Consequences, unintended (?), a Solution or foolish?

[g5000]

Just to refresh, the unnamed Republicans in the OP would slash mandatory funding.

Not just welfare. Mandatory funding.

Social Security, Medicare, etc. Things that are paid for with payroll taxes.

The OP gives zero details exactly how they would cut spending on those programs.

Reduce benefits? I can't go along with that.

Increase the eligibility age of Social Security and Medicare? I can go along with that. Definitely.

The devil is in the details.

Sounds like they want to cut food stamps, too. To me, that's heartless, especially since food stamps and every welfare program you can name are dwarfed by tax expenditures, which are the greatest scam ever pulled on the American people.

 

[whitehall]

Democrats voted for the freaking debit ceiling just like republicans. Why do democrats think the freaking law should be changed every time they run for office and why are republicans always blamed? Double standard.

 

[Conservative65]

Looks good to me. The plan gives you 1.5 trillion to waste while you figure out how to cut 1/4 of that each year.

As a callous conservative I'm sure it does look good to you, of course that goes without thinking of the unintended (or maybe they are intended) impact on the aged, the infirm and all those babies not aborted.

Aren't those just more chances for you bleeding heart to prove your compassion? They are but we know you won't do with your own money what you say needs to be done. When are you fools going to realize that the government isn't needed for you to provide what you say needs to be provided to anyone you deem worthy. All you have to do is get together and pool your money. That you use the government is by choice not by necessity. It can be done without the government if you really want to do it. That's why I say you don't because you won't.

 

[Ernie S.]

Looks good to me. The plan gives you 1.5 trillion to waste while you figure out how to cut 1/4 of that each year.

As a callous conservative I'm sure it does look good to you, of course that goes without thinking of the unintended (or maybe they are intended) impact on the aged, the infirm and all those babies not aborted.

Let's see... medicare 380 billion a year food and housing 800 billion, healthcare 1 trillion... I'm sure we can find other place we can cut.

And what might be the consequences and costs associated with such a policy?

How about the Tea Party members of Congress reduce their salary by 50% and reject the benefits they now receive, then they can talk honestly about cutting entitlements.

How about you send in money to pay what you think the government should do. I'll send them money to do what they are authorized to do.

It doesn't work that way. Nice try, but echoing the same shit others like you have posted previously doesn't earn you points, it simply puts you firmly situated in the echo chamber.

So... you refuse to put your money where your mouth is and somehow, that's my fault. Gotcha.

Thanks for the clarification. All those years you spent drooling over donuts and scratching the gray stuff off lottery tickets, paid off.

 

[Conservative65]

Just to refresh, the unnamed Republicans in the OP would slash mandatory funding.

Not just welfare. Mandatory funding.

Social Security, Medicare, etc. Things that are paid for with payroll taxes.

The OP gives zero details exactly how they would cut spending on those programs.

Reduce benefits? I can't go along with that.

Increase the eligibility age of Social Security and Medicare? I can go along with that. Definitely.

The devil is in the details.

Sounds like they want to cut food stamps, too. To me, that's heartless, especially since food stamps and every welfare program you can name are dwarfed by tax expenditures, which are the greatest scam ever pulled on the American people.

Then make SS optional for those who want to opt out.

Why shouldn't food stamps be cut? Why should someone who doesn't contribute to the pot that funds it receive it. You fail to realize that those who fund it don't get it while those that don't fund it use it.

What's heartless is saying one person deserves another person's money then go about doing that by see how much you can get the government to tax the other guy. If you see someone without food, buy it for them. Don't demand someone you think has too much money be forced to do it.

 

[Conservative65]

As a callous conservative I'm sure it does look good to you, of course that goes without thinking of the unintended (or maybe they are intended) impact on the aged, the infirm and all those babies not aborted.

Let's see... medicare 380 billion a year food and housing 800 billion, healthcare 1 trillion... I'm sure we can find other place we can cut.

And what might be the consequences and costs associated with such a policy?

How about the Tea Party members of Congress reduce their salary by 50% and reject the benefits they now receive, then they can talk honestly about cutting entitlements.

How about you send in money to pay what you think the government should do. I'll send them money to do what they are authorized to do.

It doesn't work that way. Nice try, but echoing the same shit others like you have posted previously doesn't earn you points, it simply puts you firmly situated in the echo chamber.

So... you refuse to put your money where your mouth is and somehow, that's my fault. Gotcha.

Thanks for the clarification. All those years you spent drooling over donuts and scratching the gray stuff off lottery tickets, paid off.

That's exactly how bleeding hearts do it. They come up with all sorts of ideas how people should be helped then go about seeing how much they can get the government to force someone else to pay for it. The government is not needed to do that. All they have to do is get together and pool their own money. That they use government is a choice not a necessity.