23 Years ago today...

[Yonivore]

5MDFX-dNtsM

Two years later, it was gone.

[boutons_deux]

Two totally unrelated events

[Stringer_Bell]

I never understood how Reagan had anything to do with the fall of the Berlin Wall or Soviet Union. Can someone enlighten me?

I will LMAO when some evil dictator makes a speech against America that is heard around the world, then when our system crumbles on its own because we're run by idiots, the dictator will get all the credit.

[Yonivore]

I never understood how Reagan had anything to do with the fall of the Berlin Wall or Soviet Union. Can someone enlighten me?.
Start with this and do some reading...you might learn something.

Ron and Mikhail's Excellent Adventure (http://www.slate.com/id/2102081/#sb2102135)


How Reagan won the Cold War.

So, did Ronald Reagan bring on the end of the Cold War? Well, yes. Recently declassified documents (http://www.slate.com/id/2102081/sidebar/2102135/) leave no doubt about the matter. But how did he accomplish it? Through hostile rhetoric and a massive arms buildup, which the Soviets knew they couldn't match, as Reagan's conservative champions contend? Or through a second-term conversion to detente and disarmament, as some liberal historians, including Slate's David Greenberg (http://www.slate.com/id/2102060/), argue?
...
at some point, some Kremlin leader would have had to mount a major reassessment of the situation. The Soviet system was dysfunctional; its empire was collapsing; the cupboard was bare. And Reagan's surging military budgets, without question, brought this internal crisis to a head.

Here was Gorbachev speaking at a session of the Politburo in October 1986, days before he traveled to Reykjavik, Iceland to offer Reagan a groundbreaking disarmament plan, including a 50 percent reduction in nuclear arsenals. If he didn't propose these cuts, Gorbachev told his colleagues:


[W]e will be pulled into an arms race that is beyond our capabilities, and we will lose it because we are at the limit of our capabilities. … If the new round [of an arms race] begins, the pressures on our economy will be unbelievable.
I believe it was Reagan's resolve, defense spending, and rhetoric [such as was on display in Berlin] that won the Cold War; as the Slate article states, there is another school of thought.

Regardless, there seems to be agreement that Reagan was instrumental in winning the Cold War.

There, consider yourself enlightened.

[Nbadan]

So the rukkies lost because they realized it was stupid to be spending 1/2 their yearly GDP on military spending when there were so many other important needs in Russia....

Yippie!

[Yonivore]

So the rukkies lost because they realized it was stupid to be spending 1/2 their yearly GDP on military spending when there were so many other important needs in Russia....

Yippie!
Your point?

[Nbadan]

Reagan tried to sell arms to the Iranians


During the Reagan administration, senior U.S. figures, including President Ronald Reagan, agreed to facilitate the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo.[2] At least some U.S. officials also hoped that the arms sales would secure the release of hostages and allow U.S. intelligence agencies to fund the Nicaraguan contras.

...and funded a South American terror group, the contras...


Oliver North, one of the central figures in the affair, wrote in a book that "Ronald Reagan knew of and approved a great deal of what went on with both the Iranian initiative and private efforts on behalf of the contras and he received regular, detailed briefings on both." Mr. North also writes: "I have no doubt that he was told about the use of residuals for the contras, and that he approved it. Enthusiastically."[9] North's account is difficult to verify because of the secrecy that still surrounds the affair.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair)

[Nbadan]

Your point?

What if we had done that instead?

[Yonivore]

What if we had done that instead?
What, lost? We didn't. And, never did our defense spending approach 50% of GDP.

[Nbadan]

how do you know? So much military spending is off the books...

..what if we'd used 20% of past military spending to fund a new replenish-able, green energy source instead?

[Yonivore]

how do you know? So much military spending is off the books...
Between '80 and '88, it hovered between 5 and 6 percent of GDP; You'd be hard pressed to hide 44-45% of the GDP in a military black budget.


..what if we'd used 20% of past military spending to fund a new replenish-able, green energy source instead?
Then we'd be throwing good money down a bottomless money pit; that's "what if."

What if frogs had wings, Dan?

Look start an energy thread, this was a thread to commemorate Reagan's speech in Berlin.

[Yonivore]

Reagan tried to sell arms to the Iranians

...and funded a South American terror group, the contras...
Yeah, the Sandanitas were paragons of liberty and human rights.

Whether or not the Boland amendment was constitutional was never decided and President Reagan peacefully retired from office in 1989 as one of the most popular Presidents in history.

[MiamiHeat]

Yeah, Reagan was a Hollywood actor.

Those skills proved very useful as a television era President.

sad time in american politics.

[MiamiHeat]

also, here's a question

did we ever roll back all of this increased Reagan military spending after the cold war was over?

or did we just keep it, pissing away all this money during peace times?

[Yonivore]

also, here's a question

did we ever roll back all of this increased Reagan military spending after the cold war was over?

or did we just keep it, pissing away all this money during peace times?
I'd say we've maintained a top notch military over the years. Took a bit of hit during the Clinton years but, not too bad.

[MiamiHeat]

so we need to cut back again. If ever the need arises, we can go back to spending.

but we should seriously save money now, no need on this huge army anymore.

this is the problem with the MIComplex. Once they get the funding, it's hard to take it away. Someone will always scream "WE R GOIN TO BE WEAKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AHH WE WILL B INVADED AND HAVE NO WAY TO DEFEND OURSELFS!!!!!!"

[Yonivore]

so we need to cut back again. If ever the need arises, we can go back to spending.

but we should seriously save money now, no need on this huge army anymore.

this is the problem with the MIComplex. Once they get the funding, it's hard to take it away. Someone will always scream "WE R GOIN TO BE WEAKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AHH WE WILL B INVADED AND HAVE NO WAY TO DEFEND OURSELFS!!!!!!"
Have you looked at all the fucking entitlement spending? You could take defense spending to zero and still be in the red fiscally.

The Constitution I read says the federal government has an obligation to provide for the common defense. Nowhere does it say to take money from me so others can buy groceries and still afford their flat screen televisions and spinners.

[Wild Cobra]

Two totally unrelated events

Only people indoctrinated by our school systems believe as you do.

[Wild Cobra]

how do you know? So much military spending is off the books...

..what if we'd used 20% of past military spending to fund a new replenish-able, green energy source instead?
Energy is so big, it cannot be subsidized. We would run out of tax payer.

Ooops...

Haven't we already run out of tax payers to fund pet projects?

[Stringer_Bell]

I believe it was Reagan's resolve, defense spending, and rhetoric [such as was on display in Berlin] that won the Cold War; as the Slate article states, there is another school of thought.

Regardless, there seems to be agreement that Reagan was instrumental in winning the Cold War.

There, consider yourself enlightened.

Thanks a bunch! I always thought it was a combination of the Afghan war, unsustainable economic plans catching up with them, and a lack of the old guard keeping the flame lit.

It's pretty hilarious that the Russian's got duped by an actor into a spending race when they probably didn't even need to. How many bombs does it take to fuck up America? What kind of technology are you lacking to deliver the pay load? Love it when the bad guys are too dumb to realize we lured them into a trap. WOOOT! :downspin:

[Wild Cobra]

Thanks a bunch! I always thought it was a combination of the Afghan war, unsustainable economic plans catching up with them, and a lack of the old guard keeping the flame lit.

It's pretty hilarious that the Russian's got duped by an actor into a spending race when they probably didn't even need to. How many bombs does it take to fuck up America? What kind of technology are you lacking to deliver the pay load? Love it when the bad guys are too dumb to realize we lured them into a trap. WOOOT! :downspin:
And now Obama and the democrats are taking us down the same road of unsustainable spending the broke up the Soviet union.

[Stringer_Bell]

And now Obama and the democrats are taking us down the same road of unsustainable spending the broke up the Soviet union.

Really? Cuz I thought the Bush era stuff is what's been catching up to us since last year. Anything that Obama is doing wrong won't show up for about 4 years, right? Destruction takes time, and we've got time to save money for our households as a result. :hat

Don't get me wrong, the Obama administration is doing some dumb shit, but it's not getting us killed. It's just making the rich people poor, which oddly enough makes the poor people poorer. Oh, who the hell am I kidding? These stupid wars are getting people killed and profiting everyone except us. We're gonna crumble eventually, maybe we should just age gracefully like Europe instead of trying to give ourselves face-lifts for the next few decades and ending up like Joan Rivers.

Edit: Europe ain't looking so hot either. Maybe we should just move to the moon? Or China?

[MiamiHeat]

And now Obama and the democrats are taking us down the same road of unsustainable spending the broke up the Soviet union.

Obama is contributing to a problem that Republicans are the worst culprits of.

Tell me how much more national debt W Bush accumulated from when he was in office?

[Winehole23]

Iwuy4hHO3YQ

MTV broke the Iron Curtain just before it fell to pieces.

[ChumpDumper]

Yoni thinks Communism was an viable and strong system of government in the Soviet Union for seventy years and only massive deficit spending by the US could bring it down.

[MiamiHeat]

Yoni thinks Communism was an viable and strong system of government in the Soviet Union for seventy years and only massive deficit spending by the US could bring it down.

I thought Yoni believed that Reagan brought it down simply because he demanded they bring down their walls?

[boutons_deux]

Yoni's limited intellect makes a well-known error in logic,

B followed A, therefore A caused B.

St Ronnie was the first battering ram, a stupid, duped tool like dubya, in the capitalist/corporate/conservative oligarchs war to destroy America.

[Yonivore]

I thought Yoni believed that Reagan brought it down simply because he demanded they bring down their walls?
Pretty simple thinking there. But, if you take that kernel and build on it; you just might learn a few things.

[spursncowboys]

Reagan tried to sell arms to the Iranians



...and funded a South American terror group, the contras...


Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair)

couldn't stay on subject even a little huh

[spursncowboys]

how do you know? So much military spending is off the books...

..what if we'd used 20% of past military spending to fund a new replenish-able, green energy source instead?

Our military spending is all on the books somewhere. Most of the secret squirrel stuff gets put in the Airforce budget since their's is so large.

Spending for defense is a government's obligation. Manipulating our energy sector isn't. Also I doubt anything new would have been created. Just a less secure, trained and equipped military.

[boutons_deux]

St Ronnie's military build-up, esp the totally bullshit, ineffective Missile Defense System, was nothing but a gift of taxpayers' dollars to the MIC. MDA is still screwing taxpayers out several $B/year/.

He also raised payroll taxes while cutting taxes for the wealthy, (which included himself), and sanctioned the war on unions and all employees by firing the air traffic controllers.

USSR was bankrupted of hard US $ by invading and losing in Afghanistan, while USSR's primary source of $$ plummeted due to the collapse of oil prices after the recession of the early 80s.

Look at the price of oil when USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1980, and how it dropped through the decade up to 1989.

USSR couldn't even keep fighting just in Afghanistan, never whatever the fuck St Ronnie was doing to enrich the MIC, or whatever sound bites he was spouting.

ie, St Ronnie was the perfect warrior in the conservative/capitalist class war on the lower 95%.

[MiamiHeat]

Spending for defense is a government's obligation.

Captain Obvious.


The question we are asking is, why aren't we scaling back to peace time levels, pre-cold war levels.

We are still spending as if the USSR never fell and we have some imminent threat to American shores.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It was the speech that won the cold war..or so Yoni thinks it did..

[boutons_deux]

"why aren't we scaling back to peace time levels, pre-cold war levels."

a wasteful, bloated, fraudulent, corrupt military budget is how the MIC sucks wealth out of taxpayers pockets. The MIC owns Congress and the Exec. The Repugs, total wimps on national defense (WTC was their fault, Iraq/Afghanistan were their fuckups), would crucify any serious Exec or Congress people who proposed cutting back military budget.

And the military is fucking useless also, $1T available, they can't beat a bunch of fucking ragheads after 10 years of trying.

[MiamiHeat]

"why aren't we scaling back to peace time levels, pre-cold war levels."

a wasteful, bloated, fraudulent, corrupt military budget is how the MIC sucks wealth out of taxpayers pockets. The MIC owns Congress and the Exec. The Repugs, total wimps on national defense (WTC was their fault, Iraq/Afghanistan were their fuckups), would crucify any serious Exec or Congress people who proposed cutting back military budget.

And the military is fucking useless also, $1T available, they can't beat a bunch of fucking ragheads after 10 years of trying.

agree with everything but your final sentence.

Our military did a fine job and annihilated the conventional Iraqi military.

What's left now is just regular people, terrorists/freedom fighters/rebels who look like everyday Joe Schmoe's and hide among the populace.

There is no way to defeat that unless you take the gloves off and ignore crimes against humanity. We don't do that...

[boutons_deux]

"the conventional Iraqi military"

... bullshit, the feared/hyped Iraqi military were under-equipped, had no air power, and were not willing to die for Saddam, much like they turned tail and ran in the first Gulf War, to be slaughtered while they were retreating.

[jack sommerset]

"the conventional Iraqi military"

... bullshit, the feared/hyped Iraqi military were under-equipped, had no air power, and were not willing to die for Saddam, much like they turned tail and ran in the first Gulf War, to be slaughtered while they were retreating.

You do know thousands of Americans died too. Sure you do, you fucking idiot. And lets not forget we are still there thanks to the broken promises of Obama. Change and hope noone can believe in but keep supporting him douchebag. Keep spewing hate and stupidity.

[boutons_deux]

"You do know thousands of Americans died too"

and you refuse to admit those 1000s of US and other lives were wasted in the Repug/neo-c*nts bogus Iraq war-for-oil. GFY

[jack sommerset]

You refuse to admit Obama has continued that legacy. You are a fraud.

[EmptyMan]

Boutons just mad that St. Ronnie descended from the heavens and brought down the walls like Jericho.

[EVAY]

We've all had this conversation before.

The Soviets were in financial trouble when Reagan took office. Through an increase in the arms race ( and, when combined with tax cuts, a huge increase in the the US debt), we spent money that the USSR tried to match in order to match the arms build-up, and in so doing, finished off the process of bankrupting themselves. The USSR's war in Afghanistan helped the bankruptcy problem.

This left the US with a huge national debt, which Bush 41 tried to address by acceeding to a tax increase, which resulted in him being abandoned by the Republican base in the next election.

Also during Bush 41, the US led an international coalition of nations in the first Gulf War, which resulted in a semi-permanent presence of US forces in Saudi Arabia, which pissed off Arab fanatics ( like Al Qaeda) because 'infidels' were in their holy places.

Enter Bill Clinton, who increased taxes again, losing control of both houses of Congress in 1994, and presiding over a drop in military spending (encouraged by the Republicans in both houses of Congress) due to the 'peace dividend' that was supposed to follow the end of the cold war.

The first budget surpluses since before FDR were in the last two years of the divided government that was characteristic of the last 6 years of the Clinton administration.

The Republican campaign in 2000 ran on a campaign of "the fact that there is a budget surplus is proof that the government is keeping too much of your money". (No mention of paying down debt with the surplus, which Clinton and Gore had suggested).

Enter Bush 43...reduced taxes, and 9/11, which was blamed on Clinton because he had "let the country's military preparedness decline" (remember the decreased spending by the divided government due to the 'peace dividend?).

Result? United government in both the executive and legislative branches under Republican control that by reducing revenues and increasing military expenditures, never had a balanced budget (even though the war spending was never part of the budget) and increased the national debt by a factor of about 2...and finished with the worst financial collapse in recent memory.

Result? United government under Democratic control of executive and legislative branches which AGAIN reduced taxes (remember that a huge part of the stimulus was a tax cut) and continued both wars and increased domestic spending.

Result? Worst debt as a percent of GNP since WWII.

So, who's gonna fix it?

[boutons_deux]

Link to where I refuse to admit Magic Negro is continuing dubya's fuckups, rather than fixing them?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

5MDFX-dNtsM

Two years later, it was gone.

Two years exactly? Did he say that his speech would take down the wall in exactly two years?

If it had been one more day until the fall, would the speech still get credit?

[Wild Cobra]

Obama is contributing to a problem that Republicans are the worst culprits of.

Tell me how much more national debt W Bush accumulated from when he was in office?
Quite a but. I can excuse most of his spending because it was 9/11 related, Katrina related, etc.

I cannot excuse the excess of social spending Obama is doing. There is absolutely no excuse for it. This is something that is next to impossible to stop spending on once implemented. We cannot sustain these rates of spending. Wars end and so do disasters.

[MiamiHeat]

Quite a but. I can excuse most of his spending because it was 9/11 related, Katrina related, etc.

I cannot excuse the excess of social spending Obama is doing. There is absolutely no excuse for it. This is something that is next to impossible to stop spending on once implemented. We cannot sustain these rates of spending. Wars end and so do disasters.

You can excuse lying about Iraq and forcing us into that war? It's easily the most expensive endeavor for the USA in a long time.

[Wild Cobra]

You can excuse lying about Iraq and forcing us into that war? It's easily the most expensive endeavor for the USA in a long time.
You are under the false premise he knew things weren't quite as they thought they were.

How can anyone have a reasonable debate with someone like you who refuses to see the truth, and boldly claim he lied when there is no evidence he may have just thought it to be true..

[Winehole23]

How can anyone have a reasonable debate with someone like you who refuses to see the truth, and boldly claim he lied when there is no evidence he may have just thought it to be true..I'd like to see you try. Seriously, instead of parrying all comers aside on crypto-rationalist grounds before the melee. That'd be a hoot. You should start doing that, WC.

That MH's opinions so clearly outdo yours in both pungency and crudity proves nothing at all as to yourself, excepting your demonstrated tendency to cling to the forums' extremer examples for self-serving contrast. JMO.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You refuse to admit Obama has continued that legacy. You are a fraud.

why would you have the US withdraw irresponsibly jack? is that what you want?

[George Gervin's Afro]

You can excuse lying about Iraq and forcing us into that war? It's easily the most expensive endeavor for the USA in a long time.

there is outrage over negotiations not being on c-span yet utter silence on why we started a war... not a peep from the right on the many contradictory reasons why we had to rush into war.. yet they are still stuck on teleprompters..amazing

[jack sommerset]

why would you have the US withdraw irresponsibly jack? is that what you want?

Son, US military will never leave Iraq. Wake up.

[MiamiHeat]

You are under the false premise he knew things weren't quite as they thought they were.


So you say he's not a liar.

Then he's incompetent. That's the only position left for you to take.

He started a PRE-EMPTIVE WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The USA does not start pre-emptive wars, but Dubya got us into one.

all on INCOMPETENCE ??? "oops" ?

and you excuse this. hilarious.

[admiralsnackbar]

I cannot excuse the excess of social spending Obama is doing. There is absolutely no excuse for it. This is something that is next to impossible to stop spending on once implemented. We cannot sustain these rates of spending. Wars end and so do disasters.

So how do you justify Reagan's dipping into the Social Security funds to cover the gap between what could be done and what he wanted to do?

[DarrinS]

Obama will give a similar speech at the Arizona-Mexico border.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Son, US military will never leave Iraq. Wake up.

never should have been there son..answer the questions son..

[word]

The Soviet Union collapsed under Clintons term, officially, 1993, when Boris Yeltsin disbanded the Supreme Soviet and the People Congress. Then he shot up the Russian Parliament with tanks and killed 500 communist party hardliners and injured 1000 more. Remember Yeltsin on top of the tank ? By this time, Gorbachov was on the run. Gorby never intended to break up the soviet union. Ever. He said he considers it one of the great tragedies of world history.

And that, as they say, was that.

Ok officially it was December 1991 with the signing of the Belavezha Accords but Yeltsin certainly drove the final nail in the coffin two years later.

[jack sommerset]

never should have been there son..answer the questions son..

God you are fucking dumb. I answered your question you stupid fucking human being. They are not withdrawing.

[George Gervin's Afro]

God you are fucking dumb. I answered your question you stupid fucking human being. They are not withdrawing.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/29/iraqs_real_deadline


As U.S. forces pull out of Iraq's urban areas, everyone is waiting with bated breath for the results. Will there be a surge in violence, ending the relative peace that many Iraqis have enjoyed for the past year? Will al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) rear its head once more? Will the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki seize the chance to impose a more autocratic regime?


It's easy to overstate the importance of the June 30 troop withdrawal. U.S. forces are leaving areas that they entered before and especially during the surge. This concerns mostly Baghdad, where the insertion of U.S. troops at the neighborhood level helped end the 2005-2007 civil war and froze into place the de facto rule of the country's Shiite Islamist-led government -- at the expense of the Sunni Arab population, a good part of which fled. Iraqi state security forces now control the capital with little opposition. Although bombs do continue to go off, attacks are a distant and infrequent reality for most of this enormous city's inhabitants. A U.S. withdrawal is unlikely to change the situation dramatically.

Cities with fewer U.S. troops are likely to be affected even less by the pullout. In the south, local security forces have been in control of urban areas for some time, with varying degrees of success. Problematic cities, such as Mosul and Baquba, will remain violent regardless of whether the few U.S. troops there stay or go. An interesting exception may be towns in Anbar province such as Falluja, once a hotbed of insurgency. Here, a dormant AQI might seek to exploit the security vacuum, playing on the frustrations of former rebels who joined the now famous "Sunni Awakening" to put down the insurgency, but have yet to be integrated into the new state.

There are still more ways in which the withdrawal is less than some make it out to be: "Urban areas" have been redefined as city centers, meaning that U.S. forces will remain close at hand should anything go wrong. And U.S. military advisors, riding in repainted vehicles, will continue to provide essential support to Iraqi forces patrolling the cities.

The real turning points over the coming months will be the country's parliamentary elections in January and the comprehensive withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by August 2010. In the case of the elections, the June 30 pullout date will be very politically and symbolically important for a prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, who is readying himself for a tough battle at the polls. Should violence increase as the United States scales back, his law-and-order platform will lose its luster and his prospects for another term may fade. There might well be increased levels of violence in the run-up to the elections, as well as political challenges from Maliki's opponents who could try to weaken him such that he can no longer effectively govern. If he succeeds in keeping things more or less under control, however, Maliki will be able to boost his electoral hopes by portraying himself as the man who restored both Iraq's security and sovereignty.

But the August 2010 departure of all U.S. combat troops could be the most pivotal event. U.S. forces have kept Iraq's fractured political class stable enough to talk rather than fight. Because negotiations have delivered very little in the way of compromises on key issues -- how power, resources, and territory are divided or shared -- a U.S. pullout could well lead to conflict. Preventing that fate might require the Obama administration to make good on its pledge to facilitate a "responsible" withdrawal by lending strong diplomatic muscle to U.N.-led efforts to mediate a new set of political agreements. No Iraqi politician will compromise on hot-button questions such as federalism, an oil law, and the status of Kirkuk in an election year, but much could be done in the coming months to lay the groundwork for a deal set to be concluded following the elections but ahead of a U.S. withdrawal.

:lmao

and you call me stupid you dumbass!

[jack sommerset]

I do and you are. We have over 50,000 troops over there. Let me know when Obama keeps his word and ends this war. We are past his deadline.

[Wild Cobra]

I'd like to see you try. Seriously, instead of parrying all comers aside on crypto-rationalist grounds before the melee. That'd be a hoot. You should start doing that, WC.

That MH's opinions so clearly outdo yours in both pungency and crudity proves nothing at all as to yourself, excepting your demonstrated tendency to cling to the forums' extremer examples for self-serving contrast. JMO.
The idea that president Bush lied to get us into war is just that. Opinion. When it is stated as fact, as a precursor to something else, that person needs admonishment.

[Wild Cobra]

So you say he's not a liar.

Then he's incompetent. That's the only position left for you to take.

Then so are the prominent democrats that ran with the war also.


He started a PRE-EMPTIVE WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The USA does not start pre-emptive wars, but Dubya got us into one.

Bla bla bla...

I'm OK with a preemptive war, why aren't you? What is the next attack affected your family?


all on INCOMPETENCE ??? "oops" ?

I would say you are an absolute fool to believe a president should be all knowing like a deity.


and you excuse this. hilarious.

Absolutely. I do not expect perfection in people. Just honest best efforts. I wouldn't call him incompetent, but lacking in some areas. He was on top of things for security, and that isn't one of his weaknesses.

[Wild Cobra]

So how do you justify Reagan's dipping into the Social Security funds to cover the gap between what could be done and what he wanted to do?
WTF are you talking about?

Has there ever been a time CONGRESS didn't legislate spending from the excess SS money?

Please, don't tell me you believe it was actually it's own untouched fund.