Posted on 10/15/2012 11:21:41 AM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
People who need social security will get it. Those who don’t need social security will not. In other words, it will be treated like it always should have been - a welfare benefit.
Obligations to Americans? Americans have stupidly voted for politicians who sold them a bill of goods: that they can pick the pocket of somebody else & have all their needs/wants taken care of. It’s time for reality.
“The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
Now if the federal gov’t has vast assets that it can sell to pay back all the money it owes, great. Let’s get started. Let’s start with selling off all federally held land in the west. I’m sure there are lots of things we can do to ameliorate our current debt problem. None of them will have universal support. But it will still mean dealing with our untennable entitlement problem.
Where the people getting it paid for it.
Doesn't sound like any sort of welfare to me. I think you're just trying to evade your debts.
SS was a bad idea to begin with. It’s been made worse over the years & is now a critical problem for the country, budget-wise. It’s a pity more people don’t understand that.
What Romney said is 47% pay no income tax and would not care about his low tax message If I were Romney when Obama mentions the 47% I would just say we aren’t talking about the 47% that can’t and need help we are talking about those that won’t and are taking advantage. We will eliminate waste save money and be able to help those that really need it more.
It is not true that all the 47% receive “crumbs” most just don’t pay federal income taxes. It is also not true that the 47% will all vote for The Disaster. Romney will get a lot of votes from that group because many will realize that they have NO chance with The Disaster but will with R/R. This is especially true when he explains how they are currently getting screwed.
I don’t particularly care what The Disaster does in this debate, he has no chance.
Talk about a target rich environment, Romney has to be careful not to get confused about which club to whack him over head with.
It is not as though there was a limited number of choices.
The lower 50% of the population in terms of income could be taxed 100% of everything they've got, and the top 50% would not benefit thereby, which just about everybody understands, so arguments to raise taxes on the poor don't go over well among the poor, nor do they go over well among the rich! Romney can't get a single additional vote demanding a tax increase on the lower 50%, or by kvetching about their foibles.
I know just about everybody who watches FOX has been subjected to Hannity's campaign to raise taxes on the poor for most of a year ~ but please, always remember this, he says he's not a Republican, and not a Democrat, and not a Conservative (he believes in income taxes and that takes you out of the main stream of Conservative thought right there), so what is he?
I suspect he's still mad at the first boss he had who tried to push him off a roof
Social Security isn't a budget problem ~ the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is a budget problem ~ they spend too much.
The solution isn't to whack Social Security, or raise taxes on the poor, or the middle-class, or the rich ~ the solution is to CUT SPENDING.
Who said anything about taxing the poor.you don’t need more taxes you need more taxpayers one way its create more jobs more taxes no tax increase second replace the income tax with a national sales tax you would encourage more saving because you would tax people would only new taxed when you spend money also you would add everyone that is paid under the table to the tax base well.
*thumbs up*
Hannity clearly advocated expanding the reach of the federal personal income tax down to the last dime of the poorest person in America ~ even called it having skin in the game.
BTW, no one here believes someone who posts at FR doesn't watch FOX.
Yep, pretty good, nice and succint without lending credence to the whole assertion.
>> “BTW, no one here believes someone who posts at FR doesn’t watch FOX” <<
.
I can’t believe that there are many here that are stupid enough to be schmucked by Fox. I don’t watch those stupid faggots.
Still, even you know there are ‘stupid faggots’ on FOX and there’s only one way to know that ~ WATCH FOX!
>> “SS was a bad idea to begin with.” <<
.
Having a federal overnment was a bad idea to begin with. They should have just stuck with a treaty confederation.
I have not watched Fox for about 10 years.
I mostly don’t watch TV anyway.
Cutting off all immigration before 1828 would have been an excellent idea ~ but folks seemed to want more land settled and industry established than could be done by the locals.
When you are down to a limited resource like vision, you husband the resource by applying it to the most useful activity.
And Sean hannitys opinion becomes law how and matters to me why? Any one who thinks Romney is not conservative enough and would willingly take Obama as the alternative is crazy, full of sh*t, a troll or all of the above
but let’s for a minute talk about what ‘47’ really means to the American people...”
Thats why I suspect the 47% won’t be rought up, once the American people realize that 47% really don’t pay income tax that will be a game changer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.