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

cawacko said:
Removing the cap does nothing. It's already been posted in this thread what it would accomplish
Click to expand...

Removing the cap more than solves the budget - it makes SS solvent at least the next 75 years.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/what-impact-would-eliminating

Article pointing out the options, which are that removing the cap would solve it while the right simply wants to cut the benefit:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/social-security/476331/
 
Cypress said:
Reduce the military to a modest sized professional force necessary to defend the conterminous United States and it's territories, expand Medicare to all people, and raise the cap on social security payroll taxes.

Problem solved.

This isn't about what we can afford.

This is about the enduring Republican philosophy that it's each man for himself, and fuck everyone else.
Click to expand...
we can do SS reform if you want.......right after we get done passing the tax plan and replacing Obummer care and dealing with the dreamers.....we can put it at the top of the list......
 
Flash said:
Removing the Social Security cap is not enough to fix the problem. You are spending as much on increased benefits that accompany increased contributions.
Click to expand...

eliminate SS benefits to the top 50% of wage earners........double SS benefits to the bottom 50% of wage earners.......remove the SS cap........problem solved......
 
Craig234 said:
Removing the cap more than solves the budget - it makes SS solvent at least the next 75 years.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/what-impact-would-eliminating

Article pointing out the options, which are that removing the cap would solve it while the right simply wants to cut the benefit:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/social-security/476331/
Click to expand...

From your article:

If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years.”



That is means testing. Right now the system is set up for you to receive back what you pay in. This is saying people would pay far more in and get less out. As a progressive I'm sure you're aware of the arguments progressives have made against such a set up.
 
cawacko said:
From your article:

If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years.”



That is means testing. Right now the system is set up for you to receive back what you pay in. This is saying people would pay far more in and get less out. As a progressive I'm sure you're aware of the arguments progressives have made against such a set up.
Click to expand...


That is not means testing. In fact, means testing is mentioned as an entirely separate option in the same article:

"Maybe not everyone needs social security equally. We should conduct means-testing and eliminate Social Security benefits for people who already have enough saved up for retirement."
 
Craig234 said:
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?

It really does get difficult batting down your flawed premises. Let's start with the first one. I presume that the person that got rich from the thousands working for them GOT PAID money as in made profit of their own right? As for the "millions giving them money", again, one would presume that they received a service or a good for voluntarily handing over their money. Both of your examples are an example of free trade. As for the "want to pay zero taxes", it is a flawed argument. I never said zero taxes. I think the government should and is authorized to collect taxes. It is always a bogus premise by takers like you whenever anyone brings up the fact that the federal gobblement takes too much.

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?
Click to expand...

Yes, Teddy Roosevelt was a Marxist. Progressives were Marxists. They stopped calling themselves progressives because it became a dirty word and they started calling themselves liberal.

I am a believer in private property, free enterprise and free markets. You are not
 
Getin the ring said:
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
Click to expand...

MOVE AWAY FROM IN FRONT OF THE MIRROR THEN, RETARD!!!!! :palm:
 
Craig234 said:
That is not means testing. In fact, means testing is mentioned as an entirely separate option in the same article:

"Maybe not everyone needs social security equally. We should conduct means-testing and eliminate Social Security benefits for people who already have enough saved up for retirement."
Click to expand...

I'm quoting from the PBS article. I don't see that statement in there.

As a progressive what are your thoughts on means testing S.S.?
 
Too bad you're too inconsiderate to correctly use the quote feature.

Otherwise responding to your BS wouldn't require so much extra work.

Just another selfish conservative trait, I guess.

Fauxcahontas said:
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?
Click to expand...

I do pay for MY OWN health care, but we're not talking about me. We're talking about the poor and the elderly who shouldn't have to live with sickness and disease just so corporate CEO's can build up a bigger stack for themselves.

I base this on common standards of decency that have guided our society and other societies that claim to be civilized for centuries.

This is not confiscation. It's moral responsibility. Do you understand the difference?

Fauxcahontas said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nobody said anything about a wealth limit. Stop obfuscating, liar.

It's not my job to provide a number for higher tax brackets. We have experts on such things who can analyze the economic conditions and make that determination.

Don't worry though, it won't include you or your poor-ass friends.

Fauxcahontas said:
Yes you are talking about taking their wealth away. You contradict this claim with your next sentence.
Click to expand...

Wrong. They will still have their wealth, just a small percentage less.

Fauxcahontas said:
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
Click to expand...

Right-wing tax-hatin' bullshit ^^^. Flimsy excuse for your selfish opposition to something we all know is the moral thing to do.

Fauxcahontas said:
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?
Click to expand...

Based upon the common standards of decency that have guided civilized societies for centuries, including those espoused in The Bible and by Jesus himself, it is selfish for very wealthy people who have many times more money than an average person could ever spend on the necessities of life in a lifetime, to oppose paying slightly higher taxes for the purpose of helping the needy.

Something we've all been taught since childhood.

Apparently, it fell on deaf ears with those who grew up to become greedy, selfish, money-grubbing conservatives.
 
Fauxcahontas said:
Yes, Teddy Roosevelt was a Marxist. Progressives were Marxists. They stopped calling themselves progressives because it became a dirty word and they started calling themselves liberal.
Click to expand...

OK, you're ignorant and radical.

I am a believer in private property, free enterprise and free markets. You are not
Click to expand...

You're not, but let's start easy: do you support zero taxes?
 
cawacko said:
I'm quoting from the PBS article. I don't see that statement in there.

As a progressive what are your thoughts on means testing S.S.?
Click to expand...

I see. Check the other article from The Atlantic in the post.

My view on means testing as I said is that I don't know why it's such a big issue for the right - I don't care much about it. It won't solve much if it were done. It's a small issue and seems symbolic. I don't have any priority about it.
 
Nomad said:
Too bad you're too inconsiderate to correctly use the quote feature.

Otherwise responding to your BS wouldn't require so much extra work.

Just another selfish conservative trait, I guess.



I do pay for MY OWN health care, but we're not talking about me. We're talking about the poor and the elderly who shouldn't have to live with sickness and disease just so corporate CEO's can build up a bigger stack for themselves.

No you don't liar. And if you really want to help the poor and elderly then do so on your nickel. Why should others have to pay to satisfy your conscience?

I base this on common standards of decency that have guided our society and other societies that claim to be civilized for centuries.

Standards of decency? Says who? You?

This is not confiscation. It's moral responsibility. Do you understand the difference?

If you take something that isn't yours against someones will, that is stealing. Doing it under the auspices of "compassion" and using the power of the federal gobblement to do it does not confer morality on an immoral act



Nobody said anything about a wealth limit. Stop obfuscating, liar.

You did. You said there is a point where people have enough. Well what is that? How do you know if someone has enough? Is it $1 million? $2 million? $5 million? $10 million? How much? I know you would obfuscate and not answer. You are a coward

It's not my job to provide a number for higher tax brackets. We have experts on such things who can analyze the economic conditions and make that determination.

Don't worry though, it won't include you or your poor-ass friends.



Wrong. They will still have their wealth, just a small percentage less.

I didn't say you would take it all, but if you take their money you are taking their wealth. You don't realize it, but you are admitting it

Right-wing tax-hatin' bullshit ^^^. Flimsy excuse for your selfish opposition to something we all know is the moral thing to do.

Again, you call people selfish because they don't want to have their property confiscated. I would argue that it is people who want to take that which does not belong to them who are selfish

Based upon the common standards of decency that have guided civilized societies for centuries, including those espoused in The Bible and by Jesus himself, it is selfish for very wealthy people who have many times more money than an average person could ever spend on the necessities of life in a lifetime, to oppose paying slightly higher taxes for the purpose of helping the needy.

I think it is very nice that you are bringing Jesus Christ into this conversation. Can you find any quote based on your study of the Bible where Jesus advocated using the power of government to help the poor and needy? Now, I personally believe that it is all of our duty to help those less fortunate than us. I also believe that it should be left to the individual. It is more efficient and I don't believe it is the role of the federal gobblement. Maybe if you and your ilk were less greedy we wouldn't need the gobblement?

Something we've all been taught since childhood.

I do enjoy that you run to Christianity (which you bash other times) to support your collectivist ways

Apparently, it fell on deaf ears with those who grew up to become greedy, selfish, money-grubbing conservatives.
Click to expand...

Calling people greedy does not hide your immorality
 
Fauxcahontas said:
No. That is a silly notion.

I support a national sales tax. I oppose an income tax
Click to expand...

OK, so you support a far higher percent of the income of people who make less than people who make more to be taxed, and you would tax it on sales in a massive tax that reduces purchases.

Do you support public police departments? Public schools? Public roads? National Parks? The FBI? A public currency, the dollar? Public scientific research?
 
Fauxcahontas said:
Calling people greedy does not hide your immorality
Click to expand...

Your arguments are shallow and simplistic.

Every law on the books in any civilized, Western society are based on standards of decency and morality.

Our tax codes should be as well.

You and the rest of the conservative right are obviously both greedy and immoral.

Must be nice to go through life without the burden of a conscience.
 
cawacko said:
S.S., Medicare and military are the three largest federal expenditures. Going to have to address them at some point
Click to expand...

Of the three, the military is the ONLY one that is delegated in the Constitution. Perhaps we need to address SS, Medicare, and all sorts of things for which the federal government spends money yet has no delegated authority to do so.
 
Craig234 said:
OK, so you support a far higher percent of the income of people who make less than people who make more to be taxed, and you would tax it on sales in a massive tax that reduces purchases.

Do you support public police departments? Public schools? Public roads? National Parks? The FBI? A public currency, the dollar? Public scientific research?
Click to expand...

I support the federal government spending on things for which the Constitution grants them delegated authority. If it's not within their authority, the Constitution is very clear as to where such authority lies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top