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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Obama: "My SS cuts are not my 'ideal' plan" So what? You want to cut all entitlements or you want to make everyone a welfare queen? In this country, it's either/or, there is no third option   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 172
    More: Interesting, obama, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, Cost of Living Allowance, Sam Brownback, entitlements, social security  
•       •       •

1724 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Apr 2013 at 10:40 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-08 11:26:21 AM  

Cletus C.: TV's Vinnie: Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.

Remove the income cap. Make the rich pay more of their fair share.

Just don't let them opt out of a program they don't need. Their fair share would go to zero. Oh noes.


No it wouldn't. We are all in this together. Making sure we don't have old people starving in the streets is a collective responsibility we all share. Cough up.
 
2013-04-08 11:26:49 AM  
I hate to say it, but Hillary would have been a better President.  We'd have some actual leadership in the White House instead of this nutless loser.
 
2013-04-08 11:27:11 AM  

Cletus C.: TV's Vinnie: Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.

Remove the income cap. Make the rich pay more of their fair share.

Just don't let them opt out of a program they don't need. Their fair share would go to zero. Oh noes.


And of course you are in favor of denying those who opt out any benefits what so ever if they end up not being rich when they are elderly, right?
 
2013-04-08 11:27:16 AM  

Ned Stark: Vote for lesser evil, win, receive evil. Shock and horror.

Thankfully the teabaggers, for all their other sins, will never permit such a thing. Get yer gub'mint hands off my social security!


Actually, they'll say, "if it wasn't for them damn blacks and mexicans, my benefits wouldn't be cut".


/all of this country's problems can be traced back to welfare queens
//Shhhhh, lets not even talk about Defense
 
2013-04-08 11:28:06 AM  

Cletus C.: CPennypacker: Cletus C.: TV's Vinnie: Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.

Remove the income cap. Make the rich pay more of their fair share.

Just don't let them opt out of a program they don't need. Their fair share would go to zero. Oh noes.

They can opt out of the program if they want to. They still have to pay the tax

The key word here is fair. Such a subjective thing.


Not really. If you get to use the american workforce to bolster and facilitate your fortune, then you can pay a proportional share of your income to ensure that they can eat and have somewhere to sleep after you're done using their labor. Sounds fair to me.
 
2013-04-08 11:28:26 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I hate to say it, but Hillary would have been a better President.  We'd have some actual leadership in the White House instead of this nutless loser.


I'm sure you probably hate to say "President Obama" even more.

/sucks to be you
 
2013-04-08 11:28:28 AM  

CheapEngineer: Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.

[www.mediaite.com image 320x283]

\bs, and you damn well know it


Why is it a lie? An extra 1% of your income you contribute to SS starting today would have a much greater impact on when the trust fund goes kaput than if it started in 30 years.
 
2013-04-08 11:29:04 AM  
Ah yes, the old "Slower growth is OK when we do it, it is cuts when the other guy does it".

//BBSABVD
 
2013-04-08 11:29:06 AM  

redmid17: Hmmm if Dems and Reps don't like it, there has to be a semblance of merit to the proposal

 WRONG!

It's such a gigantic stinking turdburger that it even makes a republican gag.
 
2013-04-08 11:29:31 AM  
Why can't we just cut 100% of all government spending?
 
2013-04-08 11:29:57 AM  

Cletus C.: CPennypacker: Cletus C.: TV's Vinnie: Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.

Remove the income cap. Make the rich pay more of their fair share.

Just don't let them opt out of a program they don't need. Their fair share would go to zero. Oh noes.

They can opt out of the program if they want to. They still have to pay the tax

The key word here is fair. Such a subjective thing.


Oh look a Libertarian who still need a harsh coQpunch! Hold still.
 
2013-04-08 11:30:57 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: I'm sure you probably hate to say "President Obama" even more.

/sucks to be you


I voted for the guy.  Twice.  And I was glad when he beat Hillary in the '08 primary.  But I've grown tired of his castrated, milquetoast approach to dealing with the GOP.  I think if Hillary were elected instead of Obama, things would be better.
 
2013-04-08 11:32:11 AM  

Ned Stark: No it wouldn't. We are all in this together. Making sure we don't have old people starving in the streets is a collective responsibility we all share. Cough up.


So increase the tax rate 2 and 2?
 
2013-04-08 11:33:07 AM  

TV's Vinnie: vernonFL: TV's Vinnie: It's a classic "frog in the boiling water" scheme

I know what you mean, but the "frog in water" story actually isn't true - if you put a frog in water and then slowly bring it to a boil, the frog will jump out of the water when it gets uncomfortable.

No.


How about "lobster in water" instead? Lobsters generally don't jump like frogs.
 
2013-04-08 11:34:20 AM  

Lost Thought 00: 47 is the new 42: heypete: Bravo Two: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

/wipe hands on pants
//repeat

This.

[mahler.ca image 292x256]

I was going to say something like this.  Why is there even a payroll cap on SS contributions in the first place?  I honestly don't know what the reasoning was when it was instituted.

The payroll cap is the difference between it being a government-run retirement insurance and welfare for the elderly.


Do you have a cite for that being the reason?  I find having a payroll cap on SS contributions determining whether it's a government-run retirement insurance and welfare the elderly is horrible, and not really a valid reason.  Granted, it may have been argued that way when it was instituted, but it doesn't mean that whether or not having the cap is insurance and welfare.  We should be taking care of our elderly though.
 
2013-04-08 11:35:27 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: DROxINxTHExWIND: I'm sure you probably hate to say "President Obama" even more.

/sucks to be you

I voted for the guy.  Twice.  And I was glad when he beat Hillary in the '08 primary.  But I've grown tired of his castrated, milquetoast approach to dealing with the GOP.  I think if Hillary were elected instead of Obama, things would be better.


And you blame that on Obama? Its not his fault that Republicans in Congress were are not ready for a black President.
 
2013-04-08 11:40:13 AM  
I have an even better approach than raising the ceiling: a 1% tax on all capital gains above 100,000k, no increase in SS payments beyond the current max.   We'd fund social security for centuries.
 
2013-04-08 11:40:24 AM  

Saiga410: Ned Stark: No it wouldn't. We are all in this together. Making sure we don't have old people starving in the streets is a collective responsibility we all share. Cough up.

So increase the tax rate 2 and 2?


When it comes to finding more money in the budget, I personally favor skinning the Pentagon until they're throwing bake sales to gas up their Jeeps, but taxes can be fine too(depending on where they fall, natch)
 
2013-04-08 11:40:24 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Cletus C.: TV's Vinnie: Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.

Remove the income cap. Make the rich pay more of their fair share.

Just don't let them opt out of a program they don't need. Their fair share would go to zero. Oh noes.

And of course you are in favor of denying those who opt out any benefits what so ever if they end up not being rich when they are elderly, right?


I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.
 
2013-04-08 11:41:52 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: And you blame that on Obama? Its not his fault that Republicans in Congress were are not ready for a black President.


I blame Obama's response to the GOP on Obama, yeah.  He can't do anything about how the GOP treats him, but he has full control of how he deals with it.  And so far, all I've seen is pitiful, pathetic attempts to ingratiate himself to them when everyone knows they will never accept him.  Having Obama in the White House is like just leaving the damn Presidency empty and letting the GOP run the show.

I don't think the GOP would have been much kinder to Hillary, but I think Hillary's response would have been much more forceful, and we'd be better off for it.  Watching Obama play the part of Charlie Brown kicking the football makes my die a little inside every time I see it.
 
2013-04-08 11:42:18 AM  

Ned Stark: Saiga410: Ned Stark: No it wouldn't. We are all in this together. Making sure we don't have old people starving in the streets is a collective responsibility we all share. Cough up.

So increase the tax rate 2 and 2?

When it comes to finding more money in the budget, I personally favor skinning the Pentagon until they're throwing bake sales to gas up their Jeeps, but taxes can be fine too(depending on where they fall, natch)


I'd cut 100% of all military spending and quadruple all income taxes. We need to get this country debt free.
 
2013-04-08 11:43:39 AM  

TV's Vinnie: redmid17: Hmmm if Dems and Reps don't like it, there has to be a semblance of merit to the proposal
 WRONG!

It's such a gigantic stinking turdburger that it even makes a republican gag.


substantive response there
 
2013-04-08 11:45:05 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I hate to say it, but Hillary would have been a better President.  We'd have some actual leadership in the White House instead of this nutless loser.


No. Hilary would have been beaten by McCain armed with over 20 years of right wing planning. We'd have Sarah Palin sitting behind Dick Cheney's old desk right now, writing up a new list of Americans to be rounded up for the crimes of everything from practicing witchcraft to whistling on a  Sunday.
 
2013-04-08 11:45:28 AM  

wjmorris3: Philip Francis Queeg: Cletus C.: TV's Vinnie: Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.

Remove the income cap. Make the rich pay more of their fair share.

Just don't let them opt out of a program they don't need. Their fair share would go to zero. Oh noes.

And of course you are in favor of denying those who opt out any benefits what so ever if they end up not being rich when they are elderly, right?

I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.


Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution would like a word.
 
2013-04-08 11:46:54 AM  

TV's Vinnie: LouDobbsAwaaaay: I hate to say it, but Hillary would have been a better President.  We'd have some actual leadership in the White House instead of this nutless loser.

No. Hilary would have been beaten by McCain armed with over 20 years of right wing planning. We'd have Sarah Palin sitting behind Dick Cheney's old desk right now, writing up a new list of Americans to be rounded up for the crimes of everything from practicing witchcraft to whistling on a  Sunday.


Yeah, that's why I said "Hillary as President" as opposed to "Hillary as candidate".  The election would have stood between her and the Presidency, but I just think hypothetically if she were swapped out with Obama as President we'd all be much better off.  Obama doesn't have the ability to deal with the GOP that he needs in order to be President :/
 
2013-04-08 11:47:58 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: TV's Vinnie: LouDobbsAwaaaay: I hate to say it, but Hillary would have been a better President.  We'd have some actual leadership in the White House instead of this nutless loser.

No. Hilary would have been beaten by McCain armed with over 20 years of right wing planning. We'd have Sarah Palin sitting behind Dick Cheney's old desk right now, writing up a new list of Americans to be rounded up for the crimes of everything from practicing witchcraft to whistling on a  Sunday.

Yeah, that's why I said "Hillary as President" as opposed to "Hillary as candidate".


If Hillary as candidate couldn't win, then any discussion about her a President is moot.
 
2013-04-08 11:48:05 AM  

wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.


files.myopera.com
 
2013-04-08 11:49:05 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I hate to say it, but Hillary would have been a better President.  We'd have some actual leadership in the White House instead of this nutless loser.


I don't think so. Remember the way she backed down on universal health care when her hubby waste president?

I would have preferred a more liberal president but I don't think a more liberal president would have been more successful either.

Obama is fairly conservative and for the few non-racist conservatives - he spoke to them more than Romney did.

Ultimately - Obama has done a good job. Not great. But good.
 
2013-04-08 11:51:30 AM  

TV's Vinnie: If Hillary as candidate couldn't win, then any discussion about her a President is moot.


I'm not going to have your argument just so you can declare victory.  If you think the discussion is moot, then stop responding.
 
2013-04-08 11:54:57 AM  

Serious Black: wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.

[files.myopera.com image 438x400]


Seriously - if the government spent nothing, we'd be debt free in a matter of years.
 
2013-04-08 11:55:40 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: TV's Vinnie: If Hillary as candidate couldn't win, then any discussion about her a President is moot.

I'm not going to have your argument just so you can declare victory.  If you think the discussion is moot, then stop responding.


No it isn't

d33hzbufl2gyhz.cloudfront.net

I didn't think we were having an argument or that I was aiming for a "win". I was just stating the opinion as i saw it. Hillary would get clobbered by the right wing hate machine in any campaign she ran in. It's just a fact.

When the 08 primaries went Obama's way instead of to Hillary, you know that there was a chorus of "Oh f*ck what now?" coming out of every right wing think tank's meeting room. They had tons of attack research on Hilary, but hardly jack squat on Obama. That's why they were tossing everything from "socialist!" to "seekrit muslin!" in the desperate hope something would stick.
 
2013-04-08 11:57:31 AM  
http://imgur.com/r/QuotesPorn/9WT3v

The owners of Amurica are tired of paying for all of you takers.
 
2013-04-08 11:58:34 AM  

wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.

[files.myopera.com image 438x400]

Seriously - if the government spent nothing, we'd be debt free in a matter of years.


That's like saying we'd be thinner if we all just stopped eating forever. Your skeletal remains would be so svelte laying there on the ground!
 
2013-04-08 11:59:45 AM  

Bravo Two: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

This.


I'd do it.  The trick is, it then becomes "welfare" instead of "savings" in the minds of many.  Tough sell.
 
2013-04-08 12:02:16 PM  

wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.

[files.myopera.com image 438x400]

Seriously - if the government spent nothing, we'd be debt free in a matter of years.


That doesn't even begin to defend your claim that the federal government has no legal authority under the Constitution to spend money. It's just a stupid "no shiat" statement that nobody would ever endorse doing in real life.
 
2013-04-08 12:02:18 PM  

TV's Vinnie: When the 08 primaries went Obama's way instead of to Hillary, you know that there was a chorus of "Oh f*ck what now?" coming out of every right wing think tank's meeting room. They had tons of attack research on Hilary, but hardly jack squat on Obama. That's why they were tossing everything from "socialist!" to "seekrit muslin!" in the desperate hope something would stick.


And now, after a solid term of doing nothing but capitulating to GOP demands, followed by what appears to be a second term of exactly the same, it seems to me that I was wrong when I thought Hillary would be a worse President than Obama.  Obama's the one who could beat McCain, but ultimately Hillary would have been a better President.
 
2013-04-08 12:04:10 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Bravo Two: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Social Security can be fixed forever in one simple move:  Remove the payroll cap on SS contributions.

This.

I'd do it.  The trick is, it then becomes "welfare" instead of "savings" in the minds of many.  Tough sell.


Unfortunately, I don't know of any reform in which this wouldn't be the case in Republican spin.

Hell, we can't even talk about restoring tax rates without hearing that rhetoric.
 
2013-04-08 12:05:29 PM  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

Meh, this is the version where he talks about Social Security too.
 
2013-04-08 12:06:34 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: TV's Vinnie: When the 08 primaries went Obama's way instead of to Hillary, you know that there was a chorus of "Oh f*ck what now?" coming out of every right wing think tank's meeting room. They had tons of attack research on Hilary, but hardly jack squat on Obama. That's why they were tossing everything from "socialist!" to "seekrit muslin!" in the desperate hope something would stick.

And now, after a solid term of doing nothing but capitulating to GOP demands, followed by what appears to be a second term of exactly the same, it seems to me that I was wrong when I thought Hillary would be a worse President than Obama.  Obama's the one who could beat McCain, but ultimately Hillary would have been a better President.


The POINT is that McGovern would have been a better President than Nixon for example, but he didn't win so there's no point wishing for something that would never be allowed to happen.
 
2013-04-08 12:09:15 PM  

Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.

[files.myopera.com image 438x400]

Seriously - if the government spent nothing, we'd be debt free in a matter of years.

That doesn't even begin to defend your claim that the federal government has no legal authority under the Constitution to spend money. It's just a stupid "no shiat" statement that nobody would ever endorse doing in real life.


If it were actually permitted, there'd be an amendment saying so, which there isn't!
 
2013-04-08 12:12:49 PM  

TV's Vinnie: The POINT is that McGovern would have been a better President than Nixon for example, but he didn't win so there's no point wishing for something that would never be allowed to happen.


Again, I'm not going to follow you into a separate argument just so you can plant a flag and declare victory.  If you don't want to have this conversation, stop responding.  I'm not going to explain this to you again.
 
2013-04-08 12:22:57 PM  

wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.

[files.myopera.com image 438x400]

Seriously - if the government spent nothing, we'd be debt free in a matter of years.

That doesn't even begin to defend your claim that the federal government has no legal authority under the Constitution to spend money. It's just a stupid "no shiat" statement that nobody would ever endorse doing in real life.

If it were actually permitted, there'd be an amendment saying so, which there isn't!


Really? So Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which partly says Congress has the power "To lay and collect Taxes...to...provide for...the general Welfare of the United States," that does not mean Congress can spend money it has raised through taxes?
 
2013-04-08 12:26:10 PM  

Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.

[files.myopera.com image 438x400]

Seriously - if the government spent nothing, we'd be debt free in a matter of years.

That doesn't even begin to defend your claim that the federal government has no legal authority under the Constitution to spend money. It's just a stupid "no shiat" statement that nobody would ever endorse doing in real life.

If it were actually permitted, there'd be an amendment saying so, which there isn't!

Really? So Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which partly says Congress has the power "To lay and collect Taxes...to...provide for...the general Welfare of the United States," that does not mean Congress can spend money it has raised through taxes?


Only treasonous people foolishly believe that the government can spend money. Obviously, you're not a real American.
 
2013-04-08 12:34:50 PM  

Serious Black: CheapEngineer: Serious Black: vernonFL: How much would the average poor grandmother's Social Security check get cut? Would next month's check be $10 less?

No, its probably a very small change in the increase of the amount of the checks over years. Of course I DNRTFA so I could be wrong.

Also, Social Security isn't a program that is in imminent danger of collapse, we still have 20 or more years for that to happen, so its not like we really need to reform it now.

The longer we wait, the harder it is to ensure long-term balance.

[www.mediaite.com image 320x283]

\bs, and you damn well know it

Why is it a lie? An extra 1% of your income you contribute to SS starting today would have a much greater impact on when the trust fund goes kaput than if it started in 30 years.


It depends on your suggested solution. If it's cutting benefits for existing and future beneficiaries, then hell no. If it means getting higher wage earners to contribute more (and cleaning up the system), then yes.

Todays and Tomorrows SS recipients are not responsible for the mess that has been made of Social Security. Politicians who raided the trust fund, insurance companies who gouge the fund with inflated charges and fraud - *that's* who is responsible. Fix that before you start telling people that the contract we made with them 20-30-40 years ago is void because we don't feel like doing the work to keep our promises.

\thanks to all you @ssholes who laughed at Al Gore's "lockbox"
\\damn you all to hell
 
2013-04-08 12:40:44 PM  

King Something: TV's Vinnie: vernonFL: TV's Vinnie: It's a classic "frog in the boiling water" scheme

I know what you mean, but the "frog in water" story actually isn't true - if you put a frog in water and then slowly bring it to a boil, the frog will jump out of the water when it gets uncomfortable.

No.

How about "lobster in water" instead? Lobsters generally don't jump like frogs.


They also don't jump out if you just drop them in the water.
 
2013-04-08 12:41:49 PM  

CheapEngineer: Todays and Tomorrows SS recipients are not responsible for the mess that has been made of Social Security.


Social Security is not in a mess.  Its funding is, because of the deficit spending that ignored the fact that, eventually, SS was going to need to redeem all the Treasury notes it's been buying for many decades.  The program itself has been working as promised and remains quite popular.

Please do not contribute to the factually baseless meme that SS is a mess.
 
2013-04-08 12:54:26 PM  

redmid17: Hmmm if Dems and Reps don't like it, there has to be a semblance of merit to the proposal.


Those wankers in England drive on the left side of the road.  Meanwhile- idiots in America drive on the right side.  Clearly, the only answer is to drive straight down the middle.
 
2013-04-08 01:00:10 PM  

Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: Serious Black: wjmorris3: I'd go even further and end social security benefits for everyone, right now. The United States government does not have the authority per the Constitution to spend money.

[files.myopera.com image 438x400]

Seriously - if the government spent nothing, we'd be debt free in a matter of years.

That doesn't even begin to defend your claim that the federal government has no legal authority under the Constitution to spend money. It's just a stupid "no shiat" statement that nobody would ever endorse doing in real life.

If it were actually permitted, there'd be an amendment saying so, which there isn't!

Really? So Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which partly says Congress has the power "To lay and collect Taxes...to...provide for...the general Welfare of the United States," that does not mean Congress can spend money it has raised through taxes?


Damn, you guys are easy to troll.
 
2013-04-08 01:04:22 PM  
The social security system is not the mess the GOP makes it out to be but there is room to strengthen the system. It was established in 1935 and there have been significant changes in the variables like life expectancy which have not been accounted for. There were a few minor changes where if you wanted to work a few more years your payout was better but this was optional.
 
2013-04-08 01:12:28 PM  

Aarontology: Obama proposes spending cuts and revenue increases that would result in $1.8 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years, replacing $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that are otherwise poised to take effect over the next 10 years.

Translation: Because the poor, the elderly, the veterans and everyone who has contributed to Social Security and Medicare should have to bear the brunt of the cuts, not the well connected businesses who depend on Federal dollars to keep going.

In other words, the continuation of wealth redistribution upwards cannot be interrupted, citizen. now grit and bear it while the programs you've paid into your entire life are gutted to make sure a defense contractor can keep making useless toys so that Congressmen and Senators can brag about bringing jobs to their districts and states.


What pisses me off about all this posturing around SS is the fact that it is an earnings capped tax.  Remove the farking cap, deficit reduction without hurting anyone and the taxed amount is now a 100% equal percentage.  Oh, but wait.. that means ultra wealthy would have to pay more to support the health and retirement of the citizens they exploited during their working years.
 
Displayed 50 of 172 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