Alias
Banned
No. From now on Present something to back up your charges. The video looks like nothing but smears and propaganda. I want to see and hear a republican saying it.
Words of wisdom from Dwight D. Eisenhower
- Thread starter Bfgrn
- Start date
No. From now on Present something to back up your charges. The video looks like nothing but smears and propaganda. I want to see and hear a republican saying it.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Idiot.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
God forbid millionaires and billionaires (who pay no payroll taxes on wages over $106,800) should have any of their loopholes closed.
In fact isn't the GOP planning to end the payroll tax cut?
Payroll taxes are traditionally paid equally by employers and workers, with the money funneled into the Social Security trust fund.
Making the tax the centerpiece of his jobs plan, Obama would expand and extend the cut in the rate for workers - which was passed last year with support from GOP leaders.
That would allow an average household to keep about $1,500 from its paychecks, according to the White House.
The portion paid by small businesses would shrink; for new workers or raises, it would be eliminated.
The goal is to keep some $240 billion circulating in the economy, while giving small businesses incentives to hire.
General revenues would be used to replenish the Social Security fund.
“It’s going to add to the deficit, and it’s not going to create any jobs,’’ said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a Utah Republican...
They now equate the expiration of a tax break to a tax increase, a concept they have used to their advantage in urging the continuation of the tax cuts for the wealthy under President George W. Bush.
Wary of being painted with the same brush that they’ve used against Democrats, Republicans find themselves in a tough spot. Curtis Dubay, the senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank, said Republicans are “not going to want to be on that side of the debate.’’
http://articles.boston.com/2011-09-26/news/30204888_1_jobs-plan-payroll-tax/3
In fact isn't the GOP planning to end the payroll tax cut?
Payroll taxes are traditionally paid equally by employers and workers, with the money funneled into the Social Security trust fund.
Making the tax the centerpiece of his jobs plan, Obama would expand and extend the cut in the rate for workers - which was passed last year with support from GOP leaders.
That would allow an average household to keep about $1,500 from its paychecks, according to the White House.
The portion paid by small businesses would shrink; for new workers or raises, it would be eliminated.
The goal is to keep some $240 billion circulating in the economy, while giving small businesses incentives to hire.
General revenues would be used to replenish the Social Security fund.
“It’s going to add to the deficit, and it’s not going to create any jobs,’’ said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a Utah Republican...
They now equate the expiration of a tax break to a tax increase, a concept they have used to their advantage in urging the continuation of the tax cuts for the wealthy under President George W. Bush.
Wary of being painted with the same brush that they’ve used against Democrats, Republicans find themselves in a tough spot. Curtis Dubay, the senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank, said Republicans are “not going to want to be on that side of the debate.’’
http://articles.boston.com/2011-09-26/news/30204888_1_jobs-plan-payroll-tax/3
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
see, you're a superspazz. i tell you what someone else says, you claim i'm the idiot.
Even Perry doesn't want to end Social Security, that's a foolish claim and stuff like this is only believed by those inept idiots who don't pay attention to politics and vote on sound bytes. To bring such a claim to a board where you know that people pay attention is just foolishness. There aren't any candidates that suggest we repeal Social Security. There are suggestions on ways to change it to make it sustainable forever rather than just "this many" years and punting every time the issue comes to a head, but zero suggestions that we should simply toss it altogether. There are also no candidates that suggest that there should be no unemployment insurance, only some that say that it should not be infinitely prolonged.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
see, you're a superspazz. i tell you what someone else says, you claim i'm the idiot.
Tell us spaz..... where on this thread are you seeing Zappa tell me I'm wrong??? Go ahead, just list the post number. Idiot.
Yurt was making an observation from past conversations with Zappa... If you claim Zappa is wrong on something which he has failed to prove, he believes it is up to you to prove the negative rather than up to him to actually provide evidence for his original assertion. In this case, even though you have made it clear that he has provided no evidence that backs up his claim you can expect that he will tell you to link up to something saying so...
I'm surprised we haven't gotten to the "chronology"... When that comes up you know you've won.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
my lord. i should have made it more simple for the simple spazz. according to zappa, based on prior comments, his claim is that if "one" calls bullshit of someone else's claim, it is up to them to prove the claim is bullshit.
if you calm down for a second and reread my post, it should hopefully all come together for you.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
So yurt was actually trying to suck up to me so that I would quit pointing out what a fool he is? I see....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
1. cutting is not equal to eliminating. thus your link fails to back up the OP on even one issue.
2. the OP mentions an entire political party, your link to ONE person in a party is not evidence or proof of your claim.
keep trying.
Bfgrn
New member
There is no absolute world your little mind resides in Yurt. Intelligent people are able to see a semi barreling down the street before they cross...you on the other hand...SPLAT!
You really are a slimy little moron.
Alias
Banned
What are you so scared of? The Democrats should easily defeat any ideas of ending Social Security and unemployment insurance. Don't you think the American people will support Democrats in the next election? Everything is okay and the nation is doing just fine, so what do you have to worry about?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
So in other words, they were looking for ways to SAVE the programs from extinction. They were not trying to abolish them.
Thanks for confirming that your OP was bullshit.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
what? so instead of responding with a rational counter argument, you just ad hom and make claims with no foundation in reality. i challenge you to counter my two points. explain exactly how i am wrong. explain how cutting = eliminating and explain how one person = an entire political party.
you still have not given a single shred of evidence for you claims.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Bfgrn
New member
BULLSHIT. Why are you such a lying sack of shit?
House GOP's 'Radical' Plan For Medicare, Medicaid
House Republicans are preparing to introduce a 10-year budget Tuesday that will eliminate Medicare and replace it with a private insurance system that closely resembles the new health care law, and end Medicaid as an entitlement program all together.
This plan, which also will include major restructuring of the tax code and cap discretionary spending, will reduce the deficit by over $4 trillion in 10 years, according to House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.
Here's what this means if you're elderly, disabled, or poor.
Low-income Medicaid beneficiaries will lose their guaranteed benefits altogether. Currently, Medicaid is jointly financed by the federal government and states, which are required to provide comprehensive health care benefits to people in poverty. Ryan's plan turns the program into block grants for the states -- states get a bunch of cash from the feds and have to make the best of it. For many states, that will mean severe benefit rollbacks.
Seniors, and others on Medicare, would be in a slightly different predicament. Currently seniors 65 and over are guaranteed a defined benefit program: taxpayers finance the system, and the government agrees to pay for seniors' health care services (though seniors have to pitch in too). Ryan's plan would leave that system intact for anybody currently on Medicare, or expecting to be on Medicare within 10 years. For everyone else the program would be radically overhauled. Future beneficiaries would no longer have a single payer system to rely on. Rather, they'd be given a menu of private insurance plans to pick from, and subsidies to help pay their premiums. If those premiums skyrocket, that's on them. If the insurers themselves aren't required to pay for whatever the doctor orders, then the guaranteed benefits will erode.
Recently Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt -- a respected health care expert -- described the plan this way: "Under the defined contribution approach envisaged by the Rivlin-Ryan plan, most of the risk of future health-care cost increases would be shifted onto the shoulders of Medicare beneficiaries. This feature makes the proposal radical."
But it's structured an awful lot like the new health care law, which means the GOP's position on health care is about to become Obamacare for seniors, but not for anybody else.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
your OP quote of eisenhower says nothing about medicare or medicaid. weak goal post move. because you can't prove your other claims, you move on to new ones and ignore the fact you got trounced.
Bfgrn
New member
your OP quote of eisenhower says nothing about medicare or medicaid. weak goal post move. because you can't prove your other claims, you move on to new ones and ignore the fact you got trounced.
Medicare and Medicaid didn't exist when Ike wrote that letter. But Medicare and Medicaid are extremely successful programs that citizens strongly support. Just like Social Security, cutting those programs or radically altering them would be suicide for Teapublicans.
BTW, Medicare per capita expenditures remained significantly lower than the private sector. So privatization would just be another windfall for corporations, at the expense of We, the People.
Can you say Medicare D?
