Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 178

Thread: Republicans have no answer to this simple chart

  1. #136 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,855
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig234 View Post
    That's a relevant point, and another case where Republicans had to deal with the political limitations of the time. He hurt social security, but did go along with the changes to help it as well, which was not just his policy, it was bi-partisan with Tip O'Neill.

    And it's why Reagan would get nowhere in the Republican Party today - just like his support for handgun control and legalization of millions of undocumented immigrants. There was times he did things like that,as exceptions.




    That's wrong about increased benefits. Removing the cap would fix it - google and read.




    I'm open to a review of options if not done by Republicans who want to gut spending on the American people.
    Reagan hurt S.S.? Please look at what Democrats in Congress did to S.S. in the '70's if you want to talk about hurting S.S. They said the trust fund would last 50 years and it lasted maybe five? Reagan stepped in and fixed that.

    You're calling others ideologues but your whole premise here is Democrats = Good, Republicans = Bad so you have to try and fit everything that happened into that framework.

  2. #137 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,653 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig234 View Post
    That's wrong about increased benefits. Removing the cap would fix it - google and read.
    Even if we did not increase benefits the increased taxes would not be enough to cover the shortfall. But most of those plans do not account for the increased benefits those people would receive. If they did not increase benefits they would be paying higher taxes for no benefits which turns it into a welfare program.

    Again, there are many areas it could be cut without hurting anyone who depends on it. If SS was such a great idea why not keep it as originally conceived without adding all the additional benefits and beneficiaries.

  3. #138 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    8,490
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 3,180 Times in 2,409 Posts
    Groans
    376
    Groaned 244 Times in 225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig234 View Post
    You're an ideologue and it's a waste of time to talk to you. The word 'dependent' has fried your brain.
    Most people who cannot formulate an argument default to that "It's a waste of time to talk to you" canard. Be sure to tell me bye or that you are putting me on ignore because that really wins an argument

  4. #139 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,833
    Thanks
    13,240
    Thanked 40,780 Times in 32,146 Posts
    Groans
    3,660
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig234 View Post
    The ACA had a lot of cost controls, which is why healthcare cost increased at the lowest rate in 60 years when it went in effect.
    can you link to something that provides evidence either of those claims are true?.......

  5. #140 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    825
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 237 Times in 172 Posts
    Groans
    18
    Groaned 8 Times in 8 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    Reagan kept S.S. alive and gave us the surplus we have today. It's interesting your position though because I've read a number of progressives who argue they don't want it turned into a welfare program because they feel it will be easier to cut. But that's what you're arguing for. A very different program than the 'earned right' FDR envisioned.
    Hey, cawacko ignores what he is told and repeats his same false statements, as he always has done.

    It was a bi-partisan project, not a Reagan policy. Reagan and O'Neill. Yes, some progressives disagree with me as you said - and what I said is just one option for fixing it to show how easily it can be done.

  6. #141 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    825
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 237 Times in 172 Posts
    Groans
    18
    Groaned 8 Times in 8 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    We could talk all about the '96 welfare reform. I'm sure you remember the predictions that millions of kids would be out on the streets hungry if it passed. It was great legislation which got more people off welfare and into work and did not have the horrifying affects its opponents predicted. If you remember Bill Clinton took office saying we were going to change welfare as we know it. Even Democrats then knew how bloated the welfare roles were and incentives for one to want to get off were so out of whack.
    Wrong. If you want to talk about false claims of harm from a policy, EVERY Republican got it TOTALLY wrong about Clinton's first budget designed to reduce the deficit - saying it would destroy the economy, raise unemployment, reduce economic growth, create inflation, and many other harms. It's the best test of Democratic versus Republican economic policy in decades and the budget did the opposite of what the Republicans said.

    The Clinton policy on welfare reform DID hurt a lot of people. I'm not going to bother getting and posting details because you would only ignore the info and repeat what you said as you always do. But since then, inequality has risen, mobility has decreased, poverty has increased - all the things said.

    In other words, to Republicans, good news on the move to plutocracy. By the way, I'm open to discuss on 'welfare reform' and some changes - but Republicans are not in a position to have that discussion. They're for scorched earth.

  7. #142 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,653 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig234 View Post
    Hey, cawacko ignores what he is told and repeats his same false statements, as he always has done.

    It was a bi-partisan project, not a Reagan policy. Reagan and O'Neill. Yes, some progressives disagree with me as you said - and what I said is just one option for fixing it to show how easily it can be done.
    I said Reagan because it was during his presidency and he signed it just as I say the budget was balanced under Clinton although that was also bi-partisan with Gingrich--just shorthand.

    The reason I don't favor raising the cap is because that is a great cost to many while cutting unnecessary benefits and beneficiaries has no real cost; especially in the future while abolishing the cap creates long-term costs.

  8. #143 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    825
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 237 Times in 172 Posts
    Groans
    18
    Groaned 8 Times in 8 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    Reagan hurt S.S.? Please look at what Democrats in Congress did to S.S. in the '70's if you want to talk about hurting S.S. They said the trust fund would last 50 years and it lasted maybe five? Reagan stepped in and fixed that.

    You're calling others ideologues but your whole premise here is Democrats = Good, Republicans = Bad so you have to try and fit everything that happened into that framework.
    Uh, I'm open to Democrats having made mistakes, and have good things to say about what Reagan and O'Neill did on that issue.

    You're ignorant what ideology is - if Republicans are wrong on 100 of 100 issues, then saying that is the opposite of ideology. I'm not trying to fit anything into anything, I'll leave that to you. If Republicans get something right, I'll give them credit.

  9. #144 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,855
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig234 View Post
    Hey, cawacko ignores what he is told and repeats his same false statements, as he always has done.

    It was a bi-partisan project, not a Reagan policy. Reagan and O'Neill. Yes, some progressives disagree with me as you said - and what I said is just one option for fixing it to show how easily it can be done.
    LOL, who are you talking to? I'm right here. Be a man Craig and talk to me, don't cry to someone who isn't reading this thread.

    Actually it was the Greenspan Commission that delivered the recommendations for S.S. to Reagan and Congress which was ultimately signed into law.

    What I said wasn't false.

  10. #145 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    825
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 237 Times in 172 Posts
    Groans
    18
    Groaned 8 Times in 8 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I said Reagan because it was during his presidency and he signed it just as I say the budget was balanced under Clinton although that was also bi-partisan with Gingrich--just shorthand.
    That sounds reasonable and helps you sleep at night, but you're wrong.

    We had 12 years of hugely inflated deficits under Reagan/Bush. When he became president, he submitted a budget he specifically said was for deficit reduction - it included a tax increase on the rich. Every Republican said it would cause great harm, and it passed without a vote to spare and no Republican votes, and did the opposite of what Republicans had said, in the best test of the two parties in decades.

    The first two years of Clinton's presidency, Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress, and the deficit decreased the same consistent amount it continued to the rest of his presidency. Republicans not only get zero credit for those two years, they fought tooth and nail to PREVENT the deficit reduction policies. So the best that can be said for them is that they didn't break the deficit reduction the next six years. Republicans just want to re-write history to claim credit for it.



    The reason I don't favor raising the cap is because that is a great cost to many while cutting unnecessary benefits and beneficiaries has no real cost; especially in the future while abolishing the cap creates long-term costs.
    That doesn't even deserve a response. People making well into six figures would suffer, while the benefits to those getting them, the poor, don't need them, you say.

  11. #146 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,855
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig234 View Post
    Uh, I'm open to Democrats having made mistakes, and have good things to say about what Reagan and O'Neill did on that issue.

    You're ignorant what ideology is - if Republicans are wrong on 100 of 100 issues, then saying that is the opposite of ideology. I'm not trying to fit anything into anything, I'll leave that to you. If Republicans get something right, I'll give them credit.
    You are correct, there is a difference between ideology and being a partisan. You are calling others ideologues while being deeply partisan.

  12. #147 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,855
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig234 View Post
    That sounds reasonable and helps you sleep at night, but you're wrong.

    We had 12 years of hugely inflated deficits under Reagan/Bush. When he became president, he submitted a budget he specifically said was for deficit reduction - it included a tax increase on the rich. Every Republican said it would cause great harm, and it passed without a vote to spare and no Republican votes, and did the opposite of what Republicans had said, in the best test of the two parties in decades.

    The first two years of Clinton's presidency, Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress, and the deficit decreased the same consistent amount it continued to the rest of his presidency. Republicans not only get zero credit for those two years, they fought tooth and nail to PREVENT the deficit reduction policies. So the best that can be said for them is that they didn't break the deficit reduction the next six years. Republicans just want to re-write history to claim credit for it.





    That doesn't even deserve a response. People making well into six figures would suffer, while the benefits to those getting them, the poor, don't need them, you say.
    That's some spin even James Carville would be proud of. Well done sir.

  13. #148 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    825
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 237 Times in 172 Posts
    Groans
    18
    Groaned 8 Times in 8 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    LOL, who are you talking to? I'm right here. Be a man Craig and talk to me, don't cry to someone who isn't reading this thread.

    Actually it was the Greenspan Commission that delivered the recommendations for S.S. to Reagan and Congress which was ultimately signed into law.

    What I said wasn't false.
    My post was about and to you. You don't understand that? Reagan and O'Neill both appointed people to the commission and they worked together on the project. It's false to claim it was only a Reagan policy - you did not mention O'Neill.

    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...it-can-be-done

  14. #149 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    825
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 237 Times in 172 Posts
    Groans
    18
    Groaned 8 Times in 8 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    That's some spin even James Carville would be proud of. Well done sir.
    Go waste someone else's time.

  15. #150 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    825
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 237 Times in 172 Posts
    Groans
    18
    Groaned 8 Times in 8 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    You are correct, there is a difference between ideology and being a partisan. You are calling others ideologues while being deeply partisan.
    There was zero partisan in my post - but YOU are partisan, resulting in your opinion there is.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-04-2017, 01:15 PM
  2. Obama and Democrats, Not Republicans, Need to Answer for Debt Ceiling
    By Rationalist in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 05-25-2011, 10:29 AM
  3. Still no answer, same simple question for DIXIE!!!
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 07-19-2008, 07:31 AM
  4. A Challenge: Answer a Very Simple Question.
    By jollie in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 05-06-2008, 02:34 PM
  5. A Simple Fact: Republicans Can't Manage the Economy
    By Cypress in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-24-2007, 07:38 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •