert Kennedy (if not killed) LBJ, Clinton, and now Obama. Yes, I know some of these men were Republicans. However, it's not what Party you belong to it's your views.

reply
Moderate Man 2011/07/28 18:31:01
norm 2011/07/27 20:18:58

+3
And all were short term increases, something that Obama refuses to do. Reagan's works out to someting like, one every six months ! Obama's increases in 21/2 years more then doubles Reagan's during eight years. What a loser the American people have elected as their president !!

reply
scott 2011/07/26 08:10:47

+1
17 CONSERVATIVE, incremental increases. Obama wants to do it in one big push to get him past the 2012 elections. He's worried more about the election than the economy.

reply
harleyspoon 2011/07/15 16:52:29

+3
Freedom4, Almost all of Obama's first year was under the Bush budget written in 2008 and effective for FY 2009...so Obama, inaugurated on Jan 21, 2009, can only be held responsible for the budget he wrote and congress passed...but that budget included having to deal with a recession (which started in 2007..Who was President?)...By the time Obama's budget was in effect, the real debt was $12.1 trillion...It is now approx $14.3 trillion...If $14.3 trillion is three times $12.1, I'll kiss every rear end on Wall Street right where it stinks...Freedom4, where did you learn to multiply? As for Dems being under control while Bush2 was president, you got that one way wrong too! 6 of the 8 years Bush2 was president he had a Republican House and Senate...with the exception of a very short time in the Senate when Daschle was Majority Leader..Otherwise the Senate Majority Leaders of the Senate were Republican Trent Lott and Republican Bill Frist....You need to get year head our of your rectum and into some studying, Freedom4. Bust did not veto one single Republican spending bill for 6 yrs & didn't begin to veto spending bills until Dems took over.

reply
William... to harleys... 2011/07/28 21:41:38

+3
You make perfect sense. In fact, your 100% right.

reply
Freedom4 2011/07/10 14:19:06

+1
I see you completely ignore that Obama racked up more in debt in his first few months in office than Reagan did his entire presidency.

You are just another nonsensical political hack.

reply
ὤTṻnde΄ӂ to Freedom4 2011/07/11 00:44:38 (edited)

That's right, throw a red herring in there so you don't have to think.
Obama did not triple the debt. Reagan did. Money then was worth more than now. Reagan also gave a $1 trillion stimulus to defense industry and now the defense budget is $1 trillion +
The debt doubled under Bush. Obama has doubled NOTHING.

reply
Freedom4 to ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2011/07/11 02:44:24

Hilarious. You are the one that can't seem to think abouty or comprehend the massive difference in debt between what Obama has racked vs Reagan. Obama's deficits are tripple what Bush even had with the democrats running the house and the senate. These are the facts your are trying to avoid with your nonsensical argument.

reply
ὤTṻnde΄ӂ to Freedom4 2011/07/12 20:35:14

Ellen W... below me has said exactly what I was going to say. Right on, Ellen

reply
Freedom4 to ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2011/07/12 20:56:11

Below her I used facts and made her look like an idiot. I assume since you are a democrat that you are oblivious as well and completely ignore facts to support your failed ideology.

reply
38_28_38 to Freedom4 2011/07/12 21:14:05

You used no "facts"

ὤTṻnde΄ӂ used facts. I used facts. Ellen W. used facts.

You just threw a childish tantrum like the GOP does.

reply
Freedom4 to 38_28_38 2011/07/12 22:20:03

Pleasepoint to one thing I said or 1 of the charts that show you are full ofninsense that is not valid?

reply
38_28_38 to Freedom4 2011/07/13 00:49:19

+4
Neither writing NOR reading comprehension appear to be your forte.

I already repudiated your GOP LIES & PROPAGANDA w/facts AND links.

reply
Daryl to Freedom4 2011/07/13 20:58:13

you're a fool who is blinded by a pathetic agenda and can't even admit when you are wrong..

reply
Freedom4 to Daryl 2011/07/13 21:50:34

You are a sad and pathetic trool that looks at facts and still denies everything. As I said. Can you point out any inaccuracies in the charts that show that you all are completely full of nonsense? It is a very simple question. Lets start there instead of the name calling to avoid logic and reasoning. I know that is all you really have though.

reply
Daryl to Freedom4 2011/07/13 20:57:47

+1
nbo your the fool who cannot see that starting 2 wars and paying for them with tax breaks and subsidies didn't kill this countries revenue stream

We wouldn't even be having this conversation if we never went into Iraq... let alone 2 tax breaks and subsidies to profitable corps

reply
Freedom4 to Daryl 2011/07/13 21:52:22

Yes, starting the wars was stupid, but you can't even pretend to explain how it caused the housing bubble and credit crisis.

By the way, the democrats voted to send us to war as well.

Watch these videos, they are hilarious.

Clinton stating a case for war with Iraq in 1998. That
was while Bush was nothing more than a Governor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And Again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And Again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

John Kerry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Boy he sure is beating up bush for not wanting to go
to war with Iraq

And let not forget this wonderful comment about our
troops:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

After he sent them there, and then stabbed them in the
back by abandoing them.

Al Gore:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Boy he sure is beating up bush for not wanting to go
to war with Iraq

And Again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Hilary Clinton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

http://www.youtub...

Yes, starting the wars was stupid, but you can't even pretend to explain how it caused the housing bubble and credit crisis.

By the way, the democrats voted to send us to war as well.

Watch these videos, they are hilarious.

Clinton stating a case for war with Iraq in 1998. That
was while Bush was nothing more than a Governor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And Again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And Again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

John Kerry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Boy he sure is beating up bush for not wanting to go
to war with Iraq

And let not forget this wonderful comment about our
troops:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

After he sent them there, and then stabbed them in the
back by abandoing them.

Al Gore:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Boy he sure is beating up bush for not wanting to go
to war with Iraq

And Again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Hilary Clinton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

John Edwards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Nanci Pelosi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

This video is just for good measure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Do any of these people stand for anything? Really?
(more)

reply
harleys... to Freedom4 2011/12/16 17:42:54

+2
The Republicans had control of the House and Senate for the first six (six) years of the Bush presidency, Freedom4...and that means that Bush and the Republican congress had total control of the federal budget process until Oct 1, 2007...The Dems took over congress in Jan 2007 but the government worked under a budget produced by the Republicans that took effect on Oct 2006 and was in effect until Sept 30, 2007...The Great Recession, Bubba, began in Dec 2007, long before the budget written by the Democrats for FY 2008 and signed into law by Bush, was ever in effect...Freedom4, before you make a fool of yourself again, it would be wise for you learn about the federal government's budgetary process....Oh, and don't forget that Bush didn't veto one Republican spending bill in the 6 consecutive FY's preceding the Great Recession....but he did veto almost every Democratic spending bill produced once the Dems took over congress in Jan 2007...And those vetoes that were overridden were overridden with the help of the Repubs in the House and Senate because the Dems did not have the necessary votes to override a veto in the House or the Senate!!!

reply
Freedom4 to harleys... 2011/12/17 00:30:04

Look, I am not a political hack. I can admit that the republicans spent like drunken sailors and I complaines about it the entire time. With that said, can you name which republican policy lead to the recession more than the democrats forcing bad loans on banks? I did not think so Can you name which bills the republicans have passed that comes close to the expenses that the entitlements the democrats put into place, which do not go away cost? I think not. It makes you look like an idiot criticizing Reagan or Bush for deficits but supporting Obama and the crrent democrats that all they do is spend and pass horrible job killing bills.

reply
Ellen W... to Freedom4 2011/07/12 04:32:45

+2
The AMOUNT the debt has increased (compared to Reagan) is meaningless, because of inflation. (And that is what the politicians count on.) You have to compare percentages. Reagan nearly tripled the national debt, that would be a 300% increase. He started with $0.9 Trillion and increased it to $2.7 Trillion. Obama started with $10.6 Trillion, so, to MATCH Reagan, the national debt would have to increase to nearly $32 Trillion by 2016. Obama has a long way to go.... Go read up on the difference between extensive variables (hint: like weight) and intensive variables (hint: like mass).

reply
Freedom4 to Ellen W... 2011/07/12 11:43:28

Nonsense.in any given quarter Obama adds more debt than Reagan did in 8 years

reply
Ellen W... to Freedom4 2011/07/12 18:47:39 (edited)

+6
I'll try one more time to teach you some basic math, if you can't understand it, you should go back to school.

Let's try using pumpernickel bread. It used to cost a nickel a loaf, right? Thomas Nugent in 1756 became the first writer to record the bread by this name. I found Danish pumpernickel today at $6.95 a loaf. So, without taking inflation into account, you could criticise Obama for paying such an extravagent price for a loaf of bread. 'He spends more on bread than Thomas Nugent ever did!'

Now let's go back to the national debt. Here's a pretty good source (http://130.94.230.21/debt_hi... but it only gives the debt by year's end up to 2003. At the end of 1980 it was 930 Billion dollars. Use this as our base. End of 1981, $1.03 Trillion or a (1,030/930) x 100 = 11% increase. End of 1982, $1.20 Trillion or (1,200/930) x 100 = 29% increase. End of 1983, $1.41 T or (1,410/930) x 100 = a 52% increase. At the end of his third year in office, Reagan had increased the national debt by 52%, and not even a whimper from ANYONE.

AND REMEMBER that President Carter had not been running up the bills before Reagan took office the way GWB did before Obama took office.

Now we only have two full years to compare for Obama (and have to switch to a different source: http://www.trea...

I'll try one more time to teach you some basic math, if you can't understand it, you should go back to school.

Let's try using pumpernickel bread. It used to cost a nickel a loaf, right? Thomas Nugent in 1756 became the first writer to record the bread by this name. I found Danish pumpernickel today at $6.95 a loaf. So, without taking inflation into account, you could criticise Obama for paying such an extravagent price for a loaf of bread. 'He spends more on bread than Thomas Nugent ever did!'

Now let's go back to the national debt. Here's a pretty good source (http://130.94.230.21/debt_hi... but it only gives the debt by year's end up to 2003. At the end of 1980 it was 930 Billion dollars. Use this as our base. End of 1981, $1.03 Trillion or a (1,030/930) x 100 = 11% increase. End of 1982, $1.20 Trillion or (1,200/930) x 100 = 29% increase. End of 1983, $1.41 T or (1,410/930) x 100 = a 52% increase. At the end of his third year in office, Reagan had increased the national debt by 52%, and not even a whimper from ANYONE.

AND REMEMBER that President Carter had not been running up the bills before Reagan took office the way GWB did before Obama took office.

Now we only have two full years to compare for Obama (and have to switch to a different source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov... End of 2008, $10.7 Trillion Dollars. This is our new base. End of 2009, $12.3 T or (12.3/10.7) x 100 = 15% increased (higher than Reagan). End of 2010, $14.0 T or (14.0/10.7) x 100 = 31% increased (Reagan was 29%.)

So let us know on December 31, 2011, if the national debt has increased by 52% (just like Reagan), which would bring it up to (1.52 x $10.7 Trillion) = $16.3 Trillion. Then you can state that Obama is just as wonderful as Reagan.
(more)

reply
Freedom4 to Ellen W... 2011/07/12 20:31:30

i will try to show you reality, but I bet it is pretty hard for someone such as yourself to grasp.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_C0P...

This is a chart of our debt adjusted for inflation. It says that you are an idiot and completely wrong.

Here is another one. it is Debt to GDP. it is a great indicator of inflation adjusted debt.

it also shows that you are an idiot that does not know what you are talking about.

Here is a chart of deficits to GDP

Again, you are an idiot that does not know what you are talking about. See that great big increase come around Obama's term. Much bigger than Reagan huh?

By the way, here is a math lesson for you. 29% of a very small number is far less than 31% of a huge freaking number. I thought that was pretty basic, but apparently you do not understand how percentages work.

reply
Freedom4 to Freedom4 2011/07/12 20:33:37

Also, lets look at where the money is going.

(1) What do Reagan's, Obama's, and Bush's largest deficits all have in common?

Answers: Democrat control of the house and senate.

(2) What is the biggest part of the federal budget no matter who is president?

Entitlements put in place by the democrats that are bankrupting the country. That is right. Is this on a level you can comprehend or do I need to use smaller words so you can sound them out?

reply
38_28_38 to Freedom4 2011/07/12 21:37:50

+4
And your GOP REPUBLICAN BAGGER BALD-FACED LIES continue -

FACT: Our current deficit and future deficits are PRIMARILY due to the Bush tax cuts, his unfunded wars, and the economic disaster that happened on HIS watch and which Obama inherited.

Historical facts prove that republican policies create record deficits, record debts and economic disaster.

FY 2000 - 236 Billion SURPLUS - Clinton
FY 2001 - 128 Billion SURPLUS - Clinton
FY 2002 - 158 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
FY 2003 - 378 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
FY 2004 - 413 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
FY 2005 - 318 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
FY 2006 - 248 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
FY 2007 - 161 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress

Source: CBO – Historical Budget Data
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/...

Bankrupting? Social welfare programs make up 2% of our fiscal budget.
And they are EARNINGS - not "entitlements". People pay into SS/Medicare

WAR is what makes up the biggest part of our budget. i expect you to bring something substantive & concrete to the table; not hyperbolic dumb-f*ckery.

Care to try again? The bush tax cuts for the wealthy added one trillion dollars to the debt, his idiot war was another trillion, his medi care part D, a third unfunded, off ...

And your GOP REPUBLICAN BAGGER BALD-FACED LIES continue -

FACT: Our current deficit and future deficits are PRIMARILY due to the Bush tax cuts, his unfunded wars, and the economic disaster that happened on HIS watch and which Obama inherited.

Historical facts prove that republican policies create record deficits, record debts and economic disaster.

FY 2000 - 236 Billion SURPLUS - Clinton
FY 2001 - 128 Billion SURPLUS - Clinton
FY 2002 - 158 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
FY 2003 - 378 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
FY 2004 - 413 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
FY 2005 - 318 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
FY 2006 - 248 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
FY 2007 - 161 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress

Source: CBO – Historical Budget Data
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/...

Bankrupting? Social welfare programs make up 2% of our fiscal budget.
And they are EARNINGS - not "entitlements". People pay into SS/Medicare

WAR is what makes up the biggest part of our budget. i expect you to bring something substantive & concrete to the table; not hyperbolic dumb-f*ckery.

Care to try again? The bush tax cuts for the wealthy added one trillion dollars to the debt, his idiot war was another trillion, his medi care part D, a third unfunded, off the budget trillion. Republicans are responsible for this.

If you do not understand that you should not be allowed to vote.

You are not smart enough!
(more)

reply
38_28_38 to 38_28_38 2011/07/12 21:41:44

+3
Bush left a record 1.3 TRILLION deficit for Obama.
http://www.politifact.com/tru...

On Jan. 8, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office testified before Congress that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be over $1.2 trillion.
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/d...

Reagan increased our debt an average of 23% yearly...
he TRIPLED it from 934B to 2.6T (186%)

Bush increased our debt an average of 11% yearly...
he DOUBLED it from 5.7 to 10.6T (86%)

Obama increased our debt 10% in his first year…
from 10.6 to 12.3 trillion (to stop a great depression – DUH!)

furthermore, Bush’s last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama’s first budget reduced that to $1.29 trillion. FACT.

Source : US Treasury Department -
www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPD...

A fair comparison of budget deficits is not the total dollar amount, but the deficit as a percentage of GDP. The CBO projects that in 2 years the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP will be about what it was when Reagan was President. So either admit Reagan was an out of control SPENDER or stop your whining about Obama.

reply
Ellen W... to 38_28_38 2011/07/19 23:39:50

+3
And another thing, paying the interest on the accumulated national debt is beginning to be a significant portion of the budget....

reply
Freedom4 to 38_28_38 2011/07/13 01:54:23

FIRST OFF, THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO CUT SPENDING AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO SPEND SPEND SPEND. ALL THIS IS IS THE PATHETIC DEMOCRATS TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

In 2000, the republicans made the budget and held a majority in the house and senate. This is the only time Clinton had a surplus

Recording too your chart, when Bush took office There was $5.801 Trillion in debt. When he left There was $10Trillion. When the democrats took over the house and the senate in 2007, The debt was $8.5 Trillion. The Current Debt under Obama is $14.3 Trillion and he is looking to raise the ceiling.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov...

In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

Entitlements as a % of the federal Budget:

Social Security: 19.63%
unemployment welfare: 16.13%
medicare: 12.79%
Medicaid and SChip: 9.19%
HHS: 2.22%
HUD: 1.4%
Education: 4.63%
Social Security Administration: 2.97%
This does not include all of the other entitlements imbedded into the other programs.

Total: 68.96% of the federal b...

FIRST OFF, THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO CUT SPENDING AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO SPEND SPEND SPEND. ALL THIS IS IS THE PATHETIC DEMOCRATS TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

In 2000, the republicans made the budget and held a majority in the house and senate. This is the only time Clinton had a surplus

Recording too your chart, when Bush took office There was $5.801 Trillion in debt. When he left There was $10Trillion. When the democrats took over the house and the senate in 2007, The debt was $8.5 Trillion. The Current Debt under Obama is $14.3 Trillion and he is looking to raise the ceiling.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov...

In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

Entitlements as a % of the federal Budget:

Social Security: 19.63%
unemployment welfare: 16.13%
medicare: 12.79%
Medicaid and SChip: 9.19%
HHS: 2.22%
HUD: 1.4%
Education: 4.63%
Social Security Administration: 2.97%
This does not include all of the other entitlements imbedded into the other programs.

Total: 68.96% of the federal budget.

more went out in entitlements alone than came in in all tax revenues last year. MOST OF THESE GO TO PERFECTLY ABLE BODIED PEOPLE THAT COULD TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES.
(more)

reply
Ellen W... to Freedom4 2011/07/19 23:41:00

+2
They are only trying to cut spending NOW because it is a Democrat doing the spending, not a Republican.

reply
Freedom4 to Ellen W... 2011/07/20 02:19:55

Ha ha, are you feeling guilty? Is that why you accuse me of exactly what you are doing? Here you are criticizing Reagan for a freaking fraction of the spending of Obama yet you support Obama. Pathetic really.

reply
Mary Va... to Freedom4 2011/08/09 01:35:04

+4
Excuse me but that 19.63% you have up there as though it was an amount that SS added to the debt is completly misleading and an outright lie. SS has 2.6 trillion in Treasury Bonds and is good until the year 2036 without any changes. I am not asking the government to give me money I am asking them to allow me to draw money from the insurance OASDI that I paid into for 52 years. I do not know about those other things that you have mentioned but I intend to check on the real costs of medicare. You really need to take 2.6 trillion out of that equasion and see what the real costs are.

reply
Freedom4 to Mary Va... 2011/08/09 03:08:49

That is the percentage of the budget it makes up. The money you put in is gone. Social security is a rip off ad nothing more than a ssystem the democrats devised to steal from their own children.

reply
Mary Va... to Freedom4 2012/02/28 20:26:46

Then whoever took that money is the thief and it is still owed to the SS fund . It was never meant to be a piggy bank to fund politicians and their never ending wars. I certainly would never steal my grandparents money. Both of my parents and grandparents died before collecting one penny in SS money as I am sure many others have. You would rather keep allowing corporations like GE to pay no taxes while allowing the elderly to starve. Bet you claim to be a christian also. Jesus wouldn't approve of you.

reply
Freedom4 to Mary Va... 2012/02/29 12:45:19

Why do you democrats keep using one horrible government program to justify another. Social security is a ripoff lets phase it out, he pays no taxes, let's institute a flat tax no exemptions. Unlinke you pathetic democrats, I actually help others instead of the poor excuse of a Christian democrats that are all about stealing from others and handouts for themselves instead of actually doing any charity or even contributing themselves. Look how you pathetic democrats cried about even paying for your own social security. I see right through you dunces.

reply
Mary Va... to Freedom4 2012/02/28 20:16:39

You are absolutely wrong about SS. SS has not added or cost the government one penny much less 19.63%. SS is a separate entity. SS has $2.6 trillion in T-Bonds and is good until the year 2036. Futhermore I paid into SS for 52 years and am just now being able to draw some of that money back. This is money I am entitled to not the way you are using the word entitlement. Think about how many people paid into SS and died before they were ever elidgible to draw one cent back. If they would lift the cap on SS it will be good for another 75 years or more. Pre-emptive war, unfair trade practices (with china) and giving tax breaks to the wealthy and the corporations are to blame. Americans were told that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy was to create jobs for the AMERICAN people. When they did not create jobs in the time alloted they should have been done away with. Breach of contract..

reply
jorge.n... to 38_28_38 2012/09/07 17:48:49

+3
Hate to say it 38_28_38, but this country is full of people like Freedom4 who drink the Kool Aid and cant step back to look at the big picture, but are still allowed to vote. To some, their political parties are akin to a religion, don't you dare speak bad about them or they'll attack you with every possible chart and youtube video they can find that they pulled off of their parties page. This country needs to wake up and stop treating our elections like a sporting event where you're hoping your team will win no matter how horrible their players are. It's not about Red vs Blue anymore. If we keep at it like this, we're not going anywhere....

reply
Ellen W... to Freedom4 2011/07/19 23:37:26

Incorrect on at least one count. Republicans controlled the Senate when Reagan was president.

reply
38_28_38 to Freedom4 2011/07/12 21:26:27 (edited)

Chart #1 shows inflation adjustments with #s BELOW the $ amounts

How do we know the rest of the charts are adjusted for inflation? We don't.

Do you even understand what these charts are saying? It appears NO.

Your comments show "YOU" are the idiot who only knows how to name-call

reply