[nolidad]

Even if it's not, it's irrellevent to the issue. Bush is spending 750 billion dollars more than Clinton was, relative to the budget.

Yup and its wrong so????? Bush has deficit spent like a liberal democrat.

That's vague. How has it grown "way beyond the laws intent"? (not that I'm clear that change is a bad thing, but I'd still like to know what paradigm shifts you see as having occured).

Well like you change isn't necessaril;y a bad thing. But it was crafted originally just to be a supplemental retirement program. Now it includes children survivors, spous es, disability. Arguing them erits of these add ons is not germaine to the topic.

[JerryLove]

Yup and its wrong so????? Bush has deficit spent like a liberal democrat.

Sounds like rhetoric. Let's see how it compares to reality (1996 dollars):

Carter, liberal democrat, inhereted 140 billion, peaked 140 billion, left 140 billion.
Reagan, conservative republican, Inhereted 140 billion, peaked 310 billion, left 200 billion.
Bush, conservative repulican, inhereted 200 billion, peaked 320 billion, letft 320 billion.
Clinton, liberal democrat, inhereted 275 billion, went down every year of his presidency to see a whopping 220 billion surplus, left 220 billion surplus
Bush, conservative repubilcan, inhereted 110 billion surplus, peaked at 410 billion deficit, tying the record set in WWII. Has not yet left.

So, speaking from the past 3 decades, I'd say he's spending like an irresponsable republican, and that your slanderous commentary against democrats is entirely incongruent with reality. The Democratic party is fiscally responsable, and the Republicans are not.

Well like you change isn't necessaril;y a bad thing. But it was crafted originally just to be a supplemental retirement program. Now it includes children survivors, spous es, disability. Arguing them erits of these add ons is not germaine to the topic.

It's not? Then why did you bring it up?

If it's not part of the problem that needs fixing, then it's not part of the topic; but then your statement seems to have had no real value except as more rhetoric. If it having gone beyond its original intent is important, than this is the topic.

Finally: Are you sure that providing support to war widows and war orphans was not in the original intent?

[nolidad]

So, speaking from the past 3 decades, I'd say he's spending like an irresponsable republican, and that your slanderous commentary against democrats is entirely incongruent with reality. The Democratic party is fiscally responsable, and the Republicans are not.

Well check with the house and senate and find the stats there. Presidents propose but congress enacts. If the dems did not like Reagans budgets--they should have had the courage to change them--that isa their authority and responsibility.

It's not? Then why did you bring it up?

Because someone asked a question. which is here:

Am I wrong or was SSI instituted as a retirement gaurentee?

So, speaking from the past 3 decades, I'd say he's spending like an irresponsable republican, and that your slanderous commentary against democrats is entirely incongruent with reality. The Democratic party is fiscally responsable, and the Republicans are not.

Well using your graph showing annual deficits/surpluses based on 1996 dollare we see the most irresponsible president to be the DEmocrat Roosevelt.

Then a sense of stability between Truman through Nixons first term. Then Ford Carter and reagan all running amok and Bush and Clinton through his first term. Then a Gop controlled house pressured Clinton and they gpot together and brought the deficits down.

But again let us remember that in the 64 years you show onthe graph iot was the democratic party who controlled botrh houses fro over 56 years of that time and they are the ones constitutionally tasked with spending the peoples money. A president can propose a bidget with a trillion dollar surplu or a trillion dollar deficit--but it is the house and sneate who are responsible for making the budget law. So sorry--democrats are just as fiscally irresponsible as the present day GOP.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Bryan

other than the fact that it is stealing my hard earned money and giving it to someone else.

Stealing, eh? Your money, eh? I wonder...is your name printed on that money?

Matthew 22
17Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" 18But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, "Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19Show me the coin for the tax." And they brought him a denarius. 20And Jesus said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" 21They said, "Caesar's." Then he said to them, "Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

The only reason any of it is "your" money is because the government decided to give you the right to own it. It has just as much a right to decide to give some of it to people who need it more than you do. Get over it.