Prove which tastes better...chocolate or strawberry ice cream?

**Mordent** · 22nd February 2012 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Babba

No it isn't. And you know it isn't. If the work actually needs to be done hire someone to do the work and reduce the unemployment rate. Don't take jobs away from the unemployed in order to punish people you think are lazy.

There are many things that don't need to be done, but would make society a bit nicer. You want free food? Do them. I don't want to punish anyone. Is my employer punishing me by making me work for things I want/need?

**Mordent** · 22nd February 2012 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Morgan

...were capable within...

You knew what I meant.

Actually, I didn't and still don't.

The Democrats were capable within the Senate for 2001-2002.
Were capable of what?

**pragmatic** · 22nd February 2012 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Mordent

Actually, I didn't and still don't.

The Democrats were capable within the Senate for 2001-2002.
Were capable of what?

Not sure what that means either. Jeffords flipped parties in May of 2001. Thereby giving Democrats control of the senate until January 2003.

The Republicans had a brief 5 month senate control in the 107th congress.

**Roshi** · 22nd February 2012 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Morgan

Republican controlled government (Congress and Presidency) from 2001 - 2007 spent more, and reduced our source of revenue. A 5 year-old could tell you what the outcome of that would be.

Then we get other hits that compound the problem, like the financial bust caused by deregulation since the 80s, and a crumbling infrastructure that hasn't had serious maintenance in decades.

Obama is the debt king. As a % of GDP the debt went up 19.7% in 3 years. Under Bush it went up 11.6% in 8. Both to blame for spending. Obama is worse in only 3 years. But he now has the chance to fix it, and he won't. Entitlements are set to be the biggest drain of debt in the coming years, and democrats refuse to cut it.
Furthermore, even with Bush tax cuts (which Obama renewed) we still managed to reach 18% tax revenue as a % of gdp. That's the historical avg. While Obama now has increased spending to 26% of GDP, which is 5% over then historical avg. A 5 year old can tell you that spending, not taxes is the issue. If we spend within our means, you'll see that we have plenty of tax revenue. This is why it's completely feasible for RP to cut 1 trillion in 1 year. Democrats don't have shit on that.

**Babba** · 22nd February 2012 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Mordent

There are many things that don't need to be done, but would make society a bit nicer. You want free food? Do them. I don't want to punish anyone. Is my employer punishing me by making me work for things I want/need?

What kind of jobs are you talking about?

**nonsqtr** · 22nd February 2012 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Roshi

Obama is the debt king. As a % of GDP the debt went up 19.7% in 3 years. Under Bush it went up 11.6% in 8. Both to blame for spending. Obama is worse in only 3 years. But he now has the chance to fix it, and he won't. Entitlements are set to be the biggest drain of debt in the coming years, and democrats refuse to cut it.
Furthermore, even with Bush tax cuts (which Obama renewed) we still managed to reach 18% tax revenue as a % of gdp. That's the historical avg. While Obama now has increased spending to 26% of GDP, which is 5% over then historical avg. A 5 year old can tell you that spending, not taxes is the issue. If we spend within our means, you'll see that we have plenty of tax revenue. This is why it's completely feasible for RP to cut 1 trillion in 1 year. Democrats don't have shit on that.

You can't simply cut spending, it's not possible. Most of the entitlements are mandated by law, you'd have to change the law first, and good luck with that.

What you can do though, is stop the borrowing. That's an issue in and of itself, and it may or may not relate to spending at any given time.

If you stop the borrowing, then the spending will take care of itself. (Eventually, but it'll definitely head in that direction starting "quickly").

**jackalope** · 23rd February 2012 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by pragmatic

Which means (as noted) that we again now need to make an adjustment to one of the 3 variables or the fund will eventually deplete. Which (again) is very politically touchy.

Not sure if you are arguing or just stating it differently....

Well, actually, the fact that we're dipping into the fund that we planned for doesn't mean that something has to be adjust.
However, it is true that some small adjustments do have to be made. Just underlining the point that it is NOT the fact that we're dipping into the fund that is the reason for this. We planned for decades for the need for dipping into the fund.

**jackalope** · 23rd February 2012 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by JayDubya

Yes, to be a strict constructionist and strongly disagree with liberal activist judges' hallucinations, one must completely agree with liberal activist judges' hallucinations.

It all makes sense, Jackie.

The high priests are always right. How dare I read a plain English document for myself? I'm such a heretic.

That was just venting, which means nothing, in terms of the court reversing itself. It does reverse itself, but for documented reasons. They take stare decisis very seriously.

Read the document all you want. But don't pretend that you're 'understanding' is actually what the document means.

**Roshi** · 23rd February 2012 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by jackalope

First of all, link for context, pls? And second of all, yes if long term payroll tax cuts were funded out of the general fund, there would be a greater risk. This is the reason there is a dedicated tax in the first place. Having it funded out of the general fund makes it much more subject to political whims and chicanery.

Social Security Trustee: Obama's Tax Plan Could 'End Social Security as We Know It' | CNSNews.com

**Mertex** · 23rd February 2012 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Snikitz

Not all conservatives think SS is a ponzi scheme. Most Democrats, and Republicans think it is a dangerously flawed system and would like to see it modified or replaced with a system that grants more control to the people footing the bill.

Do you have some links that would back up your statement? Because, everywhere I look there seems to be a lot of support for SS among Americans, and more in favor of working to improve it than those who would want to scrap it.

The Great Recession of 2007–2009 has greatly affected Americans’ economic wellbeing and confidence in securing a good retirement. In this time of economic uncertainty, support for the Social Security system remains strong across lines of gender, age, race/ethnicity, and political affiliation, according to a survey from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.
Survey: Post-Recession, Americans’ Support for Social Security Continues Across Party Lines — IWPR

Younger Americans Support Social Security, Poll Finds - NYTimes.com

I have served in the military, and worked my entire adult life. The SS program keeps changing and by the time I am able to retire, I will most likely have to be 76 years old in order to draw social security.

You can thank Republicans, they are the ones that are trying to raise retirement age, and even retirement age for receiving SS.

Meanwhile my one brother has been on disability since the age of 22 - he is an alcoholic and drug addict. My cousin has been on Social Security disability since his 35th birthday - he is extremely fat and lazy which led to diabetic issues.

If you think these people are not qualified you should take it up with your Congressman.

When I lost my job and home to Obama's Oil Moratorium, I couldn't even get food stamps to keep my kids fed.

You do not provide information as to why Obama's oil moratorium is responsible for you losing your job and your home, or why you were refused food stamps, makes it sound like you just want to blame Obama and the Democratic party for your woes.

My point is, why the heck should I work so hard but receive so little in return?

SS benefits are based on how much you put in. There's controversy over whether handling it yourself or paying into SS yields greater returns, but SS guarantees payment whereas private companies do not. SS makes it possible for all workers (that are subject to SS), to contribute and get something in return. If it was not forced, many would probably not save anything and end up being more of a drain on society, so as a whole, SS is better for the country.

Why shouldn't I have more control over the money forcibly taken out of my paycheck?

Apparently this is the way it used to be before Social Security. And apparently it wasn't working so well, why Social Security was created in the first place. Some people think they would do better if they had control of their own money and they would probably end up spending it and having nothing at the end. That's one of the reasons SS was created.

Why should addicts and dead beats be allowed to retire when I am told "sorry, you USED to make too much money, NO food for your kids!"

The basic requirements for receiving food stamps are listed here: Food Stamp Facts
I didn't see anywhere that the fact a person "used" to make too much money keeps them from receiving food stamps, so you are either being dishonest or you have more money coming in than is allowed.

Generally, your household cannot have more than $2,000 in resources. But, if your household includes a person age 60 or older or who is disabled, the limit is $3,000. Resources of people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program are not counted for food stamp purposes. Resources include cash, bank accounts and other property.

Not all the things you own count. For *example, your home and the land it is on do not count for food stamp eligibility. A car or truck counts differently depending on how it is used. Most states now use TANF rules in place of food stamp vehicle rules if the TANF rules are more beneficial to the food stamp household.

Most households also must meet an income limit. Certain things do not count as income and can be subtracted from your income. Your household may qualify for other income exclusions if it includes a person age 60 or older or disabled. The income limits vary by household size and may change each year.