The looming Obama/Paul military massacre (Part 1)
An unholy alliance has been formed in Washington D.C.
Libertarian Republicans and liberal Democrats are moving to both destroy the military and cut off at the knees the families who have given the most this past decade. The first person to sound the alram in the mass media was former President George W. Bush’s Ambassador to the UN John Bolton in July of 2011:
Every indication is that the debt-ceiling negotiations are leaving the defense budget in grave jeopardy. By exposing critical defense programs to disproportionate cuts as part of the “trigger mechanism,” there is a clear risk that key defense programs will be hollowed out.
While the trigger mechanism comes into play only if the Congressional negotiators fail to reach agreement on the second phase of spending cuts, it verges on catastrophe to take such a national security risk.
Defense has already taken hugely disproportionate cuts under President Obama, and there is simply no basis for expanding those cuts further. Republican negotiators must hold the line, since the Obama Administration plainly will not.
He spoke out again making it clear that if (when) the so called Super-Committee failed the DoD and its membership would be left devastated.
In the deal’s second stage, the yet-to-be-named Congressional Joint Commission will have wide discretion on what to agree on, but if no agreement or only partial agreement is reached, the deal’s sequestration mechanism will be triggered. Broadly speaking, if that happens, defense spending will bear fifty percent of the total cuts, with non-defense spending bearing the remaining fifty percent, up to the amount necessary to raise the debt ceiling by the minimum $2.4 trillion required by the deal. This approach risks grave damage to our national security.
There is no strategic rationale whatsoever for cuts of this magnitude. There is, in fact, every strategic rationale to the contrary. While the appropriations process may still be able to decide which specific programs will be cut, this is no consolation. Cuts of this size are effectively indiscriminate.
It’s at this point in which I know I don’t actually need to remind this readership of this blog where the true burden of our tax dollars rest. I’d hope we all know where the rest of this is heading…
I’ll sound the alarm now for the 6.1 million of you whose jobs are tied into defense. Your time is coming in what is referred to by insiders as the coming train wreck. Entire US companies are looking to get out of the business of defending the United States and taking their people elsewhere.
I could point out that for what we spend on Medicare/Medicaid in this country in less than four days we could buy a brand new Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier. I could point out that once we incorporate the entirety of our tax dollars we spend more than both healthcare and education. I could also say that even with our defense spending covering millions of Americans educations, healthcare and paychecks it’s still approximate to total non-military education spending.
But wait, here’s that slovenly piece of shit from Massachusetts Barney Frank getting all that anger out, from the years in high school he spent getting stuffed into lockers, on the largest group of actual men he can find. Make note of his mention of Ron Paul, nut bag-in-chief.
In part two we’ll get into the human cost of these cuts. The real faces and names of selfless American patriots who are being laid off and, literally, getting kicked to the curb so the welfare pimps and vote buying politicos can stay in office. We’ll start with my beloved sister service, the Navy. Until then please send me your own stories of how these looming cuts are affecting you or your family and links to relevant stories.
Category: 2012 election, Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Congress sucks, Defense cuts, Politics, Ron Paul
Insipid, did I mention Social Security or Medicare? I pay taxes to both programs so they’re something I’ve ‘earned’. I’m talking about the programs I mentioned. Subsidized housing, reduced or free school lunches, or people that pay so little into the system, that their contributions are negligible. People with no health insurance that use ERs as their PCP. Why are stupid people, that reproduce without thinking of the cost of raising children, ‘entitled’ to anything? As I said, I won’t begrudge children, who were unfortunate enough to be born to stupid parents, a meal. My ex-wife and I, both college graduates, decided we could afford three children. By afford I mean feed and clothe, provide for their educations, etc. As I mentioned before, my grandchildren are in private school where my third grade granddaughter is on par with her fifth grade public school cousins! So much money is being lost to your ‘entitlement’ programs that children of middle class parents are being robbed of their chance for a better future.
LOL. What a toolbox. All of our entitlement programs are fully funded and not going broke at all, except the republicans stole that money so they’re going broke unless we raise taxes on people making over $250k.
You’re a fucking child, insipid, and a boring one at that. Things cannot be both fully funded and going broke, unless those things are set up to be broken from the start (in which case, those things need to be fixed, not run into the ground as you suggest).
The cost of a single warship is not even a rounding error in entitlement spending, but that single warship has a dramatic effect on our nation’s ability to defend itself, provide foreign aid, or project influence.
Tell us why fully half of the projected spending cuts from the failure of the super committee deal should come from 19% of our spending. Tell us why that’s a good idea, when Russia is starting to act up, China is pressuring our allies from the South China Sea, and the Middle East is in turmoil.
Tell us your ideal level of military spending. How big should our military be? How many naval ships should we have, and what missions should they be able to perform? Should we be like Britain, with destroyers that had missile systems that could not communicate with their guidance and detection systems, no aircraft carriers, and a dwindling fleet of serviceable aircraft? Should we be like most other nations, surviving off of old cold-war era Soviet relics? I’m interested to know what your vision of our military should be.
He is incompetent, plain and simple. And everyone who disagrees with you is labeled a racist. Yet more proof of how ignorant (and racist) you are. You’re not fooling anyone dude.
Well, the ACA actually addresses one of those problems you listed, the people using the emergency room for primary care. The video that got me riled was referring to social security and medicare as entitlement programs and saying THOSE need to be gotten rid of. Right or wrong, the days of people getting “free” money are over. Welfare generally has a work requirement, in order to get medicaid you usually have to have children, so most of the programs you don’t like already ARE going to children.
Plus, generally speaking, if you’re hitting downwards, you’re usually hitting the wrong target in my opinion. The poor did not cause this economy, i’m not sure why they should bear the brunt of damage caused by banks and bad policy.
In 11 years IF NOTHING IS DONE the Social Security will not be running at a Surplus. That does not mean it will be broke or stop functioning. The only reason why there will be any problem AT ALL is because Republican policies caused the problems.
To use the Presidents analogy, you drove the nation into the ditch. That doesn’t mean the national car can’t drive fine if we get out of it.
I’m not saying that there are no problems but the solution lies in doing something similar to what Reagan did, not in embracing Ryan’s austerity.
The cost of a single warship is not even a rounding error in entitlement spending, but that single warship has a dramatic effect on our nation’s ability to defend itself, provide foreign aid, or project influence. ————————————————————- That may very well be true but entitlements are paid for out of fica taxes. Fica taxes which you are using to buy warships and THEN claiming that the poor don’t pay taxes. What bothers me is the dishonesty in accounting. He doesn’t count fica as taxes because those are entitlement spending. But he ALSO counts them as part of the budget. If he doesn’t wants to keep bitching that the poor don’t pay taxes then he should keep his hands off of fica tax and ONLY use them to pay for the entitlement programs they are supposed to go to. How is that unreasonable? How is the notion that we should get what we paid for all of a sudden Commie-pinko? ============================================================= Tell us your ideal level of military spending. How big should our military be? How many naval ships should we have, and what missions should they be able to perform? Should we be like Britain, with destroyers that had missile systems that could not communicate with their guidance and detection systems, no aircraft carriers, and a dwindling fleet of serviceable aircraft? Should we be like most other nations, surviving off of old cold-war era Soviet relics? I’m interested to know what your vision of our military should be. ———————————————————— I actually think it should be at 5 or 7 percent. I don’t really feel that any nation poses us a viable threat and the threat of terrorism isn’t as effectively fought with cold-war armies. But if you want it to be 20% or 50% I don’t care as long as you can find a way for paying for it without stealing from the safety net. I don’t think i should lose SS or Medicare because you want a warship. And if you do want to take my SS and Medicare money to pay for the warship can’t you AT LEAST… Read more »
“That may very well be true but entitlements are paid for out of fica taxes. Fica taxes which you are using to buy warships and THEN claiming that the poor don’t pay taxes. What bothers me is the dishonesty in accounting. He doesn’t count fica as taxes because those are entitlement spending. But he ALSO counts them as part of the budget. If he doesn’t wants to keep bitching that the poor don’t pay taxes then he should keep his hands off of fica tax and ONLY use them to pay for the entitlement programs they are supposed to go to. How is that unreasonable? How is the notion that we should get what we paid for all of a sudden Commie-pinko?” ……………………………………………….. He counts it going out because it’s money going out. He counts it coming in because it’s money coming in. FICA, in that video, is broken up into the different payroll taxes (your buddy Obama has signed a cut to those, adding to the problem of underfunding entitlements. Where’s the outrage, insipid?) that FICA covers. Let’s say your FICA payments are $200 per month. Do you honestly believe you will be using $200 per month on those programs by the time you need to use them? FICA CANNOT COVER THE COSTS OF THE PROGRAMS IT WAS DESIGNED TO PAY FOR. That’s the major point of the video you don’t want to see. We’re borrowing money to cover the costs of these programs, as their costs spiral out of control. The “poor”, roughly 50% of the people in this country, don’t pay federal taxes. Federal taxes are where warships come from. Federal taxes are also where things like food stamps and housing assistance programs come from. People without skin in the game reap benefits at the expense of other, more legitimate government functions. And we borrow money to cover the cost. ………………………………… “I actually think it should be at 5 or 7 percent. I don’t really feel that any nation poses us a viable threat and the threat of terrorism isn’t as effectively fought with cold-war armies. But… Read more »
insipid: for someone who claims to work for a law firm, you’re actually appallingly ignorant of the law.
In Fleming v. Nestor, the SCOTUS determined more than 50 years ago that entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare are not contractually binding on the government. Legally, the fact that you’ve paid into the programs you cite above – e.g., Social Security and Medicare – means absolutely nada. Your past payments were taxes, not investments. You have absolutely zero ownership interest in anything under either program.
You will only receive what the government deems you should receive from Medicare and Social Security. Should the government change it’s mind and decide to scale back or terminate either program, all it needs to do is change existing law – as it almost certainly will be forced to do before you’re eligible to use either. You are not legally “grandfathered” and you will have no legal recourse whatsoever.
Don’t believe me? Read the decision yourself. Have someone explain it to you if you’re incapable of understanding it.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=363&page=603
As I’ve explained numerous times to our perpetually dense back-alley slap fighter, perhaps he should go to his local SSA office and as to see the balance in “his” account and see how long it takes for the laughter to die down.
And scooter? Anyone who thinks having your money ripped from you AND your employer with no guarantee you’ll ever see it and with the “average” recipient seeing a rate of return just under 1% is a good deal is a fucking moron. I could have taken what the govenment has confiscated from me over the last 30 years and invested it myself and have many times what the goverment forecasts I will be “entitled” to even if I max out and don’t retire until age 70.
That’s assuming I see anything at all by then.
@60 Hondo- I understand that Hondo, in fact THAT’S MY POINT. The poor DO PAY TAXES. This guys saying that the poor DON’T pay taxes and that there’s been a transference of wealth to the poor because he’s ONLY counting income tax. But fica taxes ARE taxes and they’ve been treated as such for 70+ years. Furthermore the fact that they’ve been running AT A SURPLUS shows that the transfer of wealth has actually been going from the poor and middle class towards the wealthy. That’s indicative of the growing disparity of numbers. It’s one thing for the guy to poing out, correctly, that most of the money in our budget is going to entitlements, it’s lying through his teeth to say that they’re not paid for.
You want to take the money and spend it on wars and tax cuts for the wealthy, fine, but you can’t turn around and then claim that the people you’ve taken the money from “don’t pay taxes”.
Furthermore, while they are treated as taxes there’s no reason why they can’t be treated responsibly. Al Gore had a ridiculed plan to put that money asside, which is also perfectly legal and sound policy. George W. Bush decided he’d rather spend it on unnecessary wars. While both sides take from the funds, Republicans have been far worse and then cry that the programs that they stole from our in a “crises” in order to justify stealing more from them (and i’m using the word stealing figuratively here- there’s a difference between legal and right.)
Furthermore while you are correct that there is no LEGAL obligation to pay that money back there is certainly a moral obligation to pay it back. If it comes down to a choice between an aircraft carrier and chemo therapy for a 67 year old man I’m sorry, the aircraft carrier is going to have to wait. And if you’re going to take money from the chemo patient to pay for an aircraft carrier you can, at the very least, not insult the man by saying he’s never paid taxes.
@61- Sparky and as i’ve explained to you MANY TIMES, there is no balance because SS is an INSURANCE POLICY and NOT a pension fund. There’s no money in “my account” if i buy auto or fire insurance, but that doesn’t mean they’re ripping me off. Thus if you have a stroke and become disabled while replying to me you will be permanently taken care of by THE INSURANCE POLICY, which would not necessarily be the case if you took that money and “invested in yourself”. SSI has been one of the best “deals” in our countries history. It is garunteed basic sustenance in case if a disaster happens or if you become too infirmed to work due to old-age or because a Republican has tanked the economy and all the money you “invested in yourself” has gone down the drain. But it is not a pension, nor has it been run as such.
A) In order to pay FICA taxes one has to have a job. I’ll allow you to do the research on how many of those on welfare do not have one. B) You conveniently left out the fact that not only do employers (those pesky people making over $250K per annum) contribute an equal amount in FICA taxes per employee, they actually were bound by law to contribute 2% more in FY2011. C)There is a cap on SS FICA withholdings for employees, though not employers, meaning that the majority of those monies are NOT contributed by employees, rather they are funded by employers who are increasingly given less incentive to keep those employees because they cost more to support due to the government’s Blood-from-a-Turnip mentality.
Now, where exactly are those FICA taxes being withheld from my unemployed neighbor with 5 kids who receives a tax refund check of nearly $9K, monthly food stamps of nearly $1k, free medical, etc? Please explain to me how she’s “paid into the system and earned her welfare”.
@59 Teddy- While it’s true that Food stamps are paid for largely out of income taxes it is NOT TRUE that SSI and Medicare are “spiraling out of control” the programs have been running at a surplus for the past 70 years. What’s “spiraling out of control” is the vast amount of money we’re spending on the military industrial complex. While these programs are projected in the FUTURE to run at a deficit, there is absolutely no reason why these programs can’t be fixed. They’ve been fixed in the past and Democrats AND Republicans have agreed to do so. The fact is that these programs have been subsidizing the military and other programs you guys love for decades. If it comes to the military needing to “subsidize” those programs then so be it.
By the way, i do not think that’s the best solution. I would rather go with “my buddy” Obama’s “grand bargain” where revenues are increased slightly and there are slight adjustments to the fund. But Republicans don’t want to discuss revenues so here we are.
We had a pretty HUGE military budget in Vietnam and Korea. Having a huge military budget is not nearly as good as having sound foreign policy if you want to avoid getting soldiers needlessly killed. It’s better “policy” not to elect folks like George W. Bush and Lyndon Johnson.
insipid: You really need to work on getting your facts straight when you comment here. I never said the poor pay no taxes. The working poor certainly pay Medicare and Social Security taxes – assuming they’re working “on the books” vice “off the books” for cash, of course. In many cases, that’s about the only taxes other than sales taxes they pay. That fact – as well as your entire reply above – is also irrelevant to the whole point of my previous comment. You really do need to work on your reading comprehension. My point – which should have been obvious to anyone with normal reading comprehension skills – was that you were wrong in asserting that you are owed anything from Social Security or Medicare because “we paid for it”. In fact, regarding Social Security and Medicare you did not “pay for” a damn thing – you merely paid your taxes as required by law. Your reward for doing so was (1) not being prosecuted for tax evasion, and (2) a future promise, revokable or modifiable at any time that Congress desires, from the Federal government that “we’ll give you something later”. That’s it. You got absolutely nothing else. You own nothing; there is no contract; and you have no recourse if Congress changes the law. Let me spell it out for you: what you paid for with your Social Security and Medicare taxes was SOMEBODY ELSE’S Social Security and Medicare benefits. When you are old enough to receive benefits – assuming the programs are still around and haven’t collapsed like the financial house of cards they are – SOMEONE ELSE will pay for your medical and retirement benefits. And moral responsibility to take care of anyone? Congress? Really? Give me a freaking break. Ask older military retirees about how well the Federal government does in keeping its promises about future medical care. After a few minutes of cursing, I’m certain they’ll be more than happy to tell you just how well the Federal government does on that score. Last item: it rather undercuts your argument when you… Read more »
Well, there is a work component in welfare, Ros, so you’re just wrong. There hasn’t been a vast amount of “free loaders since Bill Clinton reformed welfare in 1996. And the employers are not paying into SSI out of the goodness of their heart but it’s part of our compensation program. Just like they pay for insurance as part of our compensation program. And they reap enormous rewards for it because there aren’t elderly clogging up the city streets. You act as if these programs have not produced enormous good for the country for the past 70+ years (43 for medicare).
I’m NOT the one being unreasonable here. If “your buddy” Ronald Reagan were here, responding on this board, he’d be siding with me, not you all. There’s no way in the world Ronald Reagan would be advocating the Ryan Budget or doing in with the programs entirely to pay for war ships! He’d be advocating the same thing President Obama is advocating, mild adjustments in revenue and spending in order to work out an equitable arangement that doesn’t involve old-people in the streets or getting rid of our military entirely. Why does it have to be an all or nothing proposition?
Hondo, NHSparky, Marine7002, ROS, I posted an entry on this column regarding the sale of classified software for military equipment by defense contractors to the Chinese government, per se:
https://civiliancontractors.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/united-technologies-acknowledges-coverup-of-sale-of-military-software-to-china/
This, in the face of DoD budget cuts, appears to be an intentional act meant to impair the ability of our troops, all services, to defend themselves when in harm’s way. There was no reference in my post to anything else. There are references by ChockBlock and Doc Bailey (see above) and others to lack of needed equipment and lack of repair and replacments to needed equipment. NO OTHER SUBJECT was addressed or intended to be addressed.
I didn’t say you said that, but THE VIDEO most certainly DID say that and that is what i was responding to. And it was clear i was responding to the video, so if anyone needs to work on “reading comprehension” it is you. Also, i HAVE spoken to many military men and women that are actually pretty happy with the VA. In fact out of all the health care providers, generally the VA gets the higheset scores.
Furthermore, even if i were to give you that there are peole who have not received all that the government has promised them in the past, why does that necessitate the government not performing in the future? The problems that need to be solved does not require massive Paul Ryanesque gutting of all these programs but merely Ronald Reagan style adjustments. Either way these programs are, by no means, the cause of the budget “Crises” should not be done by eviscerating these programs. In fact, these programs, since they’ve been operating at a surplus are the only things that have been keeping us afloat at all.
@68- the Point of this blog post was to state that entitlements are somehow ripping off the military. I don’t see how i’ve been taking this off topic. As far as i can see from the post this IS the topic.
I’m not sure why it has to be either or. Why some feel that the only way to fund the military is to destroy the safety net or vice versa. The two have been co-existing for 70+ years, they can continue to do so. But if your desire is to protect the military, i would suggest that you not pit it against SSI and Medicare. My feeling is that if that proposition is put to the voters the military will be on the losing side of it.
No, Insipid, I am not. It is you, again, who is in error. The work contingent for assistance is that you must LOOK for employment if you are not employed, and if you ARE employed, you do not have to STAY employed. I know this because my eeeeeevil, uncaring, insensitive Republican self has driven her to several of her interviews and job training appointments as a favor to her father, who happens to be a friend of mine. That was only when her live-in boyfriend wasn’t available to take her in his 2010 Jag, though.
Keep on believing that the system is falling apart at the hands of big meanies who just want to fight wars and make children and the elderly cry. The fact is that abuse of the system costs exponentially more than those warships of which you’re so scared.
As for lack of equipment, etc, PH2, it’s only going to get worse in the face of the forthcoming cuts. As Jonn oft says, it’s the military upon whose backs the budget is balanced, and not rightfully so.
Hondo, why do I even try?
Next time I find something of interest to people who have a valid reason for posting comments on this board, I’ll send it to Jonn.
We call these tangents. They happen all the time and even Jonn – as omnipotent as he is – cannot control what people say in their posts.
@71 Ros. You’re confusing unemployment insurance with welfare, Ros. There is a work component to welfar, not unempoloyment insurance. Medicaid operates at a 3% overhead and SSI operates at a 1% overhead. I doubt if there’s a lot of fraud.
Understood, but I’m disappointed that the real issue, which is the illegal sale of classified military software to the Chinese government, was deflected by a self-involved attention junkie when it could have been discussed in a valid way by veterans and active duty alikje.
The impairment of our troops to defend themselves against an enemy that has acquired our military design, construction, and operational information from defense contractors is the most egregious thing I’ve heard of in a long time, and will have long-term consequences to land, sea and air troops.
I’m NOT on a tangent. Here’s what is written on the original blog:
I could point out that for what we spend on Medicare/Medicaid in this country in less than four days we could buy a brand new Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier. I could point out that once we incorporate the entirety of our tax dollars we spend more than both healthcare and education. I could also say that even with our defense spending covering millions of Americans educations, healthcare and paychecks it’s still approximate to total non-military education spending.
How am i going on a “Tangent”? This is what the blog is about.
For whatever it is worth, i AM a veteran. Furthermore if there are veteran benefits being cut i’m entirely with you that this is wrong and should be prevented. If you want to organize a march or someone to sign a petition, i’m with you on that one. However i do believe that there is billions in waste that can be cut from the military without effecting pay or benefits.
I’m not confusing sweet fuckall, thank you. I just pointed out how you were wrong and it’s completely lost on you. I’m now even more convinced that you’re mentally handicapped.
As for the article, PH2, I found this comment particularly ironic:
“The Justice Department will spare no effort to hold accountable those who compromise U.S. national security for the sake of profits and then lie about it to the government,” Lisa Monaco, the assistant attorney general for national security, said in a statement.”
This administration has, to date, not placed much value on secrecy or security (other than job security for themselves).
I’m sorry, shit for brains (LOVE the ad-hominems!) but the looking for work requirement is most definately a part of unemployment and there IS a work component to welfare:
http://www.sbls.org/index.php?id=68
And here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112601034.html
I know…Liberal media….blah…blah…blah.
“I doubt if there’s a lot of fraud.” Well, when you have this, http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=27115 . And the SS Administration says this asshat in a diaper is NOT committing fraud, I doubt they’ll find much fraud anywhere.
There would have been a comma had I been referring to you as “sweet fuckall”, but thank you for proving my point.
Did you even read the requirements at the link you just posted? Seriously???
Allow me……
Single parents must work at least 30 hours per week, with the first 20 hours from any of the following activities:
Employment
Work experience program (WEP)
Job placement by the Human Resources Administration (HRA)
On-the-job training
Job search (for up to 6 weeks)
Community service
Vocational educational training (for up to 12 months)
Providing child care to someone doing community service.
Where does it say that a person must STAY employed? Did you just miss the part about 60% of “work” hours may be comprised of looking for a job, babysitting, or community service? Really?
And a person is exempt under these conditions:
The parent or caretaker relative of a child under 1 (for 3 months per child up to a total of 12 months)
The caretaker of a disabled household member
Pregnant and 30 days from due date.
How difficult do you think that is to achieve when said person is 26 and just had her 5th child???
Christ, you’re ridiculous.
Well,if they have a child under 1 years old, then they ARE working. What, motherhood is only valued when it’s a Romney doing the mothering?
And spending 30 hours a week searching for jobs (for 6 weeks) or training for a job is not just receiving a hand-out. Plus there is also a lifetime limit on welfare in most states it is 4 years. Either way no one is living large on the government dime without having any requirements. This has not been true since 1996.
I have 4 kids. Don’t fucking preach to me about motherhood. That said, I also have 2 degrees and a job from which taxes are taken to pay for everyone else’s kids.
You’re misguided, woefully ignorant, and a complete waste of oxygen. Thank you for your service. I’m certain BO thanks you for your service to him as well.
Have a lovely fucking day. Or don’t, whichever.
ROS: obviously insipid has little or no experience with British English.
For your benefit, insipid: the term “fuckall” is a crude British English expression approximating either “a damn thing” or “not a damn thing”, depending on the specific context and usage. Obviously you didn’t have a clue as to the meaning of the term since you took it as a personal insult instead of it’s usual meaning.
Once again, you’ve shown yourself inferior to those you wrongly consider intellectually beneath you. Perhaps one day you’ll learn you are indeed not omniscient, but are instead virtually omnifallible. (The stopped clock principle requires I insert the modifier “virtually”.)
Ex-PH2: Why do you persist? The old proverb “Where there is life, there is hope” comes to mind. It’s at least theoretically possible that insipid will one day learn he (see comments on this thread for my rational on use of the male pronoun: http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=27209 ) is not infallible and begin to use the basic principles of logical argument.
How likely? That is indeed the $64 question.
insipid: your diatribe in comment 62 above in response to my comment 60 addressed me by name and implied I had made statements I did not. Were that not your intent, you would not have found it necessary to address me by name and then later say “you want to take the money . . . . “.
Restrict your comments to what I’ve said – not what you think I might mean, or what you wish I’d said. Your track record on correctly deciphering what people here at TAH mean is rather poor.
But in my response at #62 I used the words “this guy” clearly stating that i was referring to “the guy” in the video and NOT you. So again, it is you that has the problems with reading comprehension.
@85- Granted i never heard the term “fuckall” before but in the way she used it my interpretation of it being a pejorative was not unreasonable, especially given the fact that she ended her paragraph by saying that i was mentally handicapped. So don’t pretend she’s an innocent flower viciously slimed by the liberal bully.
All that being said, i do hereby and humbly apologize for calling you “shit for brains”.
Also, Hondo, i would like to thank you for, at the very least, acknowledging that the poor and middle class DO pay taxes. So as you have hope for me, i have hope for you.
Insipid…in your benumbed little mind you may wonder how people survived without government largess. In most RATIONAL minds we wonder how we’ve gone this long with all these leeches sucking OUR money without someone starting another revolution.
And for the record…tell the tens of millions who never saved a dime for their retirement because the federal government sold them a load of horseshit their bare subsistence is somehow “insurance.” Seems to me that when I buy insurance I have an expectation of coverage in the event of…wait for it…CATASTROPHIC OCCURANCE. An INVESTMENT is something I do in order to plan for future expenses such as kids college, RETIREMENT, shit like that.
Now go fetch your fucking shine box.
And you do get paid for, wait for it, CATASTROPHIC OCCURENCE (notice again how i don’t harp on the typos of others?) It’s called SSDI. Having insurance does not preclude you from saving in some other fashion, but if the bottom falls out on your investment portfolo or if you are, god forbid, disabled, you have a fall back if you need it.
Millions of people didn’t “save a dime” before SS existed. SS was created to solve that problem. And it worked tremendously well. So to answer your question, people did not survive very well at all before SS and Medicare, elderly poverty was well over 50% and sickness was bankrupting people on a regular basis. Here’s the full text of one of the original court cases regarding SSI that does a pretty good job of explaining the problem that SSI was addressing:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/supreme1.html
There’s a reason why these programs are popular.
But if the Republicans want to run on the elderly being “leeches” and that we ought to do in SSI i’m cool with that.
I don’t have a “shine box” but if Romney manages to weasel his way into office, i might need to get one.
Another reason why SSI was created was because a lot of folks DID save for retirement only to have their retirements vanish in the FIRST Republican great depression. Thus the need for an INSURANCE plan to supplement a regular savings plan.
insipid: it’s not me you need to apologize to. Try apologizing to ROS. She’s the one you called “shit for brains”.
By the way: ROS doesn’t need my protection in any argument here. She’s more than capable of taking care of herself in that respect. She also has even less patience with fools than do I.
My intent in providing the definition of “fuckall” for you above was to remove one minor point of ignorance from your prodigious store of same. I see I was successful. Reducing that prodigious store to more or less normal size is obviously a Sisyphean task, but sometimes I’ll attempt one of those anyway.
Now, regarding your latest attempt at after-the-fact justification for your bogus comment 62 above: not even a “nice try”. The fact that you referenced another person’s speech in that comment is solidly in the “true but irrelevant” category. It justifies neither the fact that you deliberately avoided addressing my point nor the fact that you attempted to speak for me.
You failed to address my point, which is that YOUR Social Security and Medicare taxes buy YOU “fuckall”; rather, they buy SOMEONE ELSE retirement income or medical care. Quit trying to obscure the fact that you were wrong by bringing up non sequiturs.
Later in that same comment, you impute to me motives and opinions I never voiced by your accusation – clearly directed at me – that I “want to take the money and spend it on wars and tax cuts for the wealthy”. That was not only a transparent attempt to put words in my mouth; it was also clumsy at best.
I can and will speak for myself, insipid; don’t attempt to speak for me. You’re at best marginally competent to speak for yourself.
Spasiba, Hondo.
It would appear that we’ve our own sort of affirmative action for the “less fortunate” going on; we’re so sensitive and noble.
Ros, i do hereby humbly apologize. I should of addressed you specifically the first time.
As far as the rest goes. Most of the post was directed at the youtube guy. When i used the term “you” i was speyaking in terms of “you republicans”. So I take it from your denial that you think that taking the money from fica and using it for the military is improper? Bully! We have agreement that 1. the poor pay taxes and 2. The fica money should not be used for the military. I’ll make a liberal out of you yet!
(does happy converting Hondo dance).
Or did i put words in your mouth again?
Not to be the last word freak. Which i guess i am. The accusation which you claim I attributed to you “the poor don’t pay taxes” i clearly was referring to the YOUTUBE guy and not you. Here is the first paragraph:
====I understand that Hondo, in fact THAT’S MY POINT. The poor DO PAY TAXES. This guys saying that the poor DON’T pay taxes and that there’s been a transference of wealth to the poor because he’s ONLY counting income tax. ===
Not only did i not avoid your point, i agreed with it. And i did it again in a later paragraph. However your initial contention that I was falsely attributing to you a lack of understanding of fica tax is clearly false.
While it’s true i wasn’t as clear in the later paragraph that i was addressing youtube guy and not you, that fact could be reasonably inferred from my previous rant about the video. Either way your wrong when you say i didn’t address your point and you’re wrong when you say i attributed a false statement concerning fica tax to you.
And… you were also wrong about the PPACA too. The mandate, like Fica is a tax.
(runs and hides)
====You failed to address my point, which is that YOUR Social Security and Medicare taxes buy YOU “fuckall”; rather, they buy SOMEONE ELSE retirement income or medical care. Quit trying to obscure the fact that you were wrong by bringing up non sequiturs.====
So we agree that they’re insurance policies too? Because what you described is EXACTLY the way insurance policies work!
Wow man…. So much agreement.
KUMBAYA, MY LORD, KUMBAYA! KUMBAYA MY LORD! KUMBAYA! KUMBAYA MY LORD KUMBAYA OOOOOO LORD….KUMBAYA!
insipid: that would be a “no”. Social Security and Medicare are income transfer programs – AKA “welfare” – regardless of their formal titles. Both are primarily welfare for the aged, but in some cases also provide benefits to selected groups of younger individuals.
Insurance is a commercial product, is voluntary, and is supported by voluntarily paid premiums. I also believe there is a legal requirement for insurance policies to be backed by tangible assets. In contrast, Social Security and Medicare are welfare programs which transfer income from one group (those working) to another (the aged, disabled, or survivors of same). They are backed by no tangible assets. And as is the case with all other welfare programs, they are supported solely by funds raised through compulsory taxation.
Insipid, I’d like to ask you a sincere question. Why do you keep posting here? Obviously you’re an uber-liberal while we span the range from conservative liberals to strident conservatives. I am a semi liberal conservative socially but very conservative fiscally. You know what Einstein said about insanity and actually i must apply it to both sides of the argument. You’re NEVER going to change anyone’s mind here and we’re never going to change yours. Just asking.
I believe the full faith and credit of the United States is a tangible asset. At least it works when you pay the rent and buy groceries.
ALL insurance is technically an “income transfer program” if you buy fire insurance you are not entitled to the money back if you don’t have a fire. But you still expect payment should a fire occur. That’s income transfer from the guy who had the fire to the guy that didn’t. Likewise with SSDI or SSI. If you get struck by lightning and die on your 65th birthday you don’t get anything, but you also get paid every month if you live to be 150. That’s insurance.
While not every individual person volunteered to join the SSI program, the program remains by far the most popular government program. It is a program that solved a significant crippling problem. It does exactly what Lincoln and Hamilton described as the role of Government: it does for society what we as individuals cannot do. It’s a great program that has transformed are nation for the better.
Maybe you upset that you can’t win an election on getting rid of social security, but it’s not tyranny. I was pretty upset when my side lost in 2004, if may of felt like tyranny to me at the time, but it wasn’t. If the people wanted to get rid of SSI they can.
Who the hell wants to only talk to folks they agree with, Yas? If your beliefs can’t stand scrutiny, what good are they? That’s one of the reasons i love Obama. He always at least listens and tries to work with the GOP. As he said to a group of college students if you’re only talking to people you agree with then politics is always going to dissapoint you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CemfB_Z6elY
He gets a lot of shit for passing a Heritage Foundation health care plan and working with industry on environment issues and for not breaking up the banks etc. etc. But Clinton tried single payer and failed as did a host of other Democrats. And Democrats also back- handed Presidents like Nixon who made honest efforts to work on the issue.
But President Obama got it done. Unfortunately he didn’t get the cooperation from Republicans he wanted, but that’s not through want of trying. But even though he didn’t get their cooperation he got a bill through precisely because it was just corporate friendly enough to prevent the full-scale war that Clintons plan invoked.
“As he(Baracka) said to a group of college students if you’re only talking to people you agree with then politics is always going to dissapoint you:” Oh man, you really are delusional…
All he does do is talk to his echo chamber.
“and working with industry on environment issues”? LOL, it’s really getting crowded under that bus. http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/30/us/epa-crucify/index.html
“Crucify them” isn’t exactly working with industry.