Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I read your posts.That can't be right. I don't think anyone can run a successful business with the inability to say... I agree with someone I don't like.I own 3 corporations.
You know, for the 90% of us who aren't business owners, and don't think they walk on water.
And this is where the GOP is in a trick bag. They can't win with these people and they can't win without them. That's the crux of everything Joe just said.
And you agree with that. Unless... You are talking to him and then ... Well shit, lets make something up that he didn't say because you ... I don't know... Want to be partisan?
Where did I say I agreed with that?
It won't.
Americans overwhelmingly believe SS is constitutional, and if 5% are saying they disagree, that minority is looked on with disdain, suspicion, and some fear.
The Constitution does not bar government sponsored Ponzi schemes.
SS is not a ponzi scheme unless it fails.Americans overwhelmingly believe SS is constitutional, and if 5% are saying they disagree, that minority is looked on with disdain, suspicion, and some fear.
The Constitution does not bar government sponsored Ponzi schemes.
SS is not a ponzi scheme unless it fails.The Constitution does not bar government sponsored Ponzi schemes.
A 17 year old starts paying 15% of his pay into social security as he is self employed.
He does so every year and averages income of $70,000 a year net for 44 years.
That is $440,000.00 he pays into social security and Medicare payments for 44 years.
He dies at age 61.
HIS FAMILY GETS NOTHING, THE MONEY IS GONE.
Which is worse, Ponzi scheme or this?
SS is not a ponzi scheme unless it fails.The Constitution does not bar government sponsored Ponzi schemes.
A 17 year old starts paying 15% of his pay into social security as he is self employed.
He does so every year and averages income of $70,000 a year net for 44 years.
That is $440,000.00 he pays into social security and Medicare payments for 44 years.
He dies at age 61.
HIS FAMILY GETS NOTHING, THE MONEY IS GONE.
Which is worse, Ponzi scheme or this?
SS is not a ponzi scheme unless it fails.The Constitution does not bar government sponsored Ponzi schemes.
A 17 year old starts paying 15% of his pay into social security as he is self employed.
He does so every year and averages income of $70,000 a year net for 44 years.
That is $440,000.00 he pays into social security and Medicare payments for 44 years.
He dies at age 61.
HIS FAMILY GETS NOTHING, THE MONEY IS GONE.
Which is worse, Ponzi scheme or this?
To put this "RINO" discussion in the proper perspective.
One has to recall how the GOP's current coalition came to be. From the period of 1932-1964, the Democrats won 7 out of 9 presidential elections, usually by overwealming margins, and the only Republican to win was Ike, who pretty much had to concede the Keynsians and activist government types were right.
The one time the GOP tried to run on the "Small Government, Every Man for Himself, I got mine" platform was Barry "Deep down you know he's nuts" Goldwater. And he lost 44 states. Probably would have lost 49 if LBJ hadn't signed the civil rights act and pissed off the racists.
Now, the modern GOP coalition that dominated from 1968-1988 (Winning 5 out of six elections) was a coalition of Security Conservatives, Social Conservatives and Fiscal Conservatives. This really hadn't been an issue for the Democrats prior to 1968, because they had won the fiscal argument, and they were on the same page as the GOP on Security and Social matters. It really wasn't until the Hippies took over the party that people had serious doubts about the Democrats and their commitment to American security and morality.
So where did it go wrong. Well, for starters, they won the Cold War. and as much as Israel has tried to drag us into their fights with the Muslims, most Americans are tried of seeing their kids deployed all over the world. It should be pointed out the only time the GOP won the popular vote since 1992 was when the Security Wing had ascendency. As it stands now, we want less involvement. Romney tried to beat the war drum on Iran and no one listened.
The Fiscal Wing has similarly taken a beating. People realize- supply side doesn't work, it doesn't spur growth and the Laffer Curve is Laughable. While there is no taste for a Keynesian spending spree, nor is there one for draconian cuts.
Which leaves the Social Conservatives, who for some reason are taking all the blame right now for Romney's defeat. To a degree, they deserve to. When you have idiots talking about "gift from God" rapes, because they can't admit that abortion is sometimes justifiable, when you have loudmouths calling women vile names on the radio and your candidate can't stand up to them, you realize how extreme these folks have gotten.
Society has changed, they can't deal with it.
Social conservatives aren't taking all the blame for Romney's defeat. Nor should they. There were many reasons why Romney lost.
The point of this thread isn't to run social conservatives out of the Republican Party. The point is to not run out moderates from the Republican Party.
Because you say so?
What is the law on survivor benefits?
SS is not a ponzi scheme unless it fails.
A 17 year old starts paying 15% of his pay into social security as he is self employed.
He does so every year and averages income of $70,000 a year net for 44 years.
That is $440,000.00 he pays into social security and Medicare payments for 44 years.
He dies at age 61.
HIS FAMILY GETS NOTHING, THE MONEY IS GONE.
Which is worse, Ponzi scheme or this?
To put this "RINO" discussion in the proper perspective.
One has to recall how the GOP's current coalition came to be. From the period of 1932-1964, the Democrats won 7 out of 9 presidential elections, usually by overwealming margins, and the only Republican to win was Ike, who pretty much had to concede the Keynsians and activist government types were right.
The one time the GOP tried to run on the "Small Government, Every Man for Himself, I got mine" platform was Barry "Deep down you know he's nuts" Goldwater. And he lost 44 states. Probably would have lost 49 if LBJ hadn't signed the civil rights act and pissed off the racists.
Now, the modern GOP coalition that dominated from 1968-1988 (Winning 5 out of six elections) was a coalition of Security Conservatives, Social Conservatives and Fiscal Conservatives. This really hadn't been an issue for the Democrats prior to 1968, because they had won the fiscal argument, and they were on the same page as the GOP on Security and Social matters. It really wasn't until the Hippies took over the party that people had serious doubts about the Democrats and their commitment to American security and morality.
So where did it go wrong. Well, for starters, they won the Cold War. and as much as Israel has tried to drag us into their fights with the Muslims, most Americans are tried of seeing their kids deployed all over the world. It should be pointed out the only time the GOP won the popular vote since 1992 was when the Security Wing had ascendency. As it stands now, we want less involvement. Romney tried to beat the war drum on Iran and no one listened.
The Fiscal Wing has similarly taken a beating. People realize- supply side doesn't work, it doesn't spur growth and the Laffer Curve is Laughable. While there is no taste for a Keynesian spending spree, nor is there one for draconian cuts.
Which leaves the Social Conservatives, who for some reason are taking all the blame right now for Romney's defeat. To a degree, they deserve to. When you have idiots talking about "gift from God" rapes, because they can't admit that abortion is sometimes justifiable, when you have loudmouths calling women vile names on the radio and your candidate can't stand up to them, you realize how extreme these folks have gotten.
Society has changed, they can't deal with it.
"Where did it all go wrong?"
Johnson started the "war on poverty" with his "Great" society.
And as a result of that we have spent trillions on "the poor".
And what have we received as a result of that?
Incentives for women that have children out of wedlock further pushing children into poverty. For every % point of children born into single parent household in this country over the last 60 years exactly 1% the poverty rate has risen for children.
As a result of those trillions government has stolen at the point of a gun from the producers and given to the moocher class poverty is worse now than before Johnson took office. We now punish 2 parent households in favor of rewarding single parent households.
So what do they want to do?
Give more $$ to government to continue this trend.
Social conservatives aren't taking all the blame for Romney's defeat. Nor should they. There were many reasons why Romney lost.
The point of this thread isn't to run social conservatives out of the Republican Party. The point is to not run out moderates from the Republican Party.
But how do you do that?
Whenever I see someone talking about being a "moderate" Republican, it usually means "Well, I'm not big on the social issues, but I really am fiscally conservative!"
What is the "moderate" position on abortion? Either you support a woman's right to choose, or you think a fetus is a person who needs to be protected. I really don't see a middle ground, to be honest.
Again, I see this discussion as the Plutocratic wing, no longer able to coat their poison pill in social issues they don't give a crap about between elections, trying to put a new coat of paint on the same rat poision that has undermined the middle class for the last 30 years.
I'm not falling for it. Neither should most social conservatives.
Maybe what is needed is an amicable divorce. The Fiscal Conservatives can go off and push tax cuts for the rich and loose regulations on the banks with their party, and the Social Conservatives can push their agenda.
It would be interesting to see who got more votes.
"Where did it all go wrong?"
Johnson started the "war on poverty" with his "Great" society.
And as a result of that we have spent trillions on "the poor".
And what have we received as a result of that?
Incentives for women that have children out of wedlock further pushing children into poverty. For every % point of children born into single parent household in this country over the last 60 years exactly 1% the poverty rate has risen for children.
As a result of those trillions government has stolen at the point of a gun from the producers and given to the moocher class poverty is worse now than before Johnson took office. We now punish 2 parent households in favor of rewarding single parent households.
So what do they want to do?
Give more $$ to government to continue this trend.
"Waaaaah, those poor people aren't obedienlty starving so I can have my Dressage Pony"
Here's the thing. I agree, a lot of our welfare programs encourage a lot of the wrong kind of behavior. Ab-so-fucking-lutely.
But it isn't like the wealthy are doing much to encourage the right kind of behavior, is it?
Work hard, buy a home, raise a family.
And the wealthy will try to fuck you over at every oppurtunity to make a quick buck. You making a good union wage? Well, let's bust your union, move your job to China and give you a crappy "McJob".
Paying into your medical plan? Well, just don't get sick, or we'll have to insist on firing you. Yuppers, that Cancer was a pre-existing condition, really!
[
So your solution is make everyone poor.
Makes a lot of sense.
The "wealthy" force "poor" women to make bad choices and let the fathers of the bastards get off pretty much free.
Same old BS from Joe. Blame the rich.
The moderate ground on abortion is somewhere between not allowing an abortion one day before birth and not forcing a woman to give birth because she was raped at knifepoint.
You also fail on what a moderate means on the economy. A moderate conservative generally wants less government spending, lower taxes and less regulation. A moderate doesn't want no government spending (outside defense), no taxes and no regulations, or at least as minimal as possible as those on the hard right do. Moderates also want sane fiscal policies, unlike many of the so-called Supply Siders, who are more than happy to drive us towards bankruptcy by cutting every and all taxes under all circumstances under the totally discredited starve the beast theory.
The moderate ground on abortion is somewhere between not allowing an abortion one day before birth and not forcing a woman to give birth because she was raped at knifepoint.
But where, exactly. Because both of those cases really cover less than 1% of abortions performed.
And here's the idealogical problem. If a fetus isn't a baby, then there is nothing morally wrong with aborting it one day before birth. (Not that any woman would do that unless something had gone so horribly wrong with the pregnancy she had no choice). If a fetus is a baby, then killing even one that result from rape would still be murder.
Now, me, I'm a pragmatist. Women are going to get abortions no matter what the law is. because they always have. So they should be safe, legal and between teh woman and her doctor.
You also fail on what a moderate means on the economy. A moderate conservative generally wants less government spending, lower taxes and less regulation. A moderate doesn't want no government spending (outside defense), no taxes and no regulations, or at least as minimal as possible as those on the hard right do. Moderates also want sane fiscal policies, unlike many of the so-called Supply Siders, who are more than happy to drive us towards bankruptcy by cutting every and all taxes under all circumstances under the totally discredited starve the beast theory.
Again, given the fact that not a one of these "moderate" conservatives seems to be in congress right now, I think you've got a moot argument.
SS is not a ponzi scheme unless it fails.The Constitution does not bar government sponsored Ponzi schemes.
A 17 year old starts paying 15% of his pay into social security as he is self employed.
He does so every year and averages income of $70,000 a year net for 44 years.
That is $440,000.00 he pays into social security and Medicare payments for 44 years.
He dies at age 61.
HIS FAMILY GETS NOTHING, THE MONEY IS GONE.
Which is worse, Ponzi scheme or this?
.
My guess is that a candidate who looked like this would do pretty damn well at the ballot box:
Leans right on fiscal issues -- not hard right, but promotes a general restraint of spending and moderation in taxes, and does not look to the federal bureaucracy as the fix for every problem. Understands that creating and maintaining dependency on federal/state money and services in the name of "compassion" is in fact the opposite of compassion in the long run, but also knows that some are simply born with significantly more or significantly less natural ability to function adequately in a free market system, and that leveraging public funds to help the less fortunate can in fact raise all boats, including those at the top end.
Leans left on social issues -- not hard left, but is more interested in changing & improving our culture from within rather than via legislation. Is pro-choice but wants to find ways to significantly reduce demand; does not think that gay rights are the end of Western Civilization; understands a need for social programs but does not want to waste money on them or foster dependency, either.
In general, knows that Americans are more willing to consider mature, constructive, humble cooperation than are radio and teevee pundits, and would prefer compromise over paralysis.
I know, crazy stuff.
.
