RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (Full Version)

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



Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/29/2011 4:49:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Which is why you may notice... or not... that I have not responded to the OP.

I find it inflammatory and I believe he is looking for a fight. Not something I wish to get into.

Personally, I think politics have gone far beyond the "right vs left" nonsense and moved into the "haves and have-nots" realm.


Almost correct, its in the realm of the "may haves" and "the no chance in hell to haves"


There are no "may haves" willbe.  And you are thankful everyday you are not in either group you proposed.



wrong. "may haves" are plentiful, and include some of the current "haves"



tazzygirl -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/29/2011 6:14:11 PM)

rofl

what the fuck is a may have, willbe? someone who is afraid to admit what they do have?



servantforuse -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/29/2011 6:26:07 PM)

Most conservatives, including myself do not want to do away with SS. We just want some changes to make sure it doesn't go broke in the next 10 years or so. This retired union member conservative will start collecting $1700.00 a month in 2 years. Does anyone with a sane mind think I want that fund out of cash ??



tazzygirl -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/29/2011 8:17:31 PM)

If you were one of the "haves" you wouldnt care.



erieangel -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/29/2011 8:36:04 PM)

The only way to really, and I mean really, protect social security would be to do a few things:

1. Raise the retirement age, but only in those industries where a raise would be plausible. I don't see 70 year old miners as a plausibility. And how many waiters/waitresses are going to keep their jobs at that age? Really. But many office workers, especially executives, work well into their 80s even today.

2. Do away with the income cap on social security taxes, at the very least raise it, say to half a million, or even a million.

3. Let the payroll tax cut expire. It was a stupid tax cut anyway which will only hurt the solvency of social security in the long run. (I'd pay about $100 more if the cut were to expire at the end of this year, and I've benefited greatly having that $100 a month to spend or save for home repairs, but I'm thinking long term. Those in favor of tax cuts, to me, think only to the short term).

4. Means test benefits.



tj444 -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/29/2011 8:40:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Most conservatives, including myself do not want to do away with SS. We just want some changes to make sure it doesn't go broke in the next 10 years or so. This retired union member conservative will start collecting $1700.00 a month in 2 years. Does anyone with a sane mind think I want that fund out of cash ??

sooo... its ok then if it goes broke in 15 or 20 years when you are 6 feet under and dont need it anymore?... its ok that the changes cost more to young people that pay into it for years and in all likelyhood wont see much or any SS when they need it?.. uh huh... [>:]

I guess your union didnt do all that much for ya (despite all the union rah rah rhetoric)... [8|]



kdsub -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/29/2011 8:57:06 PM)

quote:

Time and again - whether arguing over a place in line, a promotion we never got, or which car hit which - we are shocked at the blindness of people who dare suggest that our outrage isn't warranted.


Firm I think you are too jaded in your stance. I'll bet...even thought most will not admit it... that once the heat of battle subsides rational points made in opposition to their hard held views will sink in and change their way of thinking.

Butch



Fightdirecto -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 12:00:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM
Hmmm.... Maybe I am the slow child here and haven't noticed any similar posts....

Ever notice something about FightDirecto.. He starts a thread, usually partisan hackish, sometimes not, but controversial none the less. Then, he almost never adds to it. He never defends his OP, he just likes to kick the hornet's nest so to speak. Even the most maniacal whack jobs on here rarely resort to drive-by argumentation.

I think it is time to just start the ignoring campaign, or at least keep responses to calling him a Troll.

As much fun as some of these discussions become, if I see FD as the thread starter, from now on, I think I am going to have to just look away.

Gonna have to post this on another thread or two as well.

MileHigh, you have to give FightD a LOT of slack, he's a "progressive" ,...from Massachusetts.
If he was old enough he would have voted for Eugene McCarthy.
I think this next election is going to be another "Eugene McCarthy election."
And if you're a ....."progressive"... how can you defend your positions?

Actually, I have been "on the road" because of my profession (I have been working as a professional jazz musician since retiring from the film & TV business - 25+ years as a stuntman and my body told me to "Quit!") and haven't had access to a computer until today.

But, yes, sometimes I do start a discussion just for the sake of starting a discussion - because I enjoy discussions and idea exchange.

And, popeye1250, I AM old enough to have voted for Eugene McCarthy - but I didn't because I thought he was too far to the Left even for me.

Lastly, I will admit that my progressive positions are based on (a) being raised in a Christian home during the "social gospel" period of the 1960's. My father was an American Baptist Convention minister and was very involved in the Civil Rights movement, and he exerted a strong positive influence on me (b) having a maternal grandmother who left the Republicans after 1964 because the Republicans, in her opinion, were too liberal. She joined the John Birch Society and, if she had lived long enough, she probably would have been active in the Militia movement during the Clinton Administration. We did find out, after her death, that she had made financial contributions to the KKK. I never want to be anything like her or her ilk.

Much of the philosophy I try to live my life by comes from two statements:
The Holy Bible, Book of Mark, Chapter 12, Verse 31:
quote:

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than this.

And the Holy Bible, Book of Matthew, Chapter 25, Verse 40:
quote:

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

That is the basis of my life-long progressivism - and the basis of my life-long opposition to modern day Social Darwinist American conservatism.



Fightdirecto -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 12:02:57 PM)

An insightful cartoon about today's Social Darwinist American Conservatives:



Fightdirecto -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 12:08:13 PM)

Sorry - having problem downloading it.

The theme is that the Religious Right Conservatives voted God "President For Life of the United States Of America"

But when God starts talking about "Feed the poor", "heal the sick", "all men are brothers" - the Religious Right Conservatives call for His impeachment, claiming He's a progressive and a socialist.



popeye1250 -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 12:35:04 PM)

Fight, those two verses from the bible are very flawed and are used by the supporters of illegal aliens all the time to try to garner sympathy for illegal aliens.
I'm from Massachusetts too and for years I told people I was from "New Hampshire" because of that,...."progressive"...Ted Kennedy.
That word "progressive" was coined to try to hide something else!
I think Hillary Clinton came up with it.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 12:44:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

rofl

what the fuck is a may have, willbe? someone who is afraid to admit what they do have?


someone who is a "have" and knows how/is willing to work to keep it, and someone who is a "have not" but is willing to actually work to become a "have", even though there is no guarantee of success..



Sanity -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 2:18:01 PM)


Do you honestly believe that a loving god would really want us to enslave some so that others could be lazy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

Sorry - having problem downloading it.

The theme is that the Religious Right Conservatives voted God "President For Life of the United States Of America"

But when God starts talking about "Feed the poor", "heal the sick", "all men are brothers" - the Religious Right Conservatives call for His impeachment, claiming He's a progressive and a socialist.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 2:44:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Do you honestly believe that a loving god would really want us to enslave some so that others could be lazy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

Sorry - having problem downloading it.

The theme is that the Religious Right Conservatives voted God "President For Life of the United States Of America"

But when God starts talking about "Feed the poor", "heal the sick", "all men are brothers" - the Religious Right Conservatives call for His impeachment, claiming He's a progressive and a socialist.



Some just don't understand the difference between charity and coercion.



Lucylastic -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 2:52:54 PM)

thatsz the same reason I dont believe insurance companies belong any where near the part about "heal the sick".
Hows that for coercion.



MileHighM -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 3:12:52 PM)

It's the tip of the Roman spear arguement. Sure Jesus said those things, but he never would have agreed to people being forced to be charitable at the tip of a Roman spear. God suggests, not demands, that we are kind and charitable towards men. However, we have free will and have the option to be assholes (hell being the reward). And you have to watch the God arguements, because if that is premis behind your belief in social welfare, then you effectively imposing your theological standards on the population. You become as guilty as the Religious Right at imposing faith based values on the public.

I don't agree with social darwinist principles, but I don't think we are obligated to help everyone either. Some people will never deserve our help no matter how shitty their life becomes. It is like drunken or drugged out homeless people. I won't give them half a dime, they made their choice. However, if they are clearly mentally disturbed, physically handicapped, or will honestly 'work for food,' I am happy to help and/or give them some work in exchange for money/food.

The government doesn't make the distinction between need and want. They see voter and non-voter. They don't place real restrictions on who gets aid, nor do they distribute aid fairly. It is all about who bitches the loudest and promises to vote for you. That is the fundemental reason I feel social welfare is a waste in its current inception. I can guarantee you that for every person, who actually deserves aid and is not recieving it, there is some ungrateful whining sack on aid that pisses it away without bettering themselves. That is what I think most conservatives (at least moderate ones) have a problem with, and they want progressives to have an honest discussion about need, personal responsibility, and limits on the system.




Lucylastic -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 3:24:08 PM)

Im quite happy to go along with the non god version of the UN human rights
cutting off water and electricity to homeless people is the american way



tweakabelle -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 3:26:49 PM)

quote:

I can guarantee you that for every person, who actually deserves aid and is not recieving it, there is some ungrateful whining sack on aid that pisses it away without bettering themselves. That is what I think most conservatives (at least moderate ones) have a problem with, and they want progressives to have an honest discussion about need, personal responsibility, and limits on the system.


So you can "guarantee" this claim? I'm afraid I'm not convinced by your guarantee. I'd like to see the evidence. So if there is any evidence, I'd appreciate you citing it here so we can all evaluate it.

I have to add that I doubt very much if any such evidence (from credible sources of course) exists. I doubt if there's anything more substantial than selfishness or personal prejudice fuelling your claim.

So go ahead and prove my scepticism misplaced. Produce the evidence.




Lucylastic -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 3:29:40 PM)

I had to skip that part Tweak..hardly intellectually honest is it, a pointless guess actually.



tazzygirl -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 3:39:45 PM)

quote:

someone who is a "have" and knows how/is willing to work to keep it, and someone who is a "have not" but is willing to actually work to become a "have", even though there is no guarantee of success..


There are no "may haves" even by your own definition.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875