Republican Judgement

[Alien Allen]

way too many voters are idiots that have no business voting. They vote based on emotions and do not vote based on convictions. That is proven by the fact that the core supporters of each party remain pretty constant. So you end up with the idiots in the middle that vote what ever direction the wind blows that year.

If the govt really wanted us to vote then they would have voting done on a weekend or over more than one day to make it easier to vote. IMO

 

[Panacea]

way too many voters are idiots that have no business voting.

So you're saying you're not a Libertarian

 

[Tim]

and if you can not see that the numbers of workers versus the number getting SS and medicare is the opposite of what it was years ago then we are not going to get anywhere either.

In the case of these programs it is not the income that is going into the funds but the amount being drawn out of the funds. And even if Gores lock box had been in effect 60 years ago the funds would still be in dire trouble down the road.

So we stop SSI taxes and let the seniors fend for themselves?

I would love to hear your alternative to SSI and what impact it would have on our country.

 

[Alien Allen]

So we stop SSI taxes and let the seniors fend for themselves?

I would love to hear your alternative to SSI and what impact it would have on our country.

where did I ever say that??

again a liberal twists things to make it sound like granny is gonna die.

I never said to eliminate SS

What I have said is that the program is not sustainable.

It can be made sustainable but nobody is gonna like it because it require some adjustments in the tax rate along with extending the age requirement.

This is not about hurting seniors but trying to make a future for grand children and great grand children.

The policies of FDR and LBJ have gone a long way to bankrupt the country and need to be amended greatly.

But then that goes against the liberal want for a nanny state don't it.

 

[Tim]

where did I ever say that??

again a liberal twists things to make it sound like granny is gonna die.

I never said to eliminate SS

What I have said is that the program is not sustainable.

It can be made sustainable but nobody is gonna like it because it require some adjustments in the tax rate along with extending the age requirement.

This is not about hurting seniors but trying to make a future for grand children and great grand children.

The policies of FDR and LBJ have gone a long way to bankrupt the country and need to be amended greatly.

But then that goes against the liberal want for a nanny state don't it.

It was a question, not an accusation...

And I agree it needs to be adjusted. I don't think it was created to be a hands off system and they knew adjustments would be made as needed.

And what is it with you and the extremes?
I don't support a nanny state, never did. I don't think anyone believes that the government should take care of everyone... that's just idiotic.

Just don't tell me that you're on board with the Ryan plan and we should be able to come to some middle ground.

 

[Minor Axis]

I heard something interesting on MSNBC's The Last Word tonight regarding a statement by Mitt Romney that he believed Global Warming exists and that humans are responsible to some degree. The gist of this conversation was that admitting there is Global Warming according to Toad Limbaugh means he (Romney) can't get the GOPer nomination and that the Tea Party would not support him.

It was interesting in the Romney said it and interesting that the GOPpers and Tea Parties would prefer to keep their heads in the sand to save a few pennies, than deal with a warming Earth. Are voters supposed to have confidence in this kind of thinking?

On a separate note, to understand the illegitimacy and disreputable state of the GOP, look at who the front runners are or have been in the last couple of months. It's a zoo full of crazy people.

 

[Alien Allen]

It was a question, not an accusation...

And I agree it needs to be adjusted. I don't think it was created to be a hands off system and they knew adjustments would be made as needed.

And what is it with you and the extremes?
I don't support a nanny state, never did. I don't think anyone believes that the government should take care of everyone... that's just idiotic.

Just don't tell me that you're on board with the Ryan plan and we should be able to come to some middle ground.

I would have to look it up but there is a very successful health care policy in one of the noteworthy countries in Europe

Mandatory health care is required but people have to get it on their own and their is a reimbursement by the govt.

Sounds a bit like a voucher plan to me

And to be honest I have not searched the specifics of the Ryan plan. Have you?

 

[Alien Allen]

I heard something interesting on MSNBC's The Last Word tonight regarding a statement by Mitt Romney that he believed Global Warming exists and that humans are responsible to some degree. The gist of this conversation was that admitting there is Global Warming according to Toad Limbaugh means he (Romney) can't get the GOPer nomination and that the Tea Party would not support him.

It was interesting in the Romney said it and interesting that the GOPpers and Tea Parties would prefer to keep their heads in the sand to save a few pennies, than deal with a warming Earth. Are voters supposed to have confidence in this kind of thinking?

On a separate note, to understand the illegitimacy and disreputable state of the GOP, look at who the front runners are or have been in the last couple of months. It's a zoo full of crazy people.

You keep saying you are not a democrat but you don't pass the smell test

A libertarian can find some common interest with republicans but I am not aware of any such commonality for liberals.

Unless you want to side with loons like Ralph Nader and what ever party he sides with at the time.

As to Global Warming............ I have no doubt there is a warming trend...... But I have seen too much BS on both sides of the issue to trust either to have the facts as to whether if is solely to blame by humans.

 

[Minor Axis]

As to Global Warming............ I have no doubt there is a warming trend...... But I have seen too much BS on both sides of the issue to trust either to have the facts as to whether if is solely to blame by humans.

Democrats/Liberals/Some Independants= "Lets investigate!"
Republicans/Conservatives/Some Independants= "NO FUCKING POSSIBLE Way" = "THIS COST MY HARD EARNED MONEY!!"

 

[Accountable]

So we stop SSI taxes and let the seniors fend for themselves?

Are you really so naive as to think that SS exists in a vacuum, that SS is in any way a retirement plan, or that phasing it out would leave even a single old person out in the cold to die in the street?

Phasing out SS might indeed mean that more people would retire below the poverty line. Many people retire under the poverty line even with SS. Many planned on SS being their sole retirement check, as if it were enough to live on. We have safety nets for people who live below the poverty line without SS.

 

[Tim]

Are you really so naive as to think that SS exists in a vacuum, that SS is in any way a retirement plan, or that phasing it out would leave even a single old person out in the cold to die in the street?

Phasing out SS might indeed mean that more people would retire below the poverty line. Many people retire under the poverty line even with SS. Many planned on SS being their sole retirement check, as if it were enough to live on. We have safety nets for people who live below the poverty line without SS.

SSI IS the security net...

Why was SSI enacted in the first place? Did you know that it was enacted to replace several social programs that were in place a safety nets?

I think it would be hard to find anyone who looks at SSI as a retirement plan. And what are these "other" security nets that are in place to help the elderly?

 

[Panacea]

Are you really so naive as to think that phasing it out would leave even a single old person out in the cold to die in the street?

I'm sure at least one single old person has already succumbed to poverty with SSI. You acknowledge this somewhat later in the post, but like Tim said, SSI is the safety net.

Not saying these systems don't need changes, but I sometimes wonder if some people actually understand what happens when a person can't/doesn't work for a legitimate reason (age here).

 

[Minor Axis]

APhasing out SS might indeed mean that more people would retire below the poverty line. Many people retire under the poverty line even with SS. Many planned on SS being their sole retirement check, as if it were enough to live on. We have safety nets for people who live below the poverty line without SS.

What safety nets you thinking about for your example? (hopefully not soup kitchens).

 

[Accountable]

SSI IS the security net...

Why was SSI enacted in the first place? Did you know that it was enacted to replace several social programs that were in place a safety nets?

I think it would be hard to find anyone who looks at SSI as a retirement plan. And what are these "other" security nets that are in place to help the elderly?

We don't need a safety net to help the elderly. You make it sound like getting old, in and of itself, is something we need to save people from.

Each state needs a safety net to help people who can't make it on their on, for whatever reason. The federal gov't need not get involved. Why would we need more?

Now, to keep the (pick your adjective)ists who break out in hives to think of the United States as somehow different from European nations, the control freaks of the federal gov't will create a fiction (for fiction is what it is & I won't discuss it again) in the "general welfare" clause that says they can do damn well whatever they please. Even still, one program per state with Washington redistributing citizens' wealth among them, or (worse) a single national program is all that is needed to help anyone who falls below the arbitrary financial level that defines that they can't take care of themselves.

** Read no further. I just have to state the truth & most of you will have blood shooting from your eyes **

We shouldn't have a gov't safety net at all. They only serve to separate us and breed contempt among us when we should be willingly helping each other. The vast majority of us do still help each other, and millions more would be willingly helping others if we didn't have gov't programs to act as that salve to take away our sense of responsibility. We already gave at the office.

 

[Panacea]

I wouldn't call the poverty line arbitrary, even if I agreed with your other ideologies.

 

[Accountable]

I wouldn't call the poverty line arbitrary, even if I agreed with your other ideologies.

Now there's a discussion worth having!

 

[Minor Axis]

The conservative vision is that when someone is down and out, they can find a way to better themselves, live in the gutter, or rely on some well off family member to support them. The problem is that when the deck is stacked against you via the evaporation of millions of good paying jobs, you are going to have many less opportunities to better your self by means of a job that will support you, a much smaller portion of "well off" relatives, and the best you might be able to hope for is a job that barely feeds you. Pashaw, conservatives say. Well, how many millions of good jobs have gone bye-bye? It's not a made up statistic.

 

[Alien Allen]

and liberals have morhped into flaming socialists

tell me how is it this country survived all those years with out the so called safety nets?

the programs of FDR and LBJ have basically eliminated the concept of personal responsibility. Family, church and neighbors used to help out. Now the neighborhood has almost become non existent. Family can not be bothered and churches are limited. With two legs of the stool removed the societal safety net we had all those years has been basically destroyed. IMO

 

[Accountable]

The conservative vision is that when someone is down and out, they can find a way to better themselves, live in the gutter, or rely on some well off family member to support them. The problem is that when the deck is stacked against you via the evaporation of millions of good paying jobs, you are going to have many less opportunities to better your self by means of a job that will support you, a much smaller portion of "well off" relatives, and the best you might be able to hope for is a job that barely feeds you. Pashaw, conservatives say. Well, how many millions of good jobs have gone bye-bye? It's not a made up statistic.

I don't like it when you state your opinions as if they were proven fact. A qualifier such as "It seems that ..." or "I think that ..." would make them much more palatable.

I watched the movie "The Company Men" last night. Really struck home. I'd recommend it to anyone to get some perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8XgnQTInoQ

 

[Minor Axis]

and liberals have morhped into flaming socialists

tell me how is it this country survived all those years with out the so called safety nets?

the programs of FDR and LBJ have basically eliminated the concept of personal responsibility. Family, church and neighbors used to help out. Now the neighborhood has almost become non existent. Family can not be bothered and churches are limited. With two legs of the stool removed the societal safety net we had all those years has been basically destroyed. IMO

So two Democrats destroyed "personal responsibility". I suppose they also killed the Family, the Neighborhood, and the Church to boot. And if conservatives had been in charge for the last 70 years, we would not have any of these problems. :smiley24:

I don't like it when you state your opinions as if they were proven fact. A qualifier such as "It seems that ..." or "I think that ..." would make them much more palatable.

My statement except for the "millions of jobs" was an opinion. Now if you disagree with it, you are free to express your opinion. What do you disagree with?