The coming social disaster as best I can figure

[Happy Monkey]

From "it's unconstitutional to fund the social safety net":

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

How are you going to pay for it? Oh, I know, redistribute wealth, take money away from people who busted their ass to live the dream and then just use the gobberment to snatch it away. What part of the US Constitution gives them that power?

to "don't worry about all the politicians who want to defund the social safety net; they don't have enough votes":

Who says they are going to do any of these things so much as have a chance in hell of getting any such changes through Congress?

Don't worry about the crazy I promote because someone will probably stop it?

Obama has been fear mongering Social Security on the population since the Debit debate. When he knows fully well that it is solvent for quite a few years.

I don't think it's Obama calling it a Ponzi scheme or a monstrous lie or a fraud. The most "fear mongering" he's done is say that checks may not go out if we default on our treasury bonds, which form the bulk of the Social Security trust fund, and pay for the administration of much of the rest of government.

Social Security is fine for decades if left alone. It's not fine if we default on our debts.

There are plenty of things I don't like about Obama, but in all of them the Republicans are worse.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Maybe Obama and his ilk can start by saving money here!:

Save money by repeatedly leasing, converting, then downconverting and returning busses? I doubt that much, if any, money would be saved. Not to mention:

"We have not been satisfied with the level of protection offered by leased buses," said a Secret Service official.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Wait, where is all the wailing about "The Rich", the "Millionaires and Billionaires", the "Owners of the Private Jet Companies".... or were you just talking about the people who make more that 220k? Where is the outrage about Obama's relationships with Goldman Sachs, or GE and the jobs creation program they just announced in China, all the while the CEO sits on Obama's cabinet? The list goes on and on.... your outrage is misplaced.

First of all, I have nothing against the rich in general. You want to cast me in the role of a foot soldier in the Great American War of Class Hatred. Sorry, but I already burned my draft card.

I have said repeatedly on this forum that my major objection to the national political situation as it now stands is the fact that the Congress is mainly interested in amassing wealth and power for its own members, and that if you are an individual or a corporation who has the bucks, you can buy yourself your very own version of American Government which almost always is not in the best interest of the American people.

This means I am certainly very angry at the wealthy who play this corrupt game, but I an not angry "just because" at anyone who happens to be rich. I have also stated repeatedly that I am against the out-sourcing of American jobs. And frankly, anyone who makes it to the National level in politics has sold his soul long ago, and yes, this includes the President, as well.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

How are you going to pay for it? Oh, I know, redistribute wealth, take money away from people who busted their ass to live the dream and then just use the gobberment to snatch it away. What part of the US Constitution gives them that power?

Get a grip, Merc. Saving the social safety net is not the equivalent of a communist revolution led by some American version of Lenin. I advise you to stop reading Ayn Rand until your mind clears. We are not living through a 21st century version of Atlas Shrugged.

All we have to do is allow the Bush era tax cuts to expire. Now, I actually do know (or did know) some fairly wealthy people back in the Clinton era. None of these people were selling their vacation homes in Aspen or firing the au pair or the gang of Mexican gardeners who groomed the grounds of their mansions.

I have nothing against someone who amassed a bunch of wealth and now wants to enjoy it. I do think these people shouldn't object to paying a little more in taxes to the government and the country whose policies may it possible for them to be so wildly successful. And don't forget the hard working American citizens who were employed by these individuals and whose work ethic helped make that business or company a profitable concern. Maybe some of them later got hit a few hard blows by fate. It is only humane to help these people when they need it.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Who says they are going to do any of these things so much as have a chance in hell of getting any such changes through Congress? Obama has been fear mongering Social Security on the population since the Debit debate. When he knows fully well that it is solvent for quite a few years. They only way any of this is going to change is if the people vote Republickins in lock stock and barrel. I don't think that will happen either.

The conservative right wing of which you are a member, has stated in so many words that they will dismantle medicaid, cut housing vouchers for the seniors and the disabled by 70% and cut the food stamp program. I have given you chapter and verse on these things earlier in this thread and in other posts of mine. They are printed out as part of the Republican strategy and anyone who wants can read these things for themselves. The documents are readily available on the Internet.

I don't know what Obama's game is with Social Security, and frankly, I don't care. Neither party will dare to make cuts to Social Security for my generation. It would be political suicide. Younger folks can probably count on Social Security being a very different program for them then it is for my generation. I feel this is misguided at best and will cause much hardship at worst. But there is little I can do about it. I'll be dead, thank God.

To repeat for the 100th time the programs under attack which constitute our social safety net are: the various housing programs administered by HUD - ALL of them. Medicaid which is the ONLY source of medical care and prescriptions for many of the 15 percent of Americans living below the poverty line. SNAP or food stamps which provide food not only to unemployed workers or low income people in general, but most importantly, their children. If some rich asshole objects to paying a few percent more in taxes to help feed this country's children, he should be deported and never allowed to come back to this country.

You put off my question of how you would defend these actions by doing a tap dance and saying it won't happen anyway. There is a chance it could. All Congress has to do is retain its current balance of power and it will happen. Again, please tell me how your attitude can be morally defensible.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The thought that such cuts are looming is fantasy perpetrated by Obama and the fear mongering Leftists. I see it is working.

Yeah, that Liberal/Left Wing outfit known as the Congressional Budget Office, reported the following:

In contrast, under current law, all spending apart from that for Social Security, the major health care programs, and interest payments on the debt is projected to decline noticeably as a share of the economy. That broad collection of programs includes ... the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as Food Stamps), unemployment compensation, other income-security programs, veterans’ benefits, federal civilian and military retirement benefits, transportation, health research, education and training, and other programs. Expected improvement in the economy and the caps on discretionary spending instituted in the Budget Control Act are projected to reduce such spending to 7.7 percent of GDP in 2021, the lowest level as a share of GDP in the past 40 years.

Thus, according to CBO’s projections under current law, even with the new constraints on discretionary spending, federal spending excluding net interest will grow to 19.9 percent of GDP in 2021—compared with the 40-year average of 18.6 percent. And the composition of that spending will be noticeably different from what the nation has experienced in recent decades: Spending for Social Security and the major health care programs will be much higher, and spending for all other federal programs and activities, except for net interest payments, will be much lower. Alternatively, if the laws governing Social Security and the major health care programs were unchanged, and all other programs were operated in line with their average relationship to the size of the economy during the past 40 years, total federal spending excluding net interest would be much higher in 2021—nearly 24 percent of GDP. That amount exceeds the 40-year average for revenues as a share of GDP by nearly 6 percentage points—even before interest payments on the debt have been included...

What do those numbers imply about the choices that policymakers—and citizens—confront about future policies? Given the aging of the population and the rising costs for health care, attaining a sustainable budget for the federal government will require the United States to deviate from the policies of the past 40 years in at least one of the following ways:

Raise federal revenues significantly above their average share of GDP;
Make major changes to the sorts of benefits provided for Americans when they become older; or
Substantially reduce the role of the rest of the federal government relative to the size of the economy.
The nation cannot continue to sustain the spending programs and policies of the past with the tax revenues it has been accustomed to paying. Citizens will either have to pay more for their government, accept less in government services and benefits, or both.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12413

Just a suggestion. Take a look at the original documents instead of some op ed piece or a blog written by some highly partisen author. You might actually figure out what's going on.

(Jeez, my reply was as long as something by tw Good luck to anyone who tries to wade thru it!)

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

There are an easy 2 million plus in savings, for a three day trip.

And after the trip, they're going to light the buses on fire to ensure they can never be used again.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

And after the trip, they're going to light the buses on fire to ensure they can never be used again.

Wouldn't put it past them...

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I don't think it's Obama calling it a Ponzi scheme or a monstrous lie or a fraud. The most "fear mongering" he's done is say that checks may not go out if we default on our treasury bonds, which form the bulk of the Social Security trust fund, and pay for the administration of much of the rest of government.

Because Perry calls it a "Ponzi scheme" does not mean squat. Obama is the one who is repeating at every stop how the Republickins are going after Social Security. It's horseshit.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Save money by repeatedly leasing, converting, then downconverting and returning busses? I doubt that much, if any, money would be save.

The fool could ride in a cab for all I care. You miss the point. It is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars.... for a three day re-election campaign.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

First of all, I have nothing against the rich in general. You want to cast me in the role of a foot soldier in the Great American War of Class Hatred. Sorry, but I already burned my draft card.

You certainly wave the banners every chance you get.

I have said repeatedly on this forum that my major objection to the national political situation as it now stands is the fact that the Congress is mainly interested in amassing wealth and power for its own members, and that if you are an individual or a corporation who has the bucks, you can buy yourself your very own version of American Government which almost always is not in the best interest of the American people.

Agreed. But there is a difference between the rhetoric out of the Obama re-election speeches he is giving now and where the problems lie for a real world long term solution.

This means I am certainly very angry at the wealthy who play this corrupt game, but I an not angry "just because" at anyone who happens to be rich. I have also stated repeatedly that I am against the out-sourcing of American jobs. And frankly, anyone who makes it to the National level in politics has sold his soul long ago, and yes, this includes the President, as well.

Define "wealthy". But again I agree.

We are not living through a 21st century version of Atlas Shrugged.

We are moving in that direction with this administrations policy and the Demoncratic attempts to spend our way into bankruptcy.

All we have to do is allow the Bush era tax cuts to expire.

That is not going to fix what ails us....

And don't forget the hard working American citizens who were employed by these individuals and whose work ethic helped make that business or company a profitable concern. Maybe some of them later got hit a few hard blows by fate. It is only humane to help these people when they need it.

I have no problem with that. We need a net, not a crutch. And what we have now is a crutch.

The conservative right wing of which you are a member....

False on so many levels...

.... has stated in so many words that they will dismantle medicaid, cut housing vouchers for the seniors and the disabled by 70% and cut the food stamp program.

Change, not eliminate or "disable".

I don't know what Obama's game is with Social Security, and frankly, I don't care.

It is fearmongering and demonizing as an attempt to gain votes and get re-elected. It is a scam....

To repeat for the 100th time the programs under attack which constitute our social safety net are: the various housing programs administered by HUD - ALL of them. Medicaid which is the ONLY source of medical care and prescriptions for many of the 15 percent of Americans living below the poverty line. SNAP or food stamps which provide food not only to unemployed workers or low income people in general, but most importantly, their children.

Everything is on the table. They have all made this quite evident.

You put off my question of how you would defend these actions by doing a tap dance and saying it won't happen anyway. There is a chance it could. All Congress has to do is retain its current balance of power and it will happen. Again, please tell me how your attitude can be morally defensible.

Why should I defend something that I do not believe will happen?

Yeah, that Liberal/Left Wing outfit known as the Congressional Budget Office, reported the following:



http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12413

This is an inditement of the current administration.

Just a suggestion. Take a look at the original documents instead of some op ed piece or a blog written by some highly partisen author. You might actually figure out what's going on.

(Jeez, my reply was as long as something by tw Good luck to anyone who tries to wade thru it!)[/quote]

[DanaC]

Not that she has, but I have no problem seeing a little worker flag waving. There's been plenty of right-wing, anti-poor flagwaving on this board.

You're always the first to throw out the 'class warfare' accusation Merc, but you appear to be an active fighter in that war.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Because Perry calls it a "Ponzi scheme" does not mean squat.

Ah, but it does when he is running for President.

Obama is the one who is repeating at every stop how the Republickins are going after Social Security. It's horseshit.

Yet the R's ARE going after SS and there is little reason to do so. What the R's need to do is look at the military spending. Something they will never do because 99% of them are in bed with, owned or profit from the companies which benefit from it.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Not that she has, but I have no problem seeing a little worker flag waving. There's been plenty of right-wing, anti-poor flagwaving on this board.

You're always the first to throw out the 'class warfare' accusation Merc, but you appear to be an active fighter in that war.

Liberals want to make this a class war, it does not need to be that. Obama has been waging a class war since the day he took office. I am an active fighter in the war against their class war...

[classicman]

Everything is on the table. They have all made this quite evident.

Bullshit - The R's have repeatedly stated No tax increases - PERIOD. I think I'm safe inferring that would mean that they are "off the table."

What military/defense/pentagon spending cuts have they proposed? What has pissed me off the most about the R's is that they have not balanced one fucking thing they want to take away from the bottom with anything at the top.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Because Perry calls it a "Ponzi scheme" does not mean squat. Obama is the one who is repeating at every stop how the Republickins are going after Social Security. It's horseshit.

They are.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Ah, but it does when he is running for President.

Yet the R's ARE going after SS and there is little reason to do so. What the R's need to do is look at the military spending. Something they will never do because 99% of them are in bed with, owned or profit from the companies which benefit from it.

To early to tell... There is no way anyone can tell who will be at the top. And in the end the the President does not dictate fiscal policy, Congress does that.

[TheMercenary]

Another rebuke of this Administrations performance over the last few years...

During the first hearing held by the special bipartisan panel, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf painted a picture of worsening conditions from just a few weeks ago, when his agency last issued an economic outlook.

"Particularly important given the current state of the economy, immediate spending cuts or tax increases would represent an added drag on the weak economic expansion," Elmendorf told the panel.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...78C40O20110913