Paul Ryan admits the GOP will gut Medicare and Medicaid to pay for tax cuts

[Nomad]

Who made you the arbiter of what someone needs or doesn't need?

I could ask you the same question with regard to Medicare and Medicaid funding.

Who made you the arbiter of what someone needs or doesn't need in terms of health care?

It is extremely lazy thinking to just sit back and claim others should pay for things that you want. That is the quintessential definition of greed. Taking something that you did not legally earn from someone who did. Of course you think you are doing for the poor so somehow that covers your immorality of stealing another's property

The lazy thinking is all on your part.

We're talking about real, basic human need here. It doesn't take a Ph. D. in economics to understand that after a certain point on the scale of wealth, one arrives at a place where one has more than they can ever spend on themselves and their families, even living at a level commonly considered comfortable or even luxurious. And nobody is talking about "taking" these people's wealth away from them. Even at twice the rate they currently pay, they'd still be wealthy.

The Constitution gives the govt the right to levy and collect taxes from citizens. The only thing in question is the rate at which those taxes are levied. Only the filthy, selfish, amoral greedy scumbags of the conservative right and the Repugnant Party feel that it's unfair for those who have more than an average human could ever need to live and survive comfortably, to pay an amount commensurate with their ability to do so.

[cawacko]

No, you would not have to means test it.

What is the right's obsession with means testing?

Did you see Owl's post earlier saying her family could do with a little less so others in need could have more? That's means testing so that's a terrible and false generalization you just made. Or a term you like, a lie

[cawacko]

The realities of SS and Medicares is that SS is fine for many years to come and easily fixed after that, and massive amounts of savings are available if we go to single-payer.

It's in line until 2034. So we shouldn't worry about it until 2033?

[Craig234]

Did you see Owl's post earlier saying her family could do with a little less so others in need could have more? That's means testing so that's a terrible and false generalization you just made. Or a term you like, a lie

That's not what means testing is, and you are lying offensively with the word lie - do it again and you will go on ignore. Means testing is limiting a government benefit based on need.

[Craig234]

It's in line until 2034. So we shouldn't worry about it until 2033?

That's not what I said. Let's address it now, with a plan from progressives - which could be removing the cap or other options. Not the right-wing plan to cut it.

[cawacko]

That's not what means testing is, and you are lying offensively with the word lie - do it again and you will go on ignore. Means testing is limiting a government benefit based on need.

You're the one making up stuff. If you don't like being called out on it don't do it. I don't give two sh*ts if you put me on ignore. That's a pathetic threat.

I know what means testing is. It's one way that has been discussed for S.S. and Medicare. Sorry that offends you

[cawacko]

That's not what I said. Let's address it now, with a plan from progressives - which could be removing the cap or other options. Not the right-wing plan to cut it.

Removing the cap does nothing. It's already been posted in this thread what it would accomplish

[Getin the ring]

You should take your own advice, sonny boy.

The subject was funding Medicare without having to slash it. Nobody said anything about the deficit.

Then, there's the subject of your arithmetic. The top 1% own 35% of the wealth in this country. The next 19% own 50% of the wealth. That means that the top 20% own 85% of the wealth. Don't tell me they "need" a big tax cut or that they can't afford to pay more. Only gullible idiot sheep-like rightie contards believe that bullshit.

The internet is a great tool for informing ones self before you elect to opine on a public forum, otherwise you look like the whiny fool you are parroting some conservative talking head, where your effort was hitting a button on your clicker.

you really ARE this stupid ^^^ aren't you, and here the whole time I thought you were just triggered into posting stupid things without thinking.

Liberals have become so obsessed with Trump is bad, that they, you, have lost all form of common sense. "The rich are too rich", "take rich peoples money, that is the answer"

so triggered that there is someone in the WH standing there saying 'here, take some of your money back, here, take it',
and you're standing there saying, 'no, I don't want it, you'll just give some to rich people too, you keep it'

do you even hear yourself anymore?

my God I'm debating with retards

[canceled.2021.3]

I could ask you the same question with regard to Medicare and Medicaid funding.

Who made you the arbiter of what someone needs or doesn't need in terms of health care?

If you pay for YOUR OWN healthcare then I will never comment on what you need or don't need. As long as you pay for it yourself, you are free to obtain whatever healthcare you desire. However, if you insist on confiscating my property in order to satisfy your conscience and your envy then I will have a say in what you need or don't need. Do you understand the difference?

The lazy thinking is all on your part.

We're talking about real, basic human need here. It doesn't take a Ph. D. in economics to understand that after a certain point on the scale of wealth, one arrives at a place where one has more than they can ever spend on themselves and their families, even living at a level commonly considered comfortable or even luxurious.
So what is that number in your mind? What is hat certain point on the scale of wealth at which one should attain no more? Give me a number.


And nobody is talking about "taking" these people's wealth away from them. Even at twice the rate they currently pay, they'd still be wealthy.

Yes you are talking about taking their wealth away. You contradict this claim with your next sentence.

The Constitution gives the govt the right to levy and collect taxes from citizens.

Actually, the Constitution as originally written prevented the government from imposing a direct tax for this very reason. It took the 16th Amendment built on a lie to change that

The only thing in question is the rate at which those taxes are levied. Only the filthy, selfish, amoral greedy scumbags of the conservative right and the Repugnant Party feel that it's unfair for those who have more than an average human could ever need to live and survive comfortably, to pay an amount commensurate with their ability to do so.

Again, explain why it is selfish for one to want to keep that which they have legally earned.

PS your last statement which I bolded sounds eerily similar to something Karl Marx once said. How did that go? Oh yeah, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". You sure sound like a communist. Are you Russian?

[Craig234]

You're the one making up stuff. If you don't like being called out on it don't do it. I don't give two sh*ts if you put me on ignore. That's a pathetic threat.

No, you're lying about that. You don't get a say. I don't care whether you 'care'.

I know what means testing is. It's one way that has been discussed for S.S. and Medicare. Sorry that offends you

You misstated what it was, and what I criticized was your saying that it's NEEDED to fix Social Security when it is not - and you misrepresent what I said as being about you simply saying 'it's one way that has been discussed'.

[cawacko]

No, you're lying about that. You don't get a say. I don't care whether you 'care'.



You misstated what it was, and what I criticized was your saying that it's NEEDED to fix Social Security when it is not - and you misrepresent what I said as being about you simply saying 'it's one way that has been discussed'.

Quit whining. We come from opposite ends of the political spectrum but that doesn't mean we can't talk about these issues. Ultimately they're going to have to be addressed in a bi-partisan way.

[Craig234]

Again, explain why it is selfish for one to want to keep that which they have legally earned.

So, you'd say that someone who gets rich from thousands working for them and millions giving them money, would not be 'selfish' to say they want to pay zero taxes?

PS your last statement which I bolded sounds eerily similar to something Karl Marx once said. How did that go? Oh yeah, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". You sure sound like a communist. Are you Russian?

Which also happens to be the very American idea of progressive income taxes and helping the poor. Are you calling Teddy Roosevelt a Marxist? Is there ANY amount of plutocracy you would criticize as too far right?

[Craig234]

Quit whining. We come from opposite ends of the political spectrum but that doesn't mean we can't talk about these issues. Ultimately they're going to have to be addressed in a bi-partisan way.

No, your acting like an ass in recent posts is what is getting us to not be able to talk about these issues. You can keep it up or you can do better.

[PostmodernProphet]

Tax cuts for the rich are not the way to do it.

if we ever do "tax cuts for the rich" we can discuss it.......meanwhile all you have are meaningless demmycrat memes......

[PostmodernProphet]

[SIZE=3][B]T.......these tax cuts only add to Obama's $10T deficit!

I know, right......why did you ever elect that idiot.......