Will Republicans end social security?

[kaz]

But if we nationalize health care, Trump will be in charge of taking care of grandma. Comforting thought, eh?

I don't want government to control healthcare at all. It was affordable before they got involved.

My comment was meant to give some pause to the liberals who are so eager to put government in charge of health care. They seem to have this vision of an omni-benevolent force in society. They have very good blinders I s'pose.

What’s your solution?

Depends on which problem we're solving. Lack of clarity on that has been the biggest impediment to making things better. What do you see as the problem?

Government "solving" problems is what got us into the mess that is our medical system. Free markets solve problems. Government creates problems

 

[dblack]

Democrats have been trying to control elections with this my entire life. Every election for decades, the democrats track out the same tired nonsense.

I laugh every time a Democrat whines about Gerrymandering. They've gerrymandered all my life since they controlled the majority of State Houses and never gave a shit. Suddenly it's Unconstitutional, anti-freedom and evil.

Personally, I don't see an issue with it. States should be representative of the party that the citizens of the State elected. Unlike Democrats, I think that both ways.

But after a lifetime of manipulating districts, Democrats whining now is just hysterical

Gerrymandering is an abysmal abuse of government. But it's a by-product of our election system, which very badly needs an upgrade.

 

[Papageorgio]

Democrats do this every few years......Republicans are going to take away Social Security, throw grandma down the stairs and make her eat dog food. Same ole, same ole.

Don’t forget the starving of kids and making water undrinkable and air unbreathable.

 

[dblack]

Democrats do this every few years......Republicans are going to take away Social Security, throw grandma down the stairs and make her eat dog food. Same ole, same ole.

Don’t forget the starving of kids and making water undrinkable and air unbreathable.

SOMALIA!!!!

 

[dblack]

But if we nationalize health care, Trump will be in charge of taking care of grandma. Comforting thought, eh?

I don't want government to control healthcare at all. It was affordable before they got involved.

My comment was meant to give some pause to the liberals who are so eager to put government in charge of health care. They seem to have this vision of an omni-benevolent force in society. They have very good blinders I s'pose.

What’s your solution?

Depends on which problem we're solving. Lack of clarity on that has been the biggest impediment to making things better. What do you see as the problem?

Government "solving" problems is what got us into the mess that is our medical system. Free markets solve problems. Government creates problems

Government can and should solve problems that it helped create.

 

[kaz]

Democrats have been trying to control elections with this my entire life. Every election for decades, the democrats track out the same tired nonsense.

I laugh every time a Democrat whines about Gerrymandering. They've gerrymandered all my life since they controlled the majority of State Houses and never gave a shit. Suddenly it's Unconstitutional, anti-freedom and evil.

Personally, I don't see an issue with it. States should be representative of the party that the citizens of the State elected. Unlike Democrats, I think that both ways.

But after a lifetime of manipulating districts, Democrats whining now is just hysterical

Gerrymandering is an abysmal abuse of government. But it's a by-product of our election system, which very badly needs an upgrade.

You have anything to back that up or you're just going to go with that it's intuitively obvious ... to you? The Founders left it up to the States to draw voting district lines. Why would they not have expected the majority in the States to draw favorable lines? And what's wrong with the majority party in the State having a say in their House delegation?

 

[Crixus]

It wasn't discussed during the elections but does any one doubt SS is going to be put on the chopping block?

No way one usmb Republican will say they like and want to keep SS.

And if they want to at least tell us in 2019 so we can vote on it.

Anyone under 60 won’t get social security so most do t give a fuck. We just don’t want to pay for old ass boomers because they were stupid with their money. Could care less.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I don't think social security can end, not unless there is a safety net for today's current retirees in place. It would have to be phased out.

The way I understand it. Those who pay into the system today are supporting current retirees. The social security fund is broke, as in, there is nothing there for future retirees. If you ended social security, you would be removing that income from them.

Also, what about those of us who are not at retirement age, but have been paying into the system all our lives, we just lose that money? I certainly hope not. The government set up the program and gave is no option as to if we wanted in or not. So, they've been taking money out our paychecks every payday, for nothing?

I understand that it's not a sustainable program, not as it currently is, but, you can't just up and remove an income stream from someone after they've been paying in all their lives. Also, there are many people who will rely on that income to live.

The only way to cut it off is to stop taking money out of paychecks for anyone just entering the work force, and the government will either have to foot the bill for the next 50 years, or offer everyone a lump sum payout dependant on how long they have been paying in to the system.

In other words, it's going to be very difficult to just remove social security.

 

[dblack]

Democrats have been trying to control elections with this my entire life. Every election for decades, the democrats track out the same tired nonsense.

I laugh every time a Democrat whines about Gerrymandering. They've gerrymandered all my life since they controlled the majority of State Houses and never gave a shit. Suddenly it's Unconstitutional, anti-freedom and evil.

Personally, I don't see an issue with it. States should be representative of the party that the citizens of the State elected. Unlike Democrats, I think that both ways.

But after a lifetime of manipulating districts, Democrats whining now is just hysterical

Gerrymandering is an abysmal abuse of government. But it's a by-product of our election system, which very badly needs an upgrade.

You have anything to back that up or you're just going to go with that it's intuitively obvious ... to you? The Founders left it up to the States to draw voting district lines. Why would they not have expected the majority in the States to draw favorable lines? And what's wrong with the majority party in the State having a say in their House delegation?

Gerrymandering creates districts that are 'safe' for one party or the other. That pushes the real election to the primaries, where the concerns are different. In a general election a candidate must avoid alienating mainstream voters. In a primary, there aren't many mainstream voters, and the campaigns are more radically partisan.

What we lose with this is consensus government. Instead we get majoritarian government. We get laws passed by a narrow, radically partisan, majority that are reversed as soon as the tables turn. It's useless thrashing that serves no one, least of all voters.

ACA is a prime example. It was passed by the kind of narrow, partisan vote that gerrymandering helps to create. And because there was no real consensus behind it, it is now being dismantled. An incredible waste of time, money and political energy.

 

[kaz]

I don't want government to control healthcare at all. It was affordable before they got involved.

My comment was meant to give some pause to the liberals who are so eager to put government in charge of health care. They seem to have this vision of an omni-benevolent force in society. They have very good blinders I s'pose.

What’s your solution?

Depends on which problem we're solving. Lack of clarity on that has been the biggest impediment to making things better. What do you see as the problem?

Government "solving" problems is what got us into the mess that is our medical system. Free markets solve problems. Government creates problems

Government can and should solve problems that it helped create.

And for a minute there, I thought you were finally arguing something libertarian.

Government can solve problems it created by getting out of it, there is nothing else they can do to help

 

[ThisIsMe]

It wasn't discussed during the elections but does any one doubt SS is going to be put on the chopping block?

No way one usmb Republican will say they like and want to keep SS.

And if they want to at least tell us in 2019 so we can vote on it.

Anyone under 60 won’t get social security so most do t give a fuck. We just don’t want to pay for old ass boomers because they were stupid with their money. Could care less.

Doesn't matter if they were stupid witg their money or not, those people have been paying into social security for some, 40 to 50 years, it's their money, they should get it. It's not like the government gave anyone a choice, everyone was forced into the system, and the government didn't keep it solvent.

They forced people into the system, those people have been paying all of their lives, I think the government needs to figure it out.

 

[dblack]

My comment was meant to give some pause to the liberals who are so eager to put government in charge of health care. They seem to have this vision of an omni-benevolent force in society. They have very good blinders I s'pose.

What’s your solution?

Depends on which problem we're solving. Lack of clarity on that has been the biggest impediment to making things better. What do you see as the problem?

Government "solving" problems is what got us into the mess that is our medical system. Free markets solve problems. Government creates problems

Government can and should solve problems that it helped create.

And for a minute there, I thought you were finally arguing something libertarian.

Government can solve problems it created by getting out of it, there is nothing else they can do to help

That's what I'm talking about, dipshit.

 

[kaz]

Democrats have been trying to control elections with this my entire life. Every election for decades, the democrats track out the same tired nonsense.

I laugh every time a Democrat whines about Gerrymandering. They've gerrymandered all my life since they controlled the majority of State Houses and never gave a shit. Suddenly it's Unconstitutional, anti-freedom and evil.

Personally, I don't see an issue with it. States should be representative of the party that the citizens of the State elected. Unlike Democrats, I think that both ways.

But after a lifetime of manipulating districts, Democrats whining now is just hysterical

Gerrymandering is an abysmal abuse of government. But it's a by-product of our election system, which very badly needs an upgrade.

You have anything to back that up or you're just going to go with that it's intuitively obvious ... to you? The Founders left it up to the States to draw voting district lines. Why would they not have expected the majority in the States to draw favorable lines? And what's wrong with the majority party in the State having a say in their House delegation?

Gerrymandering creates districts that are 'safe' for one party or the other. That pushes the real election to the primaries, where the concerns are different. In a general election a candidate must avoid alienating mainstream voters. In a primary, there aren't many mainstream voters, and the campaigns are more radically partisan.

What we lose with this is consensus government. Instead we get majoritarian government. We get laws passed by a narrow, radically partisan, majority that are reversed as soon as the tables turn. It's useless thrashing that serves no one, least of all voters.

ACA is a prime example. It was passed by the kind of narrow, partisan vote that gerrymandering helps to create. And because there was no real consensus behind it, it is now being dismantled. An incredible waste of time, money and political energy.

Begging the question. You're just assuming the truth of your own position.

States are democracies. The Federal government isn't. At least it wasn't supposed to be. State governments are elected by the citizens, they aren't appointed as you seem to believe. Power is then divided between the States and the Federal government.

You're undermining State power, that expands central power, it doesn't limit it as you claim to support.

This is what I'm talking about. You talk libertarian terms then support socialist agendas as you are doing both on this and medical

 

[dblack]

Democrats have been trying to control elections with this my entire life. Every election for decades, the democrats track out the same tired nonsense.

I laugh every time a Democrat whines about Gerrymandering. They've gerrymandered all my life since they controlled the majority of State Houses and never gave a shit. Suddenly it's Unconstitutional, anti-freedom and evil.

Personally, I don't see an issue with it. States should be representative of the party that the citizens of the State elected. Unlike Democrats, I think that both ways.

But after a lifetime of manipulating districts, Democrats whining now is just hysterical

Gerrymandering is an abysmal abuse of government. But it's a by-product of our election system, which very badly needs an upgrade.

You have anything to back that up or you're just going to go with that it's intuitively obvious ... to you? The Founders left it up to the States to draw voting district lines. Why would they not have expected the majority in the States to draw favorable lines? And what's wrong with the majority party in the State having a say in their House delegation?

Gerrymandering creates districts that are 'safe' for one party or the other. That pushes the real election to the primaries, where the concerns are different. In a general election a candidate must avoid alienating mainstream voters. In a primary, there aren't many mainstream voters, and the campaigns are more radically partisan.

What we lose with this is consensus government. Instead we get majoritarian government. We get laws passed by a narrow, radically partisan, majority that are reversed as soon as the tables turn. It's useless thrashing that serves no one, least of all voters.

ACA is a prime example. It was passed by the kind of narrow, partisan vote that gerrymandering helps to create. And because there was no real consensus behind it, it is now being dismantled. An incredible waste of time, money and political energy.

Begging the question. You're just assuming the truth of your own position.

States are democracies. The Federal government isn't. At least it wasn't supposed to be. State governments are elected by the citizens, they aren't appointed as you seem to believe

Ostrich up! Did you even read my post? Or did you just dig in your heels reflexively?

 

[kaz]

What’s your solution?

Depends on which problem we're solving. Lack of clarity on that has been the biggest impediment to making things better. What do you see as the problem?

Government "solving" problems is what got us into the mess that is our medical system. Free markets solve problems. Government creates problems

Government can and should solve problems that it helped create.

And for a minute there, I thought you were finally arguing something libertarian.

Government can solve problems it created by getting out of it, there is nothing else they can do to help

That's what I'm talking about, dipshit.

So your response to "Free markets solve problems. Government creates problems" is "Government can and should solve problems that it helped create" and that meant you were agreeing with me?

And you call me a "dipshit?" Classic

 

[kaz]

I laugh every time a Democrat whines about Gerrymandering. They've gerrymandered all my life since they controlled the majority of State Houses and never gave a shit. Suddenly it's Unconstitutional, anti-freedom and evil.

Personally, I don't see an issue with it. States should be representative of the party that the citizens of the State elected. Unlike Democrats, I think that both ways.

But after a lifetime of manipulating districts, Democrats whining now is just hysterical

Gerrymandering is an abysmal abuse of government. But it's a by-product of our election system, which very badly needs an upgrade.

You have anything to back that up or you're just going to go with that it's intuitively obvious ... to you? The Founders left it up to the States to draw voting district lines. Why would they not have expected the majority in the States to draw favorable lines? And what's wrong with the majority party in the State having a say in their House delegation?

Gerrymandering creates districts that are 'safe' for one party or the other. That pushes the real election to the primaries, where the concerns are different. In a general election a candidate must avoid alienating mainstream voters. In a primary, there aren't many mainstream voters, and the campaigns are more radically partisan.

What we lose with this is consensus government. Instead we get majoritarian government. We get laws passed by a narrow, radically partisan, majority that are reversed as soon as the tables turn. It's useless thrashing that serves no one, least of all voters.

ACA is a prime example. It was passed by the kind of narrow, partisan vote that gerrymandering helps to create. And because there was no real consensus behind it, it is now being dismantled. An incredible waste of time, money and political energy.

Begging the question. You're just assuming the truth of your own position.

States are democracies. The Federal government isn't. At least it wasn't supposed to be. State governments are elected by the citizens, they aren't appointed as you seem to believe

Ostrich up! Did you even read my post? Or did you just dig in your heels reflexively?

Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you. I cannot comprehend it for you.

My post directly addressed yours

 

[dblack]

Gerrymandering is an abysmal abuse of government. But it's a by-product of our election system, which very badly needs an upgrade.

You have anything to back that up or you're just going to go with that it's intuitively obvious ... to you? The Founders left it up to the States to draw voting district lines. Why would they not have expected the majority in the States to draw favorable lines? And what's wrong with the majority party in the State having a say in their House delegation?

Gerrymandering creates districts that are 'safe' for one party or the other. That pushes the real election to the primaries, where the concerns are different. In a general election a candidate must avoid alienating mainstream voters. In a primary, there aren't many mainstream voters, and the campaigns are more radically partisan.

What we lose with this is consensus government. Instead we get majoritarian government. We get laws passed by a narrow, radically partisan, majority that are reversed as soon as the tables turn. It's useless thrashing that serves no one, least of all voters.

ACA is a prime example. It was passed by the kind of narrow, partisan vote that gerrymandering helps to create. And because there was no real consensus behind it, it is now being dismantled. An incredible waste of time, money and political energy.

Begging the question. You're just assuming the truth of your own position.

States are democracies. The Federal government isn't. At least it wasn't supposed to be. State governments are elected by the citizens, they aren't appointed as you seem to believe

Ostrich up! Did you even read my post? Or did you just dig in your heels reflexively?

Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you. I cannot comprehend it for you.

My post directly addressed yours

Your post was your usual combative nonsense. Engaging with you, on pretty much anything, is just kind of like stepping in shit.

 

[kaz]

You have anything to back that up or you're just going to go with that it's intuitively obvious ... to you? The Founders left it up to the States to draw voting district lines. Why would they not have expected the majority in the States to draw favorable lines? And what's wrong with the majority party in the State having a say in their House delegation?

Gerrymandering creates districts that are 'safe' for one party or the other. That pushes the real election to the primaries, where the concerns are different. In a general election a candidate must avoid alienating mainstream voters. In a primary, there aren't many mainstream voters, and the campaigns are more radically partisan.

What we lose with this is consensus government. Instead we get majoritarian government. We get laws passed by a narrow, radically partisan, majority that are reversed as soon as the tables turn. It's useless thrashing that serves no one, least of all voters.

ACA is a prime example. It was passed by the kind of narrow, partisan vote that gerrymandering helps to create. And because there was no real consensus behind it, it is now being dismantled. An incredible waste of time, money and political energy.

Begging the question. You're just assuming the truth of your own position.

States are democracies. The Federal government isn't. At least it wasn't supposed to be. State governments are elected by the citizens, they aren't appointed as you seem to believe

Ostrich up! Did you even read my post? Or did you just dig in your heels reflexively?

Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you. I cannot comprehend it for you.

My post directly addressed yours

Your post was your usual combative nonsense. Engaging with you, on pretty much anything, is just kind of like stepping in shit.

Try reading the discussion again on who was getting combative unless you just believe that to debate you is to be "combative"

 

[dblack]

Gerrymandering creates districts that are 'safe' for one party or the other. That pushes the real election to the primaries, where the concerns are different. In a general election a candidate must avoid alienating mainstream voters. In a primary, there aren't many mainstream voters, and the campaigns are more radically partisan.

What we lose with this is consensus government. Instead we get majoritarian government. We get laws passed by a narrow, radically partisan, majority that are reversed as soon as the tables turn. It's useless thrashing that serves no one, least of all voters.

ACA is a prime example. It was passed by the kind of narrow, partisan vote that gerrymandering helps to create. And because there was no real consensus behind it, it is now being dismantled. An incredible waste of time, money and political energy.

Begging the question. You're just assuming the truth of your own position.

States are democracies. The Federal government isn't. At least it wasn't supposed to be. State governments are elected by the citizens, they aren't appointed as you seem to believe

Ostrich up! Did you even read my post? Or did you just dig in your heels reflexively?

Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you. I cannot comprehend it for you.

My post directly addressed yours

Your post was your usual combative nonsense. Engaging with you, on pretty much anything, is just kind of like stepping in shit.

Try reading the discussion again on who was getting combative unless you just believe that to debate you is to be "combative"

You don't debate. That's the problem. I doesn't seem like you even read the posts you respond to. You look for a few key words, and then hurl insults.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Oh my goodness. #paranoid.

FYI, the Republicans have done nothing but try to make sure that low-income and middle-income folks get more money in their Social Security checks when they start to draw Social Security.