Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AEI Ideas)   Romney needs to keep talking about our fiscally and morally disastrous Entitlement Society   (aei-ideas.org) divider line 155
    More: Obvious, BEA, entitlements, AEI, American way of life  
•       •       •

1312 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Sep 2012 at 10:11 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



155 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-19 11:08:09 AM  

qorkfiend: No, Mitt Romney's donation of thousands of pints of milk more than makes up for that. Milk! Thousands of pints!


That was when he was governor of Massachusetts.

You know, when he signed the assault weapons ban, was supportive of gay rights, and... oh yeah! Signed RomneyCare which became the basis for ObamaCare.

Gotta wonder why Romney supported RomneyCare when he thinks it's somehow a parasitic entitlement when Obama signed it.
 
2012-09-19 11:08:23 AM  

Cletus C.: theknuckler_33: Cletus C.: It's the other side's ammo in the class war Obama started.

Obama started the massive concentration of wealth among the top 1-2% of people in this country? 


Apparently it's gotten even worse under his administration. Go figure.


So you are upset that the wealth of the 1% has not been redistributed to us during the Obama Administration? If there was only a way to do that...

BTW, you are also admitting that trickle down economics does not work.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-19 11:08:25 AM  

Aarontology: The Reverend Smith: And you narrowed it down to only veterans. Well done.

That's because I was talking about veterans, and Mitt Romney's contempt and hatred of them. It's called the flow of conversation. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

After all, they fit into his definition of entitled parasites.And you seem to agree with those disgusting views.

it must really burn you up inside that someone is getting medical care from the government after serving in war instead of being thrown away.


Well, cannon fodder is supposed to be expendable.
 
2012-09-19 11:09:40 AM  

fenianfark: [i47.photobucket.com image 543x415]


/Shamelessly stolen from another Farker


And I'm stealing it again!
 
2012-09-19 11:12:46 AM  

Skarekrough: The GOP just needs to have the implosion and get over with.

As a Democrat I don't want a vacuum where were allowed to go overboard. It's detrimental to a democracy that we have someone to keep us in check. And right now the GOP is just shooting themselves in the foot over and over again.

Please guys....pull it together. Cast off the nutcases that are doing you harm. Come back to reality and let's get some work done.


Here's the problem: Those nutacses make a up a significant part of the GOP voter bloc. Call these folks into question and you hear about how the "establishment GOP" is trying to rig the election.

Todd Akin is not the face of the GOP, but he's no outlier either.
 
2012-09-19 11:13:40 AM  

hugram: Cletus C.: theknuckler_33: Cletus C.: It's the other side's ammo in the class war Obama started.

Obama started the massive concentration of wealth among the top 1-2% of people in this country? 


Apparently it's gotten even worse under his administration. Go figure.

So you are upset that the wealth of the 1% has not been redistributed to us during the Obama Administration? If there was only a way to do that...

BTW, you are also admitting that trickle down economics does not work.


And I thought I was just quipping.
 
2012-09-19 11:15:28 AM  

Cletus C.: hugram: Cletus C.: theknuckler_33: Cletus C.: It's the other side's ammo in the class war Obama started.

Obama started the massive concentration of wealth among the top 1-2% of people in this country? 


Apparently it's gotten even worse under his administration. Go figure.

So you are upset that the wealth of the 1% has not been redistributed to us during the Obama Administration? If there was only a way to do that...

BTW, you are also admitting that trickle down economics does not work.

And I thought I was just quipping.


The old Republican "It was a joke" excuse. OK then, carry on...
 
2012-09-19 11:16:18 AM  

Cletus C.: It's the other side's ammo in the class war Obama started.


So Welfare Queens are not a class warfare weapon?
 
2012-09-19 11:16:45 AM  

hugram: Cletus C.: hugram: Cletus C.: theknuckler_33: Cletus C.: It's the other side's ammo in the class war Obama started.

Obama started the massive concentration of wealth among the top 1-2% of people in this country? 


Apparently it's gotten even worse under his administration. Go figure.

So you are upset that the wealth of the 1% has not been redistributed to us during the Obama Administration? If there was only a way to do that...

BTW, you are also admitting that trickle down economics does not work.

And I thought I was just quipping.

The old Republican "It was a joke" excuse. OK then, carry on...


If you can't keep up, take off the training wheels.
 
2012-09-19 11:17:48 AM  

All2morrowsparTs: Cletus C.: It's the other side's ammo in the class war Obama started.

So Welfare Queens are not a class warfare weapon?


They are a great weapon. Why do you ask?
 
2012-09-19 11:18:15 AM  

All2morrowsparTs: Cletus C.: It's the other side's ammo in the class war Obama started.

So Welfare Queens are not a class warfare weapon?


Only if you sharpen them and tape them to the end of a stick.
 
2012-09-19 11:19:03 AM  

Epoch_Zero: All2morrowsparTs: Cletus C.: It's the other side's ammo in the class war Obama started.

So Welfare Queens are not a class warfare weapon?

Only if you sharpen them and tape them to the end of a stick.


QFF
 
2012-09-19 11:21:32 AM  

Epoch_Zero: All2morrowsparTs: Cletus C.: It's the other side's ammo in the class war Obama started.

So Welfare Queens are not a class warfare weapon?

Only if you sharpen them and tape them to the end of a stick.


Awesome.
 
2012-09-19 11:26:19 AM  
This election is "The Revenge Of John Kerry".
 
2012-09-19 11:28:36 AM  

Granny_Panties: The good old days before all the darn welfare...

[stinsonvirtualclassroom.wikispaces.com image 634x483]


That's also the same picture before:
- Building Standards
- EPA Standards
- Labor Laws
- Zoning
- Infrastructure Spending

and the list goes on.
 
2012-09-19 11:39:48 AM  
That's right, republicans. Talk about how much you hate Grandma and want to destroy her Social Security & Medicaid.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-19 11:40:09 AM  

FlashHarry: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Huh. A respected conservative thinktank site? On *my* Fark? GTFO.

AEI? respected? lol.


Yeah, those guys are just like the Heritage Institute people, and look at damn individual mandate health insurance plan they came up with.

Link

Link

When Obama used his time machine to go back and seed Obamacare into the body politic, it was places like HI and AEI that he landed.

Just ask AEI alumnus, David Frum.
 
2012-09-19 11:46:09 AM  

CPennypacker: I pay SS, Medicare, and federal income taxes. I pay unemployment insurance.

They are called entitlements because if I need them, I am entitled to them.

Welcome to society, douchebags.


Unemployment benefits are not employee-funded. Employers pay a tax to fund that program, based on the size of their workforce, their payroll, and their history of offering stable employment.

TMYK...
 
2012-09-19 11:47:32 AM  
Fiscally, sure.

Morally - need to differentiate between truly caring for those that need it and booting those that don't off. The moral thing to do for all citizens is to run these programs as efficiently as possible.
 
2012-09-19 11:51:03 AM  
Eh, I'll bite.

Even accepting the premise (and, conditionally, I actually do, as I think aid spending could be significantly better-managed, especially medicaid/medicare), this entire set of statistics is based around, as the first point notes, federal transfers to individuals.

The obvious question is how does the author justify leaving out transfers and welfare to groups, for instance corporate subsidies, state aid (which mostly goes to private corporations), and aid which doesn't take the form of transfers from the government? An example of the last would be tax exemptions, which disproportionately aid the very poor and the very rich, and the artificially low rate at which investment income is taxed (lower than the federal income tax by far), which almost solely aids the very rich?

I actually agree that this is a good national conversation to have, I just think I'm disagreeing with his arbitrarily defined and narrow scope, which I feel constitute a set of limitations that he hasn't logically justified.
 
2012-09-19 11:51:07 AM  

machodonkeywrestler: Cletus C.: quatchi: Cletus C.: It's the other side's ammo in the class war Obama started.

Look at how stupid you are.

Your point is well-reasoned but sadly lacking in saliency.

You 99 percenters are a touchy, prickly bunch.

I can guarantee no one on FARK is a 1%er.


Don't be too sure. There are a couple of people who've posted on FARK who appeared to have a good deal of money. One of them lived in a large custom home, just down the street from the mansion one of the Jonas Brothers had built. The funny thing is, none of the real assholes who post to the politics tab are those people.
 
2012-09-19 11:54:10 AM  
Hey lets start with these "free loaders" first.

thinkprogress.org
 
2012-09-19 11:56:35 AM  

forgotmydamnusername: machodonkeywrestler: Cletus C.: quatchi: Cletus C.: It's the other side's ammo in the class war Obama started.

Look at how stupid you are.

Your point is well-reasoned but sadly lacking in saliency.

You 99 percenters are a touchy, prickly bunch.

I can guarantee no one on FARK is a 1%er.

Don't be too sure. There are a couple of people who've posted on FARK who appeared to have a good deal of money. One of them lived in a large custom home, just down the street from the mansion one of the Jonas Brothers had built. The funny thing is, none of the real assholes who post to the politics tab are those people.


I know a one percenter. He is as derpy as the right wing idiots on FARK. And guess how he made his money that he is so worried about "Obama stealing"? From his wife of course!
 
2012-09-19 11:57:14 AM  

sprawl15: [imageshack.us image 400x310]

ELIMINATE THE EPA 2012


j.wigflip.com
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-19 11:57:20 AM  

All2morrowsparTs: Cletus C.: It's the other side's ammo in the class war Obama started.

So Welfare Queens are not a class warfare weapon?


No, that's race warfare. Totally different.
 
2012-09-19 11:57:48 AM  

Cletus C.: hugram: Cletus C.: hugram: Cletus C.: theknuckler_33: Cletus C.: It's the other side's ammo in the class war Obama started.

Obama started the massive concentration of wealth among the top 1-2% of people in this country? 


Apparently it's gotten even worse under his administration. Go figure.

So you are upset that the wealth of the 1% has not been redistributed to us during the Obama Administration? If there was only a way to do that...

BTW, you are also admitting that trickle down economics does not work.

And I thought I was just quipping.

The old Republican "It was a joke" excuse. OK then, carry on...

If you can't keep up, take off the training wheels.


Says the one who's getting lapped by the field...
 
2012-09-19 11:58:28 AM  

Cletus C.: quatchi: Cletus C.: It's the other side's ammo in the class war Obama started.

Look at how stupid you are.

Your point is well-reasoned but sadly lacking in saliency.

You 99 percenters are a touchy, prickly bunch.


You're poor, bored, dumb and probably have a form of OCD. That's the only diagnosis of people who perpetually troll a low pageview website.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-19 12:00:28 PM  

Epoch_Zero: All2morrowsparTs: Cletus C.: It's the other side's ammo in the class war Obama started.

So Welfare Queens are not a class warfare weapon?

Only if you sharpen them and tape them to the end of a stick.


Wouldn't it be better to throw them with a catapult?

neeser.files.wordpress.com
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-19 12:02:08 PM  

LibertyHiller: CPennypacker: I pay SS, Medicare, and federal income taxes. I pay unemployment insurance.

They are called entitlements because if I need them, I am entitled to them.

Welcome to society, douchebags.

Unemployment benefits are not employee-funded. Employers pay a tax to fund that program, based on the size of their workforce, their payroll, and their history of offering stable employment.

TMYK...


So what? It's a part of their compensation just like the employer portion of health insurance.
 
2012-09-19 12:08:54 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: Cletus C.: quatchi: Cletus C.: It's the other side's ammo in the class war Obama started.

Look at how stupid you are.

Your point is well-reasoned but sadly lacking in saliency.

You 99 percenters are a touchy, prickly bunch.

You're poor, bored, dumb and probably have a form of OCD. That's the only diagnosis of people who perpetually troll a low pageview website.


You lost me there at the end, Biff.
 
2012-09-19 12:17:33 PM  

indylaw: Agreed. He should say that unemployed people are only employed because they're lazy and addicted to the drugs and God hates them. If God wants them to die friendless and alone in the streets, who is the President of the United States to argue??


Hey, if those deadbeats wanted to become part of the owner society, they would report to one of those Chinese work-camps that he was talking about where 120 girls share one bathroom. These are the kinds of jobs that Mitt approves of, and this is what he'd like to see.
 
2012-09-19 12:22:40 PM  

vpb: LibertyHiller: CPennypacker: I pay SS, Medicare, and federal income taxes. I pay unemployment insurance.

They are called entitlements because if I need them, I am entitled to them.

Welcome to society, douchebags.

Unemployment benefits are not employee-funded. Employers pay a tax to fund that program, based on the size of their workforce, their payroll, and their history of offering stable employment.

TMYK...

So what? It's a part of their compensation just like the employer portion of health insurance.


No, you can't place UI in the same category as disability, FICA and SS, or health coverage, because employees don't contribute a dime out of their paychecks to it.

Given the lopsided nature of labor relations in this country, employees have gotdamn well earned UI and are generally justified in considering themselves entitled to it. I was simply correcting Pennypacker on his mistaken belief that employees are entitled to UI because they pay into it, because they in fact do not. Do you understand the difference now?
 
2012-09-19 12:32:52 PM  

Granny_Panties: The good old days before all the darn welfare...

[stinsonvirtualclassroom.wikispaces.com image 634x483]


Fun fact - that particular Hooverville was located where Safeco Field and CenturyLink Stadium stand today, both of which were constructed with public funds for the benefit of private interests. I presume that's what you were referring to when you said "before all the darn welfare," right?
 
2012-09-19 12:43:57 PM  

Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 332x500]


www.imgderp.com
 
2012-09-19 12:46:14 PM  

Jim_Callahan: The obvious question is how does the author justify leaving out transfers and welfare to groups, for instance corporate subsidies, state aid (which mostly goes to private corporations), and aid which doesn't take the form of transfers from the government?


A couple of things here. The term entitlement spending generally is defined as SS, Medicare and Medicaid. I'll agree that it is not the most accurate term, but it is generally accepted as such.

Secondly, these programs on on the spending side of the leger, whereas tax breaks and credits for corporations generally affect the revenue side. That is why these subsidy and tax discussions are somewhat seperated from the goverment spending discussion.

Now when you start discussing the deficits and debt, or what we can do to boost revenues, these issues need to be front and center.
 
2012-09-19 12:47:59 PM  

Nome de Plume: The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Alexis de Tocqueville


True; in addition:

Democracy can work as a system of governance up unto the point the electorate realizes it can vote itself funds from the public treasury.
-- paraphrased from someone who I forget and am too lazy to look up since it seems like a self-evident truth
 
2012-09-19 12:53:20 PM  

HeadLever: Secondly, these programs on on the spending side of the leger, whereas tax breaks and credits for corporations generally affect the revenue side. That is why these subsidy and tax discussions are somewhat seperated from the goverment spending discussion.


Then why are tax breaks counted as spending in things like the budget and the Recovery Act?
 
2012-09-19 12:55:57 PM  

theknuckler_33: Cletus C.: It's the other side's ammo in the class war Obama started.

Obama started the massive concentration of wealth among the top 1-2% of people in this country? 

[www.strangecosmos.com image 450x385]


No, that was always happening.

For SOME REASON (GEE CAN IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT ROMNEY IS THE WEALTHIEST PERSON EVER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT?) the dialog this election cycle seems really to have zeroed in on this issue. I'm glad it did. The wealthy in general (except entertainers and attention whores) like to keep below the radar; the last few years of economic upheaval have really swung the spotlight around to them.
 
2012-09-19 01:03:21 PM  

Flaming Yawn: theknuckler_33: Cletus C.: It's the other side's ammo in the class war Obama started.

Obama started the massive concentration of wealth among the top 1-2% of people in this country? 

[www.strangecosmos.com image 450x385]

No, that was always happening.

For SOME REASON (GEE CAN IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT ROMNEY IS THE WEALTHIEST PERSON EVER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT?) the dialog this election cycle seems really to have zeroed in on this issue. I'm glad it did. The wealthy in general (except entertainers and attention whores) like to keep below the radar; the last few years of economic upheaval have really swung the spotlight around to them.


Success is now a bad thing.
 
2012-09-19 01:03:40 PM  
Good luck with that. While he's at it, he can let Ryan discuss why veterans don't need any more benefits and that we should just let them bootstrap their way back to health and prosperity...
 
2012-09-19 01:04:04 PM  

kpaxoid: That's right. Government for, by, and of the people should never return anything to the people.


I don't mind returning some of that to the folks that truly need it. However, you need to be careful as not to spend beyond your means.
 
2012-09-19 01:12:16 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: HeadLever: Secondly, these programs on on the spending side of the leger, whereas tax breaks and credits for corporations generally affect the revenue side. That is why these subsidy and tax discussions are somewhat seperated from the goverment spending discussion.

Then why are tax breaks counted as spending in things like the budget and the Recovery Act?


They shouldn't be as they don't change government spending. They do impact government revenue.

Now if you are describing these items as an 'overall cost' or in a simliar manner, then that is much more of a broad idea that can include both.

Do you have a government publication or MSM article that describes this part of the program as 'spending' and not 'cost'? I would like to see it.
 
2012-09-19 01:13:21 PM  

Flaming Yawn: For SOME REASON (GEE CAN IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT ROMNEY IS THE WEALTHIEST PERSON EVER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT?) the dialog this election cycle seems really to have zeroed in on this issue. I'm glad it did. The wealthy in general (except entertainers and attention whores) like to keep below the radar; the last few years of economic upheaval have really swung the spotlight around to them.


Just wondering about that, because isn't John Kerry actually worth more?
 
2012-09-19 01:13:39 PM  

HeadLever: kpaxoid: That's right. Government for, by, and of the people should never return anything to the people.

I don't mind returning some of that to the folks that truly need it. However, you need to be careful as not to spend beyond your means.


Oddly enough, this is why I oppose so many subsidies to industries that don't actually need it...
 
2012-09-19 01:26:45 PM  

hubiestubert: Oddly enough, this is why I oppose so many subsidies to industries that don't actually need it...


I would tend to agree. However, if you want to give up these tax breaks and subsides, you also have to give up the control that these policies oftentimes give you.
 
2012-09-19 01:41:11 PM  

HeadLever: hubiestubert: Oddly enough, this is why I oppose so many subsidies to industries that don't actually need it...

I would tend to agree. However, if you want to give up these tax breaks and subsides, you also have to give up the control that these policies oftentimes give you.


The problem being, that given the relationship with campaign funding, it is often the other way around. It would be nice if we could close down this sort of graft--and that is exactly what it is--but folks don't really want to end those loopholes, because they're making a damn fine living at it.

Easier to go after folks who aren't organized, or who can't fight back, or don't have large amounts of cash to drop to campaign offices. We need campaign finance reform, and we needed it years ago.
 
2012-09-19 01:41:53 PM  

Granny_Panties: I'm sorry, but you are out of money. There is a nice shantytown about a mile down the road for leeches like yourself, dad.


You snark, but this is part of the GOP platform, in a bit of a roundabout way.

Medicaid is the way most long-term care is funded in this country. (Old person goes to nursing home, spends all their assets on said home, qualifies for Medicaid). Medicare doesn't cover long-term care.

Ryan's proposal is to cut Medicaid funding by 1/3 immediately, and change it to block grants (so States need not make any particular class of people eligible).
 
2012-09-19 02:07:12 PM  

Dog Welder: Flaming Yawn: For SOME REASON (GEE CAN IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT ROMNEY IS THE WEALTHIEST PERSON EVER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT?) the dialog this election cycle seems really to have zeroed in on this issue. I'm glad it did. The wealthy in general (except entertainers and attention whores) like to keep below the radar; the last few years of economic upheaval have really swung the spotlight around to them.

Just wondering about that, because isn't John Kerry actually worth more?


Only if you lump Teresa's money in with his, which is not how their finances are generally understood. (They file separate tax returns.)

Flaming Yawn: Democracy can work as a system of governance up unto the point the electorate realizes it can vote itself funds from the public treasury.


That's supposed to be Alexander Tytler, but the earliest known version appears to be an unsourced attribution to Tytler in "This is the Hard Core of Freedom" by Elmer T. Peterson in The Daily Oklahoman (9 December 1951).
 
2012-09-19 04:22:35 PM  

LibertyHiller: No, you can't place UI in the same category as disability, FICA and SS, or health coverage, because employees don't contribute a dime out of their paychecks to it.


And yet the level of payment that one can get from UI is directly tied to the size of their old paycheck.

Ironic, eh? Almost as if it were funded by some percentile of that paycheck being held back to pay for possible future benefits. .
 
2012-09-19 05:52:43 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: LibertyHiller: No, you can't place UI in the same category as disability, FICA and SS, or health coverage, because employees don't contribute a dime out of their paychecks to it.

And yet the level of payment that one can get from UI is directly tied to the size of their old paycheck.

Ironic, eh? Almost as if it were funded by some percentile of that paycheck being held back to pay for possible future benefits. .


I may use cages to keep both geese and chickens, but that doesn't mean they're the same kind of bird. Show me on your pay stub where money is taken out for UI.

Or while you're looking, I'll quote from the State of California:

California has four State payroll taxes which are administered by the Employment Development Department (EDD). They are Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Employment Training Tax (ETT), which are employer contributions, and State Disability Insurance (SDI) and Personal Income Tax (PIT), which are withheld from employees' wages.

Wages are generally subject to all four payroll taxes. However, some types of employment are not subject to payroll taxes and/or PIT withholding. For more information, please refer to the California Employer's Guide (DE 44).


(I emphasized that bit for your benefit.)
 
Displayed 50 of 155 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report