The GOP's "aversion" to responsibility

[kaz]

Okay..so for the 10+ years I've been collecting paychecks and getting taxed for Medicare and Social Security...that's all going to be for nothing?

It's like the rest of your taxes, you are paying for our loving, caring government. But you aren't saving anything, they are spending it *** and more *** as it comes in.

Will I be getting my return check for that (quite large) investment? It's not just people retired "right now" it's a constantly running program, people are still paying money into it and still joining in on getting benefits.

Yes, but what they are doing is ratcheting up "benefits." FDR started it as a supplement to income at an age that people had a short life expectancy. People live longer and longer and people are expecting it to be an actual retirement income, not it's original intent. And there are fewer and fewer workers per retiree.

Given that neither your parents nor you actually saved a dime of what you paid, it's unsustainable. I always consider it just another tax, which is what it is.

 

[Nyvin]

The government they made the "contract" with was them, not me. Government charged them taxes, then spent the money. That government was elected by them, not me.

Now they are coming to me and saying pay taxes and give it to us. And do the same to your children. It's not just ridiculous, it's immoral. People need to pay for their own government. Giving the bills to us, their children, is pathetic. So no, it's not a valid "contract." Their contract was with themselves, not me.

Okay..so for the 10+ years I've been collecting paychecks and getting taxed for Medicare and Social Security...that's all going to be for nothing? Will I be getting my return check for that (quite large) investment? It's not just people retired "right now" it's a constantly running program, people are still paying money into it and still joining in on getting benefits.

You really don't know how this thing works. The money people are paying in goes straight into a current SS recipients pocket. Before 1972, it went into a fund that was invested and did earn some money for future recipients. Not now!!! There are now more people drawing from SS than paying into it, and it's only going to get worse!!!

Yes. That doesn't change the fact people are still being taxed for benefits they won't see for decades. If you want to shutdown the system the first thing to do would be to stop taxing.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

I have no clue where you're getting this or where this is coming from...

I know you don't, you haven't said one thing that even comes close to reality, MORON. Some advice, Go learn how this shit really works and quit posting and exposing your stupidity.

Try to put together some quotes of mine showing me what I said validates what you're posting. I wasn't saying the debt is shrinking, if I did I already said it was a mix up of words

We all know you don't know what your talking about. now you want me to show you your posts that validate mine?? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, that's idiotic!!!

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Okay..so for the 10+ years I've been collecting paychecks and getting taxed for Medicare and Social Security...that's all going to be for nothing? Will I be getting my return check for that (quite large) investment? It's not just people retired "right now" it's a constantly running program, people are still paying money into it and still joining in on getting benefits.

You really don't know how this thing works. The money people are paying in goes straight into a current SS recipients pocket. Before 1972, it went into a fund that was invested and did earn some money for future recipients. Not now!!! There are now more people drawing from SS than paying into it, and it's only going to get worse!!!

Yes. That doesn't change the fact people are still being taxed for benefits they won't see for decades. If you want to shutdown the system the first thing to do would be to stop taxing.

if you're still 20 years or more from becoming eligible for SS benefits, in my opinion, you won't see a dime!!! If you're not planning for your own retirement, you're fooling yourself to think SS will be there to support you.

 

[RandallFlagg]

1) And the spending is still up compared to ANY TIME DURING PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS
2) Your assertions of deaths caused by the war are challenged and completely unfounded and unsubstantiated
3) You are still an idiot

Oh look.. I first came in and went in debt more to the tune of 1.4T instead of 800B... I now have a deficit of 900B... I CUT THE DEFECT!!!.. Not

ZCommunications | More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered since 2003 invasion by Orb | ZNet Article

1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003

The deficit is shrinking faster then anytime since ww2...there really isnt much more you can ask for.

A simple question for you, I dare you to answer it honestly.

If the Deficit/debt is shrinking, why must we request the debt ceiling be raised?

Thank You!


We continually raise the debt ceiling in order to maintain our "care" for the 47 MILLION Americans that are out of work, have given up looking and just don't care any longer.

Barry is fully aware that if the checks stop coming for these millions of people, it will look like a frankenstein movie where the villagers riot on the steps of the White House.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Why is it so hard to get Republicans, even just USMB Republicans to take responsibility for anything?

Iraq
the debt
The Bush Tax Cuts
The economic meltdown
The government shutdown
The votes for drugs bill
Cutting embassy security

How come they refuse to take responsibility for anything? They used reconciliation three times under Bush and now ask "for what?"

Can someone explain it?

Remember how they screamed "you are with us or with the terrorists" and now they say Democrats should have stopped us from going into Iraq.

Remember how the Bush Tax Cuts were going to be so good for the country and the extension even better? Now they blame Obama.

They quietly raised embassy security by two billion. Why? If it wasn't needed before Benghazi?

Remember when they said deregulation would create jobs? Instead we got a meltdown.

So which of these will the take responsibility for? None?

What did they use reconciliation on? Three times?

Forever blaming Democrats. But where do they take responsibility?

Because spoiled rich kids and wannabe preppies get a kick out of being irresponsible and getting away with it. It shows how special they are. Like a fish that gets caught and is then let go.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Simply pointing out that the deficit has exceeded $1 trillion a year lately, and that that is a really big number, isn't much of an economic argument. If you're worried about deficits, you need to say why." - Joe Scarborough, Paul Krugman and the economist-pundit divide on debt and deficits - The Washington Post

Barrack Obama: Bush took "out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic."

Context: before the economic meltdown/after tbe economic meltdown

Your peabrain having issues grasping nuance...

 

[Nyvin]

if you're still 20 years or more from becoming eligible for SS benefits, in my opinion, you won't see a dime!!! If you're not planning for your own retirement, you're fooling yourself to think SS will be there to support you.

This has nothing to do with shutting down Soc Sec...I'm not arguing in favor of Soc Sec, I'm saying politically...you cannot just shut it down.

 

[kaz]

"Simply pointing out that the deficit has exceeded $1 trillion a year lately, and that that is a really big number, isn't much of an economic argument. If you're worried about deficits, you need to say why." - Joe Scarborough, Paul Krugman and the economist-pundit divide on debt and deficits - The Washington Post

Barrack Obama: Bush took "out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic."

Context: before the economic meltdown/after tbe economic meltdown

Your peabrain having issues grasping nuance...

I get nuances just fine. It's liberal "nuances" I don't get. In liberalism, nuances are just obvious self serving spin. You know, like what you did here.

 

[jasonnfree]

Why is it so hard to get Republicans, even just USMB Republicans to take responsibility for anything?

Iraq
the debt
The Bush Tax Cuts
The economic meltdown
The government shutdown
The votes for drugs bill
Cutting embassy security

How come they refuse to take responsibility for anything? They used reconciliation three times under Bush and now ask "for what?"

Can someone explain it?

Remember how they screamed "you are with us or with the terrorists" and now they say Democrats should have stopped us from going into Iraq.

Remember how the Bush Tax Cuts were going to be so good for the country and the extension even better? Now they blame Obama.

They quietly raised embassy security by two billion. Why? If it wasn't needed before Benghazi?

Remember when they said deregulation would create jobs? Instead we got a meltdown.

So which of these will the take responsibility for? None?

What did they use reconciliation on? Three times?

Forever blaming Democrats. But where do they take responsibility?

Don't forget their spiritual leader and guiding light Boehner is a drunk. Maybe Obama should publicly ask him to take a sobriety test since he could endanger the world's economy with his actions.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

well, if it's good enough for Obama, why not everyone in the country

I'm just surprised this isn't Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh fault...

lol, oh boy

Some of it is Bush's fault

Lol. Of course it is.

 

[jasonnfree]

1) And the spending is still up compared to ANY TIME DURING PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS
2) Your assertions of deaths caused by the war are challenged and completely unfounded and unsubstantiated
3) You are still an idiot

Oh look.. I first came in and went in debt more to the tune of 1.4T instead of 800B... I now have a deficit of 900B... I CUT THE DEFECT!!!.. Not

ZCommunications | More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered since 2003 invasion by Orb | ZNet Article

1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003

The deficit is shrinking faster then anytime since ww2...there really isnt much more you can ask for.

A simple question for you, I dare you to answer it honestly.

If the Deficit/debt is shrinking, why must we request the debt ceiling be raised?

If you're retired from the military, then maybe to pay your retirement?

 

[DiamondDave]

Hell yeah, I'd eliminate social security and medicare and all other welfare programs, which are Unconstitutional at the Federal level anyway.

In addition, we could eliminate the departments of Education, Energy, Commerce and keep going until cabinet meetings look more like a bridge club.

We could also cut our military in half, bring it home and make it defensive in nature instead of fighting all the foreign wars.

However, even if you and the Republicans don't have the stones for actual cuts, simply agreeing to have zero growth government for the next couple decades would eliminate deficits while still being the massive government that you love.

People have been paying into Social Security and Medicare for DECADES! It's not just a free give away (It can't really even be called welfare). If you suddenly just drop all payments you better have some kind of return process for all the money the people put into the system or you're going to have some PISSED OFF voters next election.

Eliminate Dept of Education....*rolls eyes* oh boy....

Cutting military in half is feasible, but it also has a severe political backlash.

1) Eliminating it for future payouts does not have to mean you kill of those who are currently receiving or who will be receiving n the near future.. you can indeed start phasing out
2) Education in no way is a constitutional charge or responsibility of the federal government... it is a responsibility of the state or local government or of the individual
3) YOU again say 'cutting the military in half is feasible' with absolutely no understanding of what is indeed 'feasible' in terms of mission.. YES.. there are cuts that can and must happen EVERYWHERE including the DoD.. but your IDIOTIC and RANDOM claim that half is 'feasible' is absolute RUBBISH.. par for the course for you

 

[jasonnfree]

"Simply pointing out that the deficit has exceeded $1 trillion a year lately, and that that is a really big number, isn't much of an economic argument. If you're worried about deficits, you need to say why." - Joe Scarborough, Paul Krugman and the economist-pundit divide on debt and deficits - The Washington Post

Barrack Obama: Bush took "out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic."

How did Obama add all those trillions of debt? All by himself? Link below kind of disagrees with you. What did Obama spend it on if he's such a big spender?

http://www.politifact.com/new-jerse...has-added-more-national-debt-previous-43-pre/

 

[Nyvin]

1) Eliminating it for future payouts does not have to mean you kill of those who are currently receiving or who will be receiving n the near future.. you can indeed start phasing out
2) Education in no way is a constitutional charge or responsibility of the federal government... it is a responsibility of the state or local government or of the individual
3) YOU again say 'cutting the military in half is feasible' with absolutely no understanding of what is indeed 'feasible' in terms of mission.. YES.. there are cuts that can and must happen EVERYWHERE including the DoD.. but your IDIOTIC and RANDOM claim that half is 'feasible' is absolute RUBBISH.. par for the course for you

Okay...apparently I'm causing someone to foam at the mouth, lol.

1. yes, just like I said, you eliminate the taxes

2. So you want to be in a world filled with stupid people...I don't

3. Cutting the military in half IS feasible...we could cut it down to nothing but Air Force, Coast Guard, and National Guard! All you need is Nuclear deterrent and domestic security. Does that mean that's what we "should" do? Of course not! China spends 2% of their GDP on military, UK spends 2.5%, France spends 2.3%....we spend 4.5%....there you go...numbers showing we could cut in Half! MWHAHAHAHA!

I really suggest you chill out, lol

 

[kaz]

Barrack Obama: Bush took "out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic."

How did Obama add all those trillions of debt? All by himself?

So let's start with a basic consistency test. Is that what you say about Reagan and W?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Right wing definition of "Freedom":

The complete abscence of responsibility​

Actually, that's the left's definition of freedom.. Conservatives understand that with freedom comes great responsibility.

Do try and keep up.

 

[kaz]

Right wing definition of "Freedom":

The complete abscence of responsibility​

Actually, that's the left's definition of freedom.. Conservatives understand that with freedom comes great responsibility.

Do try and keep up.

Liberals think freedom comes with a pre-paid debit card.

 

[DiamondDave]

1) Eliminating it for future payouts does not have to mean you kill of those who are currently receiving or who will be receiving n the near future.. you can indeed start phasing out
2) Education in no way is a constitutional charge or responsibility of the federal government... it is a responsibility of the state or local government or of the individual
3) YOU again say 'cutting the military in half is feasible' with absolutely no understanding of what is indeed 'feasible' in terms of mission.. YES.. there are cuts that can and must happen EVERYWHERE including the DoD.. but your IDIOTIC and RANDOM claim that half is 'feasible' is absolute RUBBISH.. par for the course for you

Okay...apparently I'm causing someone to foam at the mouth, lol.

1. yes, just like I said, you eliminate the taxes

2. So you want to be in a world filled with stupid people...I don't

3. Cutting the military in half IS feasible...we could cut it down to nothing but Air Force, Coast Guard, and National Guard! All you need is Nuclear deterrent and domestic security. Does that mean that's what we "should" do? Of course not! China spends 2% of their GDP on military, UK spends 2.5%, France spends 2.3%....we spend 4.5%....there you go...numbers showing we could cut in Half! MWHAHAHAHA!

I really suggest you chill out, lol

So we were 'stupid' before the fed created the Dept of Edu?? Hardly?? And our education has improved since the dept of ed?? Nope.. It is NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CHARGE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.. and what the FUCK makes you think that the federal government but the state or local cannot?? Or that an individual cannot??

YOUR OPINION that is not founded in any fact whatsoever is that it is 'feasible'... you have no practical knowledge, nor have you shown any prowess in the job of military action, national defense, nor anything else.. you are a fucking blow hard with an agenda... what OTHERS spend or the state of OTHER military entities does not PROVE That our military can be cut in in half in monetary terms

You are even more of an idiot than previously thought

 

[LTCArmyRet]

if you're still 20 years or more from becoming eligible for SS benefits, in my opinion, you won't see a dime!!! If you're not planning for your own retirement, you're fooling yourself to think SS will be there to support you.

This has nothing to do with shutting down Soc Sec...I'm not arguing in favor of Soc Sec, I'm saying politically...you cannot just shut it down.

Ohhh, it will get shut down, one way or another. I agree that there will be no one with the balls or political clout to do it. It will die an ugly horrible death eventually, or else the U.S. will.