RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans.

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Thadius -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/26/2010 1:03:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain According to David Frum, who was recently fired by the American Enterprise Institute, the Republican party is run by Fox news. Please investigate it and find out for yourself. Maybe somebody could post a thread about it. As far as healthcare is concerned, if you really want to get rid of waste I think you need to support a public option, which will provide competition so the insurance companies will become more efficient and provide better insurance rates. Most Americans want the public option, over 50%, probably around 60% said people need to demand reform especially from the United States Senate which is really the problem. People like Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson need to be replaced. There are probably several others who may get in the way of reform and they need to be flushed out/purged as well. quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I opposed the health care bill. The main reason is that I felt that the health care system is inherently wasteful, and that extending it without fixing it would freeze the waste in place. Obama made it clear that he wanted the bill, but that he also wanted GOP input. Instead of that, the GOP opposed the bill and showed no interest in working to add input to it. They spread lies about death panels, etc., and their tactics were to yell about negative parts of the bill, even though they could and should have simply gotten those parts removed. The Dems responded to the poisoned atmosphere by spreading counterlies. When Brown got elected, the GOP crowed that the bill was dead. They taunted Obama as being ineffective and laughed at him for having been unable to get anything passed with a supermajority previously. Eventually, Obama just said, "Fuck this", and pushed it through, over GOP howling. The idiots need to understand that the reason that the Dems got a supermajority in the first place is because the public was so fed up with Bush and the policies that he and the GOP rammed through. Claiming to have suddenly be the only true party representing the will of the people won't wash. You cannot set yourself up to be the party of fiscal responsibility after eight years of record deficits, even if your successor is expanding them. Okay, guys, you can either become the party of whiners complaining that Obama is passing legislation you don't like, or else you can work with him on making the bills more acceptable to you. Your choice. Hmmm. Just last election cycle it was just the opposite the Republican party was running Fox News. Guess old Rupert did a hostile takeover or somefin. Care to comment on the White House attempting to bribe a Dem Congressman not to run against Sen Specter? I always love the stats you throw around... Why not call it a nice even 70% for the hell of it?

cadenas -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/27/2010 11:58:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: The article you linked doesn't really support that assertion. Social Security has run with a surplus and built up a rainy-day fund from the surplus. This year, it may not run at a surplus because of the economic crisis. Big deal. Politicians will get a lot of propaganda mileage out of that, but in reality, that's what's SUPPOSED to happen. It wouldn't make sense to permanently collect more in social security taxes than we use. Administrations keep borrowing from SS. I wont mention which ones... lol. In all seriousness, that money was borrowed with the knowledge that it would never be returned. I never see a complaint about this. If that was true, we'd have a worldwide financial crisis that we can't even imagine despite our current depression. You are basically saying that the most secure investment vehicle in the world - US Treasury Bills - would not be honored. In other words, the USA would declare bankruptcy. If that really happened, Social Security would be the least of our concerns.

Musicmystery -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/28/2010 12:03:57 AM)
quote: current depression We aren't in a depression. We haven't even been in a recession for ninth months now. We do have tight credit and high unemployment still, yes.

tazzygirl -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/28/2010 5:07:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: The article you linked doesn't really support that assertion. Social Security has run with a surplus and built up a rainy-day fund from the surplus. This year, it may not run at a surplus because of the economic crisis. Big deal. Politicians will get a lot of propaganda mileage out of that, but in reality, that's what's SUPPOSED to happen. It wouldn't make sense to permanently collect more in social security taxes than we use. Administrations keep borrowing from SS. I wont mention which ones... lol. In all seriousness, that money was borrowed with the knowledge that it would never be returned. I never see a complaint about this. If that was true, we'd have a worldwide financial crisis that we can't even imagine despite our current depression. You are basically saying that the most secure investment vehicle in the world - US Treasury Bills - would not be honored. In other words, the USA would declare bankruptcy. If that really happened, Social Security would be the least of our concerns. The problem is well-known: Funded by taxes on workers' wages, the Social Security system currently takes in more funds than it has promised to pay out to retirees. And the federal government has been borrowing those surplus funds over the years. But that surplus is shrinking, and eventually the system won't be able to pay out all of the promised benefits. .................. Clinton, for instance, has pledged to stop the practice of the federal government borrowing the surplus paid into Social Security. That's a noble idea, said Bixby, but difficult to achieve because the government relies on the money. In addition, it doesn't address the longer-term shortfalls. http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-retirement/article/104720/Social-Security-Looms-for-Next-President?mod=retirement-preparation Yeah, you are right... no administration is borrowing money from SS. Its as solvent as ever!

rulemylife -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/28/2010 5:16:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 How do you know? He had everything to do with his education sealed by an army of lawyers. Yeah, and when are we going to see his Kenyan birth certificate? [8\|]

rulemylife -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/28/2010 5:21:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Actually there is far to little competition in a number of states, therefore they get to set whatever price without worry of being undercut. Who exactly would they be competing against? You have a few large health insurance companies that dominate the market in every state. How would that change except for the worse?

maebe -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/28/2010 5:32:56 AM)
I just wanted to add my two cents to this conversation. i am one of the millions of Americans who voted for change. Finally the U.S. is on a path away from wasteful war spending that the Republicans put us on. I truly do not see why people have issue with making sure all of our countrymen/women have adequate health care. Many of the ideas in the new plan were originally Republican ones yet they now are against them. Go figure... the motivation behind current Tea party members has nothing to do with caring for fellow American's health.

Alphascendant -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/28/2010 5:48:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl the Social Security system currently takes in more funds than it has promised to pay out to retirees. Evidently, somebody hasn't been reading the news lately....

RacerJim -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/28/2010 5:54:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I opposed the health care bill. The main reason is that I felt that the health care system is inherently wasteful, and that extending it without fixing it would freeze the waste in place. Obama made it clear that he wanted the bill, but that he also wanted GOP input. Instead of that, the GOP opposed the bill and showed no interest in working to add input to it. They spread lies about death panels, etc., and their tactics were to yell about negative parts of the bill, even though they could and should have simply gotten those parts removed. The Dems responded to the poisoned atmosphere by spreading counterlies. When Brown got elected, the GOP crowed that the bill was dead. They taunted Obama as being ineffective and laughed at him for having been unable to get anything passed with a supermajority previously. Eventually, Obama just said, "Fuck this", and pushed it through, over GOP howling. The idiots need to understand that the reason that the Dems got a supermajority in the first place is because the public was so fed up with Bush and the policies that he and the GOP rammed through. Claiming to have suddenly be the only true party representing the will of the people won't wash. You cannot set yourself up to be the party of fiscal responsibility after eight years of record deficits, even if your successor is expanding them. Okay, guys, you can either become the party of whiners complaining that Obama is passing legislation you don't like, or else you can work with him on making the bills more acceptable to you. Your choice. That you would say the GOP showed no interest in working to add input to "Obamacare" when a Goggle search would quickly prove you're lying renders your entire message GARBAGE.

RacerJim -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/28/2010 5:57:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alphascendant quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl the Social Security system currently takes in more funds than it has promised to pay out to retirees. Evidently, somebody hasn't been reading the news lately.... Either that or they are ignoring current news for who knows what reason. lol

cadenas -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/28/2010 6:34:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: The article you linked doesn't really support that assertion. Social Security has run with a surplus and built up a rainy-day fund from the surplus. This year, it may not run at a surplus because of the economic crisis. Big deal. Politicians will get a lot of propaganda mileage out of that, but in reality, that's what's SUPPOSED to happen. It wouldn't make sense to permanently collect more in social security taxes than we use. Administrations keep borrowing from SS. I wont mention which ones... lol. In all seriousness, that money was borrowed with the knowledge that it would never be returned. I never see a complaint about this. If that was true, we'd have a worldwide financial crisis that we can't even imagine despite our current depression. You are basically saying that the most secure investment vehicle in the world - US Treasury Bills - would not be honored. In other words, the USA would declare bankruptcy. If that really happened, Social Security would be the least of our concerns. The problem is well-known: Funded by taxes on workers' wages, the Social Security system currently takes in more funds than it has promised to pay out to retirees. And the federal government has been borrowing those surplus funds over the years. But that surplus is shrinking, and eventually the system won't be able to pay out all of the promised benefits. Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you on that. In fact, you are saying the exact same thing I am saying, just looking at it from the opposite end: I'm saying Social Security invests in Treasury Bills. You say the federal government borrows money. These two statements are one and the same - just looking at it from either the lender's or the borrower's side. EVERY TIME somebody invests in T-Bills, the federal government borrows the money. That's what T-Bills ARE - federal debt. I am disagreeing with you that investing in Treasury Bills - the safest investments known to mankind, as any financial advisor will tell you - somehow endangers the funds. Do you have a better idea what Social Security should do with several decades' worth of surplus funds? quote: Clinton, for instance, has pledged to stop the practice of the federal government borrowing the surplus paid into Social Security. In other words, he was about to stop selling Treasury Bills. And indeed he came very close to it because he managed to almost balance the budget. It actually wasn't a good thing; back then, Economists were seriously concerned about no longer having Treasury Bills.

Alphascendant -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/28/2010 6:44:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Do you have a better idea what Social Security should do with several decades' worth of surplus funds? I guess you didn't get that memo either.

rulemylife -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/28/2010 6:48:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alphascendant quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl the Social Security system currently takes in more funds than it has promised to pay out to retirees. Evidently, somebody hasn't been reading the news lately.... Yes, and it seems to be you.

Alphascendant -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/28/2010 6:53:15 AM)
The Social Security Program stopped taking in more than it is required to pay out a couple of days ago.

rulemylife -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/28/2010 6:57:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I opposed the health care bill. The main reason is that I felt that the health care system is inherently wasteful, and that extending it without fixing it would freeze the waste in place. Obama made it clear that he wanted the bill, but that he also wanted GOP input. Instead of that, the GOP opposed the bill and showed no interest in working to add input to it. They spread lies about death panels, etc., and their tactics were to yell about negative parts of the bill, even though they could and should have simply gotten those parts removed. The Dems responded to the poisoned atmosphere by spreading counterlies. When Brown got elected, the GOP crowed that the bill was dead. They taunted Obama as being ineffective and laughed at him for having been unable to get anything passed with a supermajority previously. Eventually, Obama just said, "Fuck this", and pushed it through, over GOP howling. The idiots need to understand that the reason that the Dems got a supermajority in the first place is because the public was so fed up with Bush and the policies that he and the GOP rammed through. Claiming to have suddenly be the only true party representing the will of the people won't wash. You cannot set yourself up to be the party of fiscal responsibility after eight years of record deficits, even if your successor is expanding them. Okay, guys, you can either become the party of whiners complaining that Obama is passing legislation you don't like, or else you can work with him on making the bills more acceptable to you. Your choice. That you would say the GOP showed no interest in working to add input to "Obamacare" when a Goggle search would quickly prove you're lying renders your entire message GARBAGE. Help us out Jimbo. Prove your point.

RacerJim -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/28/2010 6:58:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: maebe I just wanted to add my two cents to this conversation. i am one of the millions of Americans who voted for change. Finally the U.S. is on a path away from wasteful war spending that the Republicans put us on. I truly do not see why people have issue with making sure all of our countrymen/women have adequate health care. Many of the ideas in the new plan were originally Republican ones yet they now are against them. Go figure... the motivation behind current Tea party members has nothing to do with caring for fellow American's health. I just want to correct your two cents. I am one of the millions of Americans who voted for "Country First". Unfortunately the progressives in the White House and Congress are fundamentally transforming the United States of America into the United Socialist States of America. The Republican's war spending not only pales in comparison to the Democrats's social spending but was bi-partisan spending rather than partisan spending like the Democrat's is. Why people like myself have issue with "Obamacare" is simply because it is not about health care per se, rather it is about the Federal government taking control of a private industry in order to effect control over "We the people...". Note that "Obamacare" also includes a Federal government takeover of the college student loan industry...something totally unrelated to making sure all of our countrymen/women have adequate health care but totally related to the Federal government taking control of a private industry in order to effect control over "We the people..." Many of the health care access and cost reduction ideas in "Obamacare" were indeed originally Republican ones but not as part-n-parcel of a Federal government takeover. The motivation behind the curret progressive White House and Congress has nothing to with health care or college student loans but, rather, everything to do with the Federal government controlling/dictating to "We the people..." rather then the reverse. Go figure indeed...Obama himself is on record as believing the U.S. Constitution is a document of "negative rights", i.e., that it limits what the Federal government can do to the people is bad for the people rather than good for the people. That is, of course, the exact opposite belief of the Founding Fathers and the exact reason for the American Revoluntionary War.

RacerJim -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/28/2010 7:00:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I opposed the health care bill. The main reason is that I felt that the health care system is inherently wasteful, and that extending it without fixing it would freeze the waste in place. Obama made it clear that he wanted the bill, but that he also wanted GOP input. Instead of that, the GOP opposed the bill and showed no interest in working to add input to it. They spread lies about death panels, etc., and their tactics were to yell about negative parts of the bill, even though they could and should have simply gotten those parts removed. The Dems responded to the poisoned atmosphere by spreading counterlies. When Brown got elected, the GOP crowed that the bill was dead. They taunted Obama as being ineffective and laughed at him for having been unable to get anything passed with a supermajority previously. Eventually, Obama just said, "Fuck this", and pushed it through, over GOP howling. The idiots need to understand that the reason that the Dems got a supermajority in the first place is because the public was so fed up with Bush and the policies that he and the GOP rammed through. Claiming to have suddenly be the only true party representing the will of the people won't wash. You cannot set yourself up to be the party of fiscal responsibility after eight years of record deficits, even if your successor is expanding them. Okay, guys, you can either become the party of whiners complaining that Obama is passing legislation you don't like, or else you can work with him on making the bills more acceptable to you. Your choice. That you would say the GOP showed no interest in working to add input to "Obamacare" when a Goggle search would quickly prove you're lying renders your entire message GARBAGE. Help us out Jimbo. Prove your point. Do something yourself for a "CHANGE".

rulemylife -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/28/2010 7:04:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alphascendant The Social Security Program stopped taking in more than it is required to pay out a couple of days ago. That may be true, I'm too lazy right now to research it so I'll take your word for it. But the funds that were paid in by taxpayers were meant to be held in trust, not borrowed from to pay for other government expenses. Which I think is the main problem.

rulemylife -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/28/2010 7:08:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim That you would say the GOP showed no interest in working to add input to "Obamacare" when a Goggle search would quickly prove you're lying renders your entire message GARBAGE. Help us out Jimbo. Prove your point. Do something yourself for a "CHANGE". I generally try to prove what I say. I have rarely seen you do the same. You made the claim, back it up.

cadenas -> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. (3/28/2010 7:10:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alphascendant quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Do you have a better idea what Social Security should do with several decades' worth of surplus funds? I guess you didn't get that memo either. You mean, the "news" that the 30+ years worth of cash that they have been accumulating has stopped growing for now? They still have the stack of cash that will last decades. So the question remains: what should they do with the money they won't need for years and decades?

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625