Posted on 07/12/2011 10:45:43 AM PDT by tcrlaf
You are killing me here, I cant believe in anything now :)
But more seriously Thanks, I wasnt that concerned as I know my suggestions just get thrown away anyway.
I didn’t “go bonkers” about missing any government entitlements. I work and pay my own way. You must have been thinking of someone else.
I stated that I’d be glad to do my share to get this MESS cleaned up; but also stated that the layabouts would need to do it, too. The layabouts being largely Barack Obama’s base. - I say we all git up and “GIT ‘ER DONE !!!”
Are you kidding me? That's the Obama base!!! That would be the absolute last thing Obama would cut. What would his base do without their free stuff?
LOL, I won’t... and they’ll be hidden from the stupid spy satellites too :0)
Now here's the part that is important in all that which I fear: as public pressure mounts (and I DONT see that yet), Republicans get weak kneed and agree to a debt increase with no spending cuts much like the 1995 disaster. Again, I hope I am wrong, but this is a bad sign:
McConnell: Give Obama new powers on debt limit
I posted over and over during the budget deal, it's winning that counts.
They will answer that question with a corollary of their #1 talking point: "We have to borrow money because the rich don't pay enough taxes." Of course "the rich" don't have enough to pay off the debt, but that's good enough for the leftist media and entitlement recipients.
You are the one freeper I cant stay ahead of. Yes, you are 100% right. It will go something like :
” Republicans borrowed the SS trust fund for two wars and tax cuts for the wealthy. Now the government has to pay it back to our seniors because our debt to them is as important as the Chinese debt. The only way to do that is to ask the wealthy to pay more in taxes, their fair share. Everyone has to sacrifice.. just a little...fair.... they dont mind... ”
SOL: “ Wait a second you lying sack of... you first claimed it doesnt increase the debt, now you are saying we have to increase the debt limit to pay SS benefits?? Which lie is it ?? ”
Let me in the negotiations.
Rush Limbaugh was saying the same thing. The incoming revenue is enough to keep us out of default.
Simple as that.
Or you can get raw with these strings. Either way, the violin is sweet yet lethal.
Do it!
My point exactly!
I may have to grab that as an avatar for another forum that I'm on.
I read Tony Blair’s book, My Journey, and he had a very interesting take on all these programs such as Social Security.
Basically, he said they were “generational,” meaning (to paraphrase - sorry, Tony) that they were designed to address the particular situation of a particular generation for a particular reason — and that they never should have been conceived of or treated as something that could go on and on into perpetuity.
For example, he said there were programs that were designed (albeit probably not with this limitation consciously in mind) to repay and reward the “greatest generation” because they really did give up a lot to save the world, including often family farm and business and years and years out of the civilian workforce.
The welfare state cannot last forever. When the Dems criticized Bush fiercely for suggesting rather modest changes and a generational shift to privatization for younger workers, Dems basically admitted that they viewed Soc Sec as WELFARE. See sentence #1, this para.
P.S. I can recommend Blair’s book for an interesting perspective that can be applied to our own problems with socialism.
The problem is that those who fell for the "Democrat vote-buying Ponzi scheme" want their children and grandchildren to pay the bill.
Xer Ping
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
Again, they would claim that the tax cuts and wars are the cause of the debt, not entitlements. Some tax loopholes should go, but not necessarily the ones the Dems are going to pick. Wars are expensive, but temporary; ponzi schemes go on until they run out of.... well, you know.
It seems to me that there are political and economic laws similar to Newton's 3rd law of motion. Bush spent huge amounts of money on wars, tax cuts, and TARP, so Dems say it's only fair for them to spend huge amounts on their bailouts. When it becomes evident to voters that Obamacare is a hige deficit buster, they could use the same excuse, "they wasted money too."
In Newton's laws, the cause and effect balance each other. In politics, they push the deficit farther away from balance.
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.