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

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



Message


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

This post has nothing to with Australia... Spend some real time in the US, in fact, spend it doing charity work in blighted areas and you will see what I mean. There is certainly class of politically entitled scumbag here, I cannot speak to situations abroad....and this goes for corporate welfare recipients too....

Lucy,

I went ahead and read this...: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ I don't think many people on earth would disagree with 99% of what it says. But, be careful what you wish for, if everyone followed this to the letter, ever nation would have to become a right-to-work state and there would even be some good arguements preventing the taxation of many things in it. The Jury system could be dismantled. We would not have true freedom of speech anymore. Lots of contrdictory leftwing principles in there.




Lucylastic -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 3:58:07 PM)

that must be why the US has never ratified it, too many humanist ethics, not enough republican ideas
FOR A REASON




MileHighM -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 3:59:52 PM)

Some actually contradict the rights laid out in the constitution. Some of which, our constitution is more liberal..
Are you even going to address the contradictory statements within?




tweakabelle -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 4:00:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

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

Lucy you are far too kind and generous! "A pointless guess" could be giving MileHigh's claim far more credit than it actually deserves.

At first glance it looks like an unthinking repetition of vicious false claim manufactured from thin air by opponents of SS. A bigoted assault on a section of the community that is unable to defend itself. Pure mindless malicious prejudice.

I hope that MileHigh has better reasons than these for making this claim. By asking him to produce the evidence, he has been given an opportunity to demonstrate his motives are more worthy. However, unless MileHigh can produce some authoritative evidence to support his claims, (or withdraws them with an apology to those he maligned) that's the status his claims will retain.




MileHighM -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 4:06:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

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

Lucy you are far too kind and generous! "A pointless guess" could be giving this claim far more credit than it actually deserves.

At first glance it looks like an unthinking repetition of vicious false claim manufactured from thin air by opponents of SS. A bigoted assault on a section of the community that is unable to defend itself. Pure mindless malicious prejudice.

I hope that MileHigh has better reasons than these for making this claim. By asking him to produce the evidence, he has been given an opportunity to demonstrate his motives are more worthy. However, unless MileHigh can produce some authoritative evidence to support his claims, (or withdraws them with an apology to those he maligned) that's the status his claims will retain in my mind.



Wasn't talking about SS, that is something, in general, paid for by everyone and paid to everyone. That wholearguement I was making was about the general liberal attachment to social welfare programs....part of which you won't even address, what is a fair set of guidlines limiting the system, and at what point is a person personally responsible for themselves? Give me your honest opinion

And who would I be Maligning with that statement? The scum that cheat a system intended on helping deserving people? I offer them no appology.




tweakabelle -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 4:21:57 PM)

quote:

This post has nothing to with Australia... Spend some real time in the US, in fact, spend it doing charity work in blighted areas and you will see what I mean. There is certainly class of politically entitled scumbag here, I cannot speak to situations abroad....and this goes for corporate welfare recipients too....


You were asked to produce evidence to support this claim:
" 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." (post #36)

The above is your response. In other words, you are unable to produce even the flimsiest scrap of evidence. You couldn't even produce an anecdote to support your wild claims.

That pathetic reference to geography is laughable. Opponents of SS make exactly the same bigoted claims here - also wholly without evidence. Posters from the UK will probably confirm that the same claims are probably made there too.

Your claims are false. The are mythical. They have no basis in fact. They have never been verified by any credible research anywhere. Every piece of research I have seen demonstrates the opposite of your claims. Go and do some research and find out the facts for yourself. You are obviously unfamiliar with them.

Your claims are an expression of hate and bigotry against a section of the community that generally is unable to defend itself. Dressing your hate up in the language of religion maximises the sickening hypocrisy. Since when did Christianity consist of stomping on the defenceless, of inciting hate against the unfortunate?

Hate, greed, ignorance and falsehood underwrite your position.




rulemylife -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 4:26:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM


While I disagree with the Right wing position that SS should be eliminated, I agree that it is in trouble and is a major underfunded liability for the US. We are going to have tinker with it some how. Personally I feel the retirement age needs to start being jacked up and place a freeze on benefit increases for awhile. Furthermore, why not let people keep working at full time and pay while on SS (limited SS benefits) with no penalties down the road. At least they are still paying into the system as well. Also, the government needs to account for all of the money that should be in the trust fund and count it as its liability and debt. Keep an accurate accounting of whats owed. Finally, we will likely need to raise SS taxes in some way shape or form. One at the basic end by hiking the rates, and on the other by qualifying more of upper income made for SS taxes.


It is in trouble because we have misplaced priorities.

We have a bloated military budget that has been made worse by our useless involvement in Iraq.

Like the billions of dollars that disappeared there with no accountability.




MileHighM -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 4:57:10 PM)

Again I am not referring to SS... Hate? I hate cheaters, not the needy---stay on point. Take religion out, I do not state that I am religious, you are making your own assumption here.




tweakabelle -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/30/2011 5:18:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

Again I am not referring to SS... Hate? I hate cheaters, not the needy---stay on point. Take religion out, I do not state that I am religious, you are making your own assumption here.


The claim of yours that is so vile and contemptible is this:
" 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." (post #36)

It is still totally unsupported, still totally false, totally mythical. And you are still standing by this obvious lie. It's your "guarantee", no less (there may be varying assessments of what your guarantee is worth). Claims such as this are routinely used to attack the SS system by politically motivated ignorant people. Are you asking us to believe that it's purely a co-incidence that your false claims and the false claims of those who want to dismantle SS are exact copies of each other?

As for your what's left of your credibility, I note you're now claiming you're not coming from a religious perspective. Yet in post #36 you wrote:
"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)" post # 36

Can you lie straight in bed? I'm far from convinced.




MileHighM -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/31/2011 9:36:16 AM)

You know what your problem is...You don't read or comprehend what you are reading. I will not argue your obfuscations, let me reiterate my orignal points. Read the thread and who I was respnding to. FD was making making a religious arguement. I was refuting on religious grounds. I am learned, I have read the Bible, but that doesn't make me a christian. I have read the Koran, but that doesn't make me a muslim. Get it? What you omit in your exerpt is where I round it off saying you shouldn't make religious arguments in favor of social programs. They are akin to a imposition of personal faith, and a violation of anyone's freedom of religious practices....So, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Back to SS again....HOW MANY TIMES MUST I SAY THAT ARGUEMENT WAS NOT!!! IN REFERENCE TO SOCIAL SECURITY!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't even remember the last time anyone someone has said that SS needs to be eliminated because it was an unnecessary program supporting leaches (if Sanity or Lockedaway made such arguements, that doesn't count). Any arguemnts I have seen against it are predicated on the failed management of funds and the financial disarray that it is in. If you read earlier in the thread I talked about how we should reform it, not get rid of it. I have paid into SS for years, I hope to collect it one day when I retire (If we don't reform it, I doubt I will because that is many years off).

Now, if you would read that post over again, the whole post, putting it all in context, DO I CALL FOR THE ELIMINATION OF SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS? NO!!!!!! What I don't understad is how you are hell bent on defending people who would cheat a system designed to help people???!!!???!!! They are taking away resources from deserved people.

Examples of fraudsters and the problems with the system:

Man who sells drugs, yet collects welfare check: The problem is, as stated in the article, if convicted, he will only be suspend from recieving benefits for one year. If he is a cheat that defrauded the system, why shouldn't he be restricted for a real long time if not forever?
http://poststar.com/news/local/article_3be6872e-0b69-11df-8d52-001cc4c002e0.html

Welfare fraudsters who were making so much money they could afford porches and shit.
http://www.projo.com/news/content/welfare_suspects_07-13-07_5H6BUC4.33a7da9.html

This is a lovely one, a drug dealer is accepting the food stamps and welfare payments as currency for drugs
http://articles.courant.com/1994-11-02/news/9411210752_1_welfare-checks-drug-sales-drug-trade

Article discussing fraud around the Pittsburg area. The District attorney makes a good point, “A lot of people in the community need help and the fact that these guys are buying dope with this money and somebody else is not feeding a family, it’s just wrong on so many different levels.”
http://www.wpxi.com/news/26836113/detail.html


The right is wrong to assume social welfare programs have no place in society and don't provide any benefit to those who pay into the system (the taxpayer). However, why can't anyone from the left have an honest discussion about reform and proper management of such aid? As soon as anyone brings up a reform arguement, you use words like ignorant, bigot, and hate, and then you assume that since we are talking about reform, that means we wish to do away with it. What if reform also meant increasing benefits to the deserving? You ever think about that??





willbeurdaddy -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/31/2011 9:58:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

However, why can't anyone from the left have an honest discussion about reform and proper management of such aid? As soon as anyone brings up a reform arguement, you use words like ignorant, bigot, and hate, and then you assume that since we are talking about reform, that means we wish to do away with it.


Because all they care about is scoring cheap idealogical points. Look at the subject line...attempts to keep SS solvent are somehow "attacks". Politically brave attempts at saving Medicare engender videos of grandma being pushed over a cliff, while at the same time they argue that the GOP is only interested in self serving political agendas.

Don't ever expect honest discussion with the bumper sticker mentality and intellectual vacuum attempting to suck the air from North America to the South Pacific.




MileHighM -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/31/2011 10:17:25 AM)

I just don't feel it necessary to get into a sloganeering campaign. I want to hold her feet to the fire.




Lucylastic -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/31/2011 10:37:33 AM)

you cant hold her feet to the fire, you dont have the figures or the facts behind you.
name one person who has called for reform, that didnt include cuts to any benefit?
how many cuts have been made to benefit recipients since the republicans got back into congress
how many benefit recipients have gotton an increase thru republican bills since november
You dont get to ask questions without answering some...where are all the fraud figures
not suppositions or single cases of fraud ...




MsKatxxx -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/31/2011 10:41:41 AM)

I find the Republican stance on Social Security entirely reprehensible.

They fomented a war where none was necessary and blew more money than would keep SS solvent for the next 20 years. (IRAQ)

The attack on Social Security is just misdirection. Anyone forget about the destruction of habeus corpus ?

Dick Cheney's waterboarding techniques? (which violate international law)

To call oneself a republican who supported any of this era is tantamount to an admission of conspiracy to murder and torture.




MileHighM -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/31/2011 11:25:01 AM)

Listen, if you knew the actual rate of fraud, that would mean that you are in control of it. Nearly every discussion that comes up with regard to system fraud leads to the same excuse being made by the state agencies in charge. They nealy always complain that they are understaffed and cannot adequately monitor their cases on an individual basis. This is bad, because there isn't a quantifiable or accurate understanding of how bad the problem is or isn't. However, any underegulated program is rife with fraud because it attracts the greedy and so forth (isn't that the same arguement you make against greedy underregulated capitalists?).


quote:

name one person who has called for reform, that didnt include cuts to any benefit?


Irrelevant, I am not even going to look into it, because it doesn't preclude you from be open to any discussion of reform. You are acting like a teabagger with statements like that. Can't raise taxes, no way, then refuses to discuss how the gov't can pay its debts. If the system were perfect the issues with poverty would be solved, therefore, it is always open to reform arguements.

quote:

how many cuts have been made to benefit recipients since the republicans got back into congress
how many benefit recipients have gotton an increase thru republican bills since november


Well, none. Congress hasn't done shit on the front of Welfare in the past year (I think at most there is one being kicked around in some committee). The actual cuts in welfare have been at the state level, and can be attributed to democrats and republicans. Notably, California (Dem gov, dem legislature), has been slashing the time one can be on welfare. The state has a very high tax rate and yet major budget deficits. State wide deficits and requirements that they balance their budgets are the driving force for welfare benefit cuts, not political agendas.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/31/2011 11:58:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

I just don't feel it necessary to get into a sloganeering campaign. I want to hold her feet to the fire.


Wear Ove gloves over the medical ones. [:D]




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/31/2011 12:01:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsKatxxx

I find the Republican stance on Social Security entirely reprehensible.

They fomented a war where none was necessary and blew more money than would keep SS solvent for the next 20 years. (IRAQ)

The attack on Social Security is just misdirection. Anyone forget about the destruction of habeus corpus ?

Dick Cheney's waterboarding techniques? (which violate international law)

To call oneself a republican who supported any of this era is tantamount to an admission of conspiracy to murder and torture.


Why dont you tell us what you think the "Republican stance" is and why its reprehensible? And dont raise bullshit issues like Iraq that havent the slightest fucking thing to do with SS. It just casts you as an idealogue who isnt interested in SS at all.

And whether waterboarding violates international law is the subject of legal debates from people far more experienced than you or I. For anyone on an internet forum to declare that it does or doesnt is ridiculous. You can be fucking sure that if it clearly did Oblahblah's puppet in justice would find a way to prosecute.




farglebargle -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/31/2011 12:12:26 PM)

Social Security is solvent, and is "Pay as you go" with a good surplus. What's the argument about?




Lucylastic -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/31/2011 12:20:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

Listen, if you knew the actual rate of fraud, that would mean that you are in control of it. Nearly every discussion that comes up with regard to system fraud leads to the same excuse being made by the state agencies in charge. They nealy always complain that they are understaffed and cannot adequately monitor their cases on an individual basis. That is because they ARE desperately understaffed..Have you ever worked with a social agency?? I mean, on the front lines day in and day out not just read an article or ten or here say ??
You dont want to pay money for bigger government, you dont want to pay decent wages to people working for social agencies, but you demand they HAVE to perform on cracking fraud numbers

This is bad, because there isn't a quantifiable or accurate understanding of how bad the problem is or isn't.
So you admit, your "guess" about fraud is just that, an ill informed guess
However, any underegulated program is rife with fraud because it attracts the greedy and so forth (isn't that the same arguement you make against greedy underregulated capitalists?). the financial amounts and corruption are far larger in scope and depth. Plus have you ever seen the paperwork required for "unregulated social programs?"


quote:

name one person who has called for reform, that didnt include cuts to any benefit?


Irrelevant, I am not even going to look into it, because it doesn't preclude you from be open to any discussion of reform. You are acting like a teabagger with statements like that.
Belive me I am no bagger.... I would feel insulted, but Ive been insulted by much smarter than you. mhm there goes any chance of reform then I guess because YOU
dont want to discuss it..why? its irrelevent??????...not to me it isnt.
Why are only YOUR points worth discussing?? its certainly not because they are any more important or true than mine.

Can't raise taxes, no way, Raise taxes on those who can afford them, those who rode the backs of the workers that they threw out of their jobs as soon as they need to make more money, creating the unemployed and unemployable
then refuses to discuss how the gov't can pay its debts. If the system were perfect the issues with poverty would be solved, therefore, it is always open to reform arguements.
No country has perfected the art of getting rid of poverty, when you blame the wrong people, you will never find the answer

quote:

how many cuts have been made to benefit recipients since the republicans got back into congress
how many benefit recipients have gotton an increase thru republican bills since november


Well, none. Congress hasn't done shit on the front of Welfare in the past year (I think at most there is one being kicked around in some committee).
What about the coming cuts to benefit recipients, how many millions in budget cuts, how many food programs have been cut, how many millions were up for ransom at the deadline clusterfuck? The actual cuts in welfare have been at the state level, and can be attributed to democrats and republicans. IM not disputing that, but how many womens health programs have been cut by dems...compared to republicans?wqould you like to say anything about the cuts to the poor , women and families affected by the attempts to shut down planned parenthood?

Notably, California (Dem gov, dem legislature), has been slashing the time one can be on welfare. The state has a very high tax rate and yet major budget deficits. State wide deficits and requirements that they balance their budgets are the driving force for welfare benefit cuts, not political agendas.

please read the below comments from the CBO
An Update on State Budget Cuts At Least 46 States Have Imposed Cuts That Hurt Vulnerable Residents and the Economy

The cuts enacted in at least 46 states plus the District of Columbia since 2008 have occurred in all major areas of state services, including health care (31 states), services to the elderly and disabled (29 states and the District of Columbia), K-12 education (34 states and the District of Columbia), higher education (43 states), and other areas.
States made these cuts because revenues from income taxes, sales taxes, and other revenue sources used to pay for these services declined due to the recession. At the same time, the need for these services did not decline and, in fact, rose as the number of families facing economic difficulties increased.

These budget pressures have not abated. Because unemployment rates remain high — and are projected to stay high well into next year — revenues are likely to remain at or near their current depressed levels. This has caused a new round of cuts. Based on gloomy revenue projections, legislatures and governors have enacted budgets for the 2011 fiscal year (which began on July 1, 2010 in most states). In many states these budgets contain cuts that go even further than those enacted over the past two fiscal years.
Cuts to state services not only harm vulnerable residents but also worsen the recession — and dampen the recovery — by reducing overall economic activity. When states cut spending, they lay off employees, cancel contracts with vendors, reduce payments to businesses and nonprofits that provide services, and cut benefit payments to individuals. All of these steps remove demand from the economy. For instance, at least 44 states and the District of Columbia have reduced overall wages paid to state workers by laying off workers, requiring them to take unpaid leave (furloughs), freezing new hires, or similar actions. State and local governments have eliminated over 400,000 jobs since August 2008, federal data show. Such measures are reducing not only the level and quality of services available to state residents but also the purchasing power of workers’ families, which in turn affects local businesses and slows recovery.

rape and pillage isnt any better because both sides do it..its a bloody disgrace.
Now explain to me again why, what I feel, is irrelevant?




MileHighM -> RE: Tryng to understand the Right's attacks on Social Security (8/31/2011 12:39:30 PM)

Solvent? Denial is frightening. It wasn't supposed to be pay as you go. The government was supposed to save your tax dollars till you retired. If it is truely a pay as you go program, than it truely is a massive Ponzi scheme. Such a program would be illegal in the private sector. I talk about reform because we need to build the trust fund up where it needs to be and run the actuarial tables out to ensure that benefit is sustainable.

If SS benefits are inadequate, there really is only one way to solve that... Raise SS withholdings, aka raise taxes. Problem is the average taxpayer wants greater benefits without a tax hike. A bit of a paradox. As far as that surplus is concerned, it is a phantom surplus. It is all in government bonds. In otherwords, congress bought off their debt with our retirement funds. It is slippery accounting, they spent the money on non-SS related things, then claimed that expenditure an investment. It would be no different if you emptied out the IRA to pay mastercard off, then claimed you loaned the money to yourself...Guess what?, the IRS would still want taxes on that money, and the wouldn't let you claim the money was still in your IRA.




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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.054688E-02