The fall of America

Mojo said:
So, how many of the people who signed the "Contract With America weren't Republicans?

..."The Contract with America was a document released by the United States Republican Party during the 1994 Congressional election campaign. Written by Larry Hunter, who was aided by Newt Gingrich, Robert Walker, Richard Armey, Bill Paxon, Tom DeLay, John Boehner and Jim Nussle, and in part using text from former President Ronald Reagan's 1985 State of the Union Address, the Contract detailed the actions the Republicans promised to take if they became the majority party in the United States House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Many of the Contract's policy ideas originated at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

The Contract with America was introduced six weeks before the 1994 Congressional election, the first mid-term election of President Bill Clinton's Administration, and was signed by all but two of the Republican members of the House and all of the Party's non-incumbent Republican Congressional candidates.

Proponents say the Contract was revolutionary in its commitment to offering specific legislation for a vote, describing in detail the precise plan of the Congressional Representatives, and marked the first time since 1918 that a Congressional election had been run broadly on a national level. Furthermore, its provisions represented the view of many conservative Republicans on the issues of shrinking the size of government, promoting lower taxes and greater entrepreneurial activity, and both tort reform and welfare reform.

When the Republicans gained a majority of seats in the 104th Congress, the Contract was seen as a triumph for Party leaders such as Minority Whip Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and for the American conservative movement..."

Contract with America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Yes... the Good Ol' Contract With America... and whatever happened to that? Does your history recall the republicans just forgot all about it once they got elected, and it was never mentioned again..... right?

Because the way I remember history (and I don't really consider this 'history' since I remember it happening) is the republicans brought every one of the items in CWA to the floor for a vote in the first 100 days, just as they promised to do. They never promised that all republicans were conservative or would vote conservative, they never promised conservative initiatives would be implemented. As I said, I don't recall congress ever being controlled by conservatives, and they certainly weren't during CWA, or more of it would have passed. But the good news is, we're going to fix all of that in 2012.
 
evince said:
Life and careerKuhner was born in Montreal, Canada. After teaching US history from 1998 to 2000 at McGill University in Montreal, Kuhner worked from 2000 through 2003 as an assistant national editor at the Washington Times. After leaving the Washington Times, he worked for the Republican policy group the Ripon Society as communications director and editor of the Ripon Forum. He was the editor of the US Internet news magazine Insight on the News from October 2005 until its closing in May 2008.

From January 2008 to November 2009 he was media editor for the Washington Times. As media editor he helped with the partnership between the Washington Times and Talk Radio Network. The partnership resulted in the nationally syndicated radio show "America's Morning News". Kuhner began his weekly column at The Washington Times in June 2008.
Click to expand...

FYI: The Washington Times is the baby of the Rev. Sun Yung Moon....it's CONSISTENTLY has NOT made a profit as a newspaper since it's inception. That anyone would work for a rabid right wingnut cult leader is a disgrace....which is why you get hacks like Kuhner spewing error ridden nonsense.
 
Taichiliberal said:
FYI: The Washington Times is the baby of the Rev. Sun Yung Moon....it's CONSISTENTLY has NOT made a profit as a newspaper since it's inception. That anyone would work for a rabid right wingnut cult leader is a disgrace....which is why you get hacks like Kuhner spewing error ridden nonsense.
Click to expand...

Point out the factual errors.
 
Dixie said:
Yes... the Good Ol' Contract With America... and whatever happened to that? Does your history recall the republicans just forgot all about it once they got elected, and it was never mentioned again..... right?

Because the way I remember history (and I don't really consider this 'history' since I remember it happening) is the republicans brought every one of the items in CWA to the floor for a vote in the first 100 days, just as they promised to do. They never promised that all republicans were conservative or would vote conservative, they never promised conservative initiatives would be implemented. As I said, I don't recall congress ever being controlled by conservatives, and they certainly weren't during CWA, or more of it would have passed. But the good news is, we're going to fix all of that in 2012.
Click to expand...

You are?
 
Mojo said:
So your opinions bolstered by a sound effect constitute evidence?
Click to expand...

They were for effect. :)

As for evidence what more do you want? There are no facts supporting recinding DADT will cause harm. Of course, you'll notice the author didn't offer any.

Regarding the snow storm what facts do you want? Are you suggesting wise people go out driving in a snow storm, when not necessary, and crazy people stay home?

As for medical dozens of countries have government medical and those countries pay less and the life expectancy is equal to or longer than in the US.

Here's the graph.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...xpectancy#met=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:USA
 
apple0154 said:
They were for effect. :)

As for evidence what more do you want? There are no facts supporting recinding DADT will cause harm. Of course, you'll notice the author didn't offer any.

Regarding the snow storm what facts do you want? Are you suggesting wise people go out driving in a snow storm, when not necessary, and crazy people stay home?

As for medical dozens of countries have government medical and those countries pay less and the life expectancy is equal to or longer than in the US.

Here's the graph.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...xpectancy#met=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:USA
Click to expand...

So your opinion is more valid because....?
 
Mojo said:
So your opinion is more valid because....?
Click to expand...

Mojo, weren't you arguing with Dixie that the repeal of DADT is a good thing and that there were no valid reasons for having it?
 
Dixie said:
I don't recall (in my life) ever having a conservative majority in congress. I think you may be confusing republicans with conservatives. This could prove to be a most tragic error. I encourage you to educate yourself on the difference, and realize, what we see happening now, is a resurgence of conservatism, not republicanism.
Click to expand...

This is one of those typical neocon replies. If you claim having a conservative majority will save us, and someone refutes it, you simply counter with "they weren't conservative". Its a fool-proof argument. Any evidence that conservatives didn't keep their promises, as both sides are prone to do, you simply write off the evidence as proof that they were not "real" conservatives.
 
WinterBorn said:
This is one of those typical neocon replies. If you claim having a conservative majority will save us, and someone refutes it, you simply counter with "they weren't conservative". Its a fool-proof argument. Any evidence that conservatives didn't keep their promises, as both sides are prone to do, you simply write off the evidence as proof that they were not "real" conservatives.
Click to expand...

So what are you trying to say, idgit? That republican equal conservative? Sorry, it's not the same thing, won't ever be... doesn't matter how much you lie to yourself. Show me a conservative who didn't keep his promise, who is still in congress? Now, I can show you lots of Republicans who haven't got a conservative voting record. Olympia Snowe, Susan Colins, back during CWA there was Lincoln Chaffee and several others. I'm not making these people up, or misrepresenting their voting records, to say they weren't conservatives.

The FACTS demonstrate we haven't had a conservative congress, Reagan was a conservative president, but he had a Democrat congress. Following Reagan, we've had Republican congresses, but not conservative ones. But again, we'll fix this in 2012.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
FYI: The Washington Times is the baby of the Rev. Sun Yung Moon....it's CONSISTENTLY has NOT made a profit as a newspaper since it's inception. That anyone would work for a rabid right wingnut cult leader is a disgrace....which is why you get hacks like Kuhner spewing error ridden nonsense.
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
Point out the factual errors.
Click to expand...

Well, just for starters, go back and read how Kuhner refers to social security, medicare and medicaid:

Moreover, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid combined account for more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.


Social Security is funded by a wage tax paid into by employees and employers, and it's solvent until about 2040 before being revamped.

Medicare is funded by payroll taxes as well, along with income taxes on Soc Sec, that's solvent until about 2029 before being revamped.

Medicaid is funded via State and Federal sources (income taxes), specified for poor and low income and disabled. It's solvency is actually a state by state issue to a large degree, so it depends on the financial stability of the State in conjunction with the Fed contribution.

So Mojo, your boy Kuhner seems to indulge in the time honored neocon pundit penchant for hype, exaggeration, distortion and plain old mis-information.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
Well, just for starters, go back and read how Kuhner refers to social security, medicare and medicaid:

Moreover, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid combined account for more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.


Social Security is funded by a wage tax paid into by employees and employers, and it's solvent until about 2040 before being revamped.

Medicare is funded by payroll taxes as well, along with income taxes on Soc Sec, that's solvent until about 2029 before being revamped.

Medicaid is funded via State and Federal sources (income taxes), specified for poor and low income and disabled. It's solvency is actually a state by state issue to a large degree, so it depends on the financial stability of the State in conjunction with the Fed contribution.

So Mojo, your boy Kuhner seems to indulge in the time honored neocon pundit penchant for hype, exaggeration, distortion and plain old mis-information.
Click to expand...

If he's indulging in "hype, exaggeration, distortion" etc. he's not alone (see below) and I notice that you haven't proved your case.

..."The Trustees of Social Security estimate a current unfunded liability of $100 trillion in 2009..."

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/04/23/herb_denenberg/doc49f024d471152996180582.txt
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Well, just for starters, go back and read how Kuhner refers to social security, medicare and medicaid:

Moreover, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid combined account for more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Social Security is funded by a wage tax paid into by employees and employers, and it's solvent until about 2040 before being revamped.

Medicare is funded by payroll taxes as well, along with income taxes on Soc Sec, that's solvent until about 2029 before being revamped.

Medicaid is funded via State and Federal sources (income taxes), specified for poor and low income and disabled. It's solvency is actually a state by state issue to a large degree, so it depends on the financial stability of the State in conjunction with the Fed contribution.

So Mojo, your boy Kuhner seems to indulge in the time honored neocon pundit penchant for hype, exaggeration, distortion and plain old mis-information.
Click to expand...


Mojo said:
If he's indulging in "hype, exaggeration, distortion" etc. he's not alone (see below) and I notice that you haven't proved your case.

..."The Trustees of Social Security estimate a current unfunded liability of $100 trillion in 2009..."

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/04/23/herb_denenberg/doc49f024d471152996180582.txt
Click to expand...

:palm: Mojo, how many times do I have to school you on this....you don't just latch onto the one OPINION of someone that tells you what you want to hear, you analyze what they say and check their resources. Here's a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:



On August 5, the Social Security Board of Trustees issued the 70th annual report on the program’s financial and actuarial status. [1] The trustees’ report shows some mild deterioration in the program’s short-term outlook — a finding that was widely expected — and a mild improvement in its long-run finances, thanks largely to the recent enactment of health reform.

Several key points emerge from the new report:

- The trustees continue to estimate that the trust funds will be exhausted in 2037— the same date that they forecast in last year’s report.

- Even after 2037, Social Security could pay more than three-fourths of scheduled benefits using its annual tax income. Those who fear that Social Security won’t be around when today’s young workers retire misunderstand the trustees’ projections.

- The program’s shortfall is relatively modest, amounting to 0.7 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over the next 75 years (and 1.4 percent of GDP in 2084). A mix of tax increases and benefit modifications — carefully crafted to shield recipients of limited means, potentially make benefits more adequate for the neediest beneficiaries, and give ample notice to all participants — could put the program on a sound footing indefinitely.

- The 75-year Social Security shortfall is about the same size as the cost, over that period, of extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans (those with incomes above $250,000 a year). Members of Congress cannot simultaneously claim that the tax cuts for people at the top are affordable while the Social Security shortfall constitutes a dire fiscal threat.

- Preserving and building upon the cost-control measures enacted in the health reform law will be important not only to Medicare, but — to a lesser degree — to Social Security as well.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3262

YOU should go to the site and read more, Mojo...instead of parroting the one liner from an anti-Obama insurance head. My point stands....Kuhner's hype, exaggeration, distortion is just a faded carbon copy of what your source puts forth....both are incorrect.

Oh, and FYI: the line parroted by your two sources is actually a combination of a projections for Soc Sec and Medicare by various neocon think tanks and pundits. A fuller review of the 2010 report tells a different story.
 
Last edited:
Damn Yankee said:
Libby, why are there so many black kids without fathers?

Why do you hate children?
Click to expand...

Again, do you feel proud about the number of white children who are without fathers? There is an increasing number due to the high rate of divorce that is happening in the white population.

I wouldn't brag about any number until it is zero.
 
Rana said:
Again, do you feel proud about the number of white children who are without fathers? There is an increasing number due to the high rate of divorce that is happening in the white population.

I wouldn't brag about any number until it is zero.
Click to expand...

Rana, following up this POS is exactly what he wants. Damn Yankee can't debate the subject of the thread for fear he'll be proven wrong, so he just tries to divert the issue to his racist clap-trap in an attempt to hijack the thread. Ignore him, Rana.
 
"The Trustees of the nation's Medicare trust funds have just released their 2007 annual report, and once again the news is grave. As the result of health care costs increasing at a much greater rate than wages, the hospital insurance trust fund is projected to be exhausted by 2019..."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...es/2007/06/09/the_coming_crisis_for_medicare/

..."In a news release announcing efforts to reduce costs in the Medicare Fee-For-Service Program, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services says the current economic crisis could cause the primary trust that funds Medicare to go broke in just seven years, according to Medicare’s chief actuary.

Last spring, the Medicare Part A Hospital Insurance Trust Fund had been projected to go bankrupt in 2019, 11 years from now. The Medicare chief actuary recently observed that because of the current economic crisis, this date could be moved three years earlier to 2016..."

http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2009/20090119-EconomicCrisis.htm

..."the annual report of the Medicare Trustees that says Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund will become insolvent slightly earlier in 2019 than reported last year.

Both the HI Trust Fund and the Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund expenditures are growing faster than the rest of the economy. The Trustees report expenditures were $432 billion in 2007, or 3.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), and are projected to increase to nearly 11 percent of GDP in 75 years, according to a report from Health and Human Services..."

http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2008/8-03-26-NewTrusteesReport.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top