Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...wsky-gop-goal-remains-cutting-social-security

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) maintained Thursday that the GOP’s ultimate goal is to slash and privatize Social Security, despite reports that House Republicans' 2012 budget resolution will not back specific cuts to the program.

Sources on Wednesday provided The Hill with details of the resolution being crafted by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), due out next week. Instead of cutting Social Security, they said, the resolution would set up triggers to force program trustees to take some actions to shore up the program in the future.

Ryan personally has favored optional personal accounts for some Social Security recipients as well as eventually raising the retirement age, among other reforms.

Schakowsky, liberal advocates’ point person on the program, said if triggers are in the resolution, that's a signal to conservatives that privatization will come later.


“I think it would be hard for Cantor and Ryan to deny that they aren’t planning to cut Social Security in order to satisfy their base,” she said, referring to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.). “I think this was clearly a signal sent to [the base], that we are not going to leave Social Security unscathed.”

Schakowsky continued to press a liberal attack on comments Cantor made this week that Social Security “cannot exist” in the future. Cantor’s office has said he misspoke.

Asked about this, Schakowsky said “it might be some sort of Freudian slip where Cantor revealed what he really thinks.”

“People are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts," Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring said. "With all due respect, what the congresswoman is saying is simply untrue — Eric has made clear for months that he is committed to ensuring the long-term viability of these programs by addressing their solvency issues now."

“What's indisputable is that doing nothing — which seems to be the position of the president, his party's leaders, and Congresswoman Schakowsky — will ensure these programs remain on a path to bankruptcy, resulting in a debt-fueled economic crisis," he added. "We should be able to debate different solutions for preserving Social Security and Medicare for future generations based on intellectual honesty, not demagoguery and fear campaigns. If the congresswoman and Democrats wants to hold press events about linguistics or syntax, that’s her prerogative, but outside of Washington, Americans want to hear the truth about our fiscal situation and what their elected leaders are doing about it."

Dayspring also pointed to another Cantor statement that clarifies that he does think changes to entitlements need to be made.

“Republicans in the House are going to look to the budget coming out of Paul Ryan's Budget Committee that will deal with entitlements. We're going to put it out there,” Cantor said.

“We're going to say we're protecting today's seniors and those nearing retirement. But for those of us 54 and under, we're going to insist to go and deal with the fact that if these programs are going to be around, they're going to have to look a lot different. That's the plain and simple fact of it,” he added.
---------------------------




Soo much for all the tea party voters cryin "Dont touch my Medicare/Social Security, Go back to Kenya you socialist black bastard!"

:laughing:


Backpedal.......:laughing:


"As Republicans and conservatives have scrambled to rally the support of the Tea Party movement, many have failed to take notice of some of the important inconsistencies implicit in the Tea Party message. A recent New York Times/CBS poll reveals some interesting information about the movement and its fundamental “principles.”

According to this poll, 91% of Tea Partiers want a smaller government with fewer services. Despite this hostility to big government, 62% of Tea Partiers believe that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are worth the cost (apparently no one bothered to tell them that Social Security and Medicare are evil Godless socialist programs). This would suggest that in order to achieve fiscal sanity the Tea Party believes that spending cuts are to be implemented elsewhere within the vast expenditures of the federal apparatus. However when one examines their beliefs on paying down the debt, the result is somewhat troubling. When asked whether they preferred deficit reduction or tax cuts, 49% of Tea Partiers said they would favor tax reduction while 42% would prefer deficit reduction.

So, tax cuts are preferred to debt reduction, and social security and Medicare are well worth the cost. This sounds less like a movement of mature fiscal hawks and more like one of whiny adolescents (who actually happen to be middle-aged) who want their current taxes lower and their future benefits higher. They are only concerned with fighting government spending that benefits other people and are desperately seeking to save their own precious benefits. They think the costs are well worth it and they have no intention of shouldering the burden themselves. These costs will be incurred by future generations whose taxes will be higher and whose benefits will be lower or nonexistent."


Ouch.....:laughing:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011...s-do-not-support-cutting-social-security.html

Even Tea Party Members Do Not Support Cutting Social Security

"It seems that the efforts of the austerians to cow the public into cutting Social Security and Medicare are not getting traction. And Tea Party adherents are breaking with the Republican party line on this issue.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Less than a quarter of Americans support trimming Social Security or Medicare to tackle the country’s budget deficit, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll that illustrates the challenge facing lawmakers seeking voter support for altering entitlement programs.

The poll, conducted between Feb. 24 and 28, found strong opposition for cuts to these entitlement programs across all age groups and ideologies. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared cuts to Social Security “unacceptable.”….

The survey also found a sharp uptick in desire for the government to do more “to help meet the needs of people.” Just over half of people in the survey backed more government involvement, the highest percentage since February 2009, just after President Barack Obama’s inauguration.

Hhm….Obama is moving to the right as the country is moving to the left. But, as Tom Ferguson first described in his book Golden Rule and has since become blindingly obvious, powerful investors dominate party politics. Thus unless the trend towards a positive view of government promoting social aims progresses, it won’t affect the state of play in the Beltway.

More on this topic..........."


and now, their party pontifs say...............:laughing:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/tea-party-leader-we-shoul_n_519970.html


Tea Party Leader: We Should Abolish Social Security


A Tea Party leader acknowledged she supports abolishing Social Security in an appearance this week on "Larry King Live."

St. Louis Tea Party co-founder Dana Loesch said she would "absolutely" eliminate the program, which has existed since 1935.

Talk show host and Libertarian leader, Wayne Allyn Root agreed: "At best I'd do away with it, because I can find a better way to spend and save my own $15,000."



:laughing:

Holy Backstabing, Batman! :laughing:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Moments before a conference call with reporters was scheduled to get underway on Tuesday morning, Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, apparently unaware that many of the reporters were already on the line, began to instruct his fellow senators on how to talk to reporters about the contentious budget process.

After thanking his colleagues — Barbara Boxer of California, Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — for doing the budget bidding for the Senate Democrats, who are facing off against the House Republicans over how to cut spending for the rest of the fiscal year, Mr. Schumer told them to portray John A. Boehner of Ohio, the speaker of the House, as painted into a box by the Tea Party, and to decry the spending cuts that he wants as extreme. “I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said. “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.”

A minute or two into the talking-points tutorial, though, someone apparently figured out that reporters were listening, and silence fell.

Then the conference call began in earnest, with the Democrats right on message.

“We are urging Mr. Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing,” said Ms. Boxer, urging the House to compromise on the scale of spending cuts and to drop proposed amendments that would deny federal financing for Planned Parenthood and for government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Carper continued with the theme, referring to some House Republicans’ “right-wing extremist friends.” Mr. Cardin decried Mr. Boehner’s giving into “extremes of his party.” Mr. Blumenthal closed by speaking of the “relatively small extreme group of ideologues” who are “an anchor” dragging down the budget negotiation process.

How news is made . . .

Update: Later in the day, Mr. Schumer’s spokesman, Brian Fallon, issued this statement about the senator’s remarks: “There’s nothing wrong with reporters overhearing him calling the House Republicans’ [position] extreme, because that’s what it is. He had just given a speech on the Senate floor saying the same thing. The sooner Speaker Boehner abandons the Tea Party’s extreme demands, the sooner there can be a bipartisan deal on the budget.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/on-a-senate-call-a-glimpse-of-marching-orders/
Here you go, little brother.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Here you go, little brother.
Your not getting it.


Prior to the 2010 district/state elections, republicans and tea party peep were complaining about Obama supposedly trying to use SS/MC cuts to fund obamacare, fund tarp, fund economic stimuls, fund unemployment, and/or balance the budget.


enter 2011.....now tea party electeds and pubs including Palin are all..."Entitlements Reform" aka cuts/tax increases to retirees...

or worse...

....Give your money to Banksters and hope they give it back to you for retirement without cuts and clause changes every month like insurance companies and bank credit card depts do.

:laughing:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
Is there an economist or politician anywhere who really thinks social security can go unchanged for the next few decades? Of course not. What this article really means is that only the GOP is made up of grown ups who are willing to wrestle with a very difficult problem. Is it any wonder we never get anything done when both parties will jump the other at the drop of a hat to score political points even though they are simply being realistic? I say this as a person nearing social security age. There Is no alternative to raising the eligibility age and eventually means testing benefits. If you think standing your ground and not giving an inch in doing something to keep SS from going under is the thing to do, you aren't being realistic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Your not getting it.
No -no, brother... you are not getting it. Remember the Sibelius double dip ? They actually are doing it. Obamacare does use SS and Medicare funds to offset the price of Obamacare. They were caught red-handed... it came right out of Sibelius's mouth.

Here's the part you do not get. We have always been for an overhaul of SS and med. The spin you on the left are attempting (again) is to try to scare those receiving the programs now... by stretching the truth. Extending the age for benefits... does not reduce coverage for those on SS and med.

Now, put all this information together, along with the article I posted above... and add two and two.

It's a leftism...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Is there an economist or politician anywhere who really thinks social security can go unchanged for the next few decades? Of course not. What this article really means is that only the GOP is made up of grown ups who are willing to wrestle with a very difficult problem. Is it any wonder we never get anything done when both parties will jump the other at the drop of a hat to score political points even though they are simply being realistic? I say this as a person nearing social security age. There Is no alternative to raising the eligibility age and eventually means testing benefits. If you think standing your ground and not giving an inch in doing something to keep SS from going under is the thing to do, you aren't being realistic.
I fully agree, but that's not how the mantra went for angry tea party voters cira 2009 and previous.
Or the GOP.

They were duped.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
No -no, brother... you are not getting it. Remember the Sibelius double dip ? They actually are doing it. Obamacare does use SS and Medicare funds to offset the price of Obamacare. They were caught red-handed... it came right out of Sibelius's mouth.
yep...


and then the outrage from the tea party.......:thumbsup:

Thanks for proving my point.:thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
What point ? What are you talking about ?
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top