• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans mount shock comeback, erase Democrats’ edge in eyes of Americans

haymarket said:
It is always interesting to see how the far right finds ways to renege on promises to the people.
Click to expand...

We can deal with the commitments the government made. The overarching question is whether the government ought to be handing taxpayer money to people.
 
Green Man said:
We can deal with the commitments the government made. The overarching question is whether the government ought to be handing taxpayer money to people.
Click to expand...

We had that debate.

Your side lost.
 
The Mark said:
I thought you were speaking in more general terms, not specifically SS.

And although I don't know one way or another, I'd guess that some left-leaning persons have suggested such.

Not far-left, though, probably.
Click to expand...

If you know of people on the left who have advocated reneging on the commitment of social security, I would welcome examining the evidence of that. The only people I have ever seen advocate that line are those on the right.
 
haymarket said:
Tell us how many people who have fulfilled their end of the bargain have not gotten their promised benefits in the last 80 years. But now the far right wants to screw them all.
Click to expand...
That's an unquantifiable number. Lots of Blacks were never issued social security numbers and so when it became time to collect they simply could not. Of course, at the early onset of the program there were plenty of people who also collected benefits without ever paying.

Every time you talk about "promised benefits" it's an appeal to the sunk cost fallacy.

If it's really a savings system like you claim then it can be ended today, and everyone who has paid into the system can get their money back. If it's a pyramid scheme then it cannot be ended because the people collecting benefits didn't contribute to any sort of worthwhile fund at all.

Also whether it runs out of money in 2015, 2030, or 2221 if it were really a savings system like you claim then it would be impossible to run out of money at all.
 
haymarket said:
If you know of people on the left who have advocated reneging on the commitment of social security, I would welcome examining the evidence of that. The only people I have ever seen advocate that line are those on the right.
Click to expand...
I just said I didn't know...that's what "I don't know one way or another" meant.

That said, I do not think that any sane person would advocate reneging on the SS commitment - or at least, I don't think such a suggestion would be reasonable.

Replace it with something else or phase it out, maybe - but this would mean younger persons stopped paying in, and in doing so, cause much of the funding to vanish. So there's THAT huge looming issue.

But, then, far right and far left individuals aren't necessarily sane, so...
 
Morality Games said:
Nobody will be allowed to go long believing the Republicans' hearts were in the right place when most their ideology and almost all their policy runs contrary to the interests of the vast majority of struggling Americans. Their power lasts as long as they can keep gerrymandering, conning, capitalizing on Democrat mistakes, and just generally stalling things out as long as they can.
Click to expand...
Nobody will be allowed? You are in charge of how we "have to think", are ya?

Wow, have any proof of such silliness of which you speak? What policies specifically go against the majority of Americans? We are only supposed to be for struggling Americans now, not for the overall well being of the nation?

So, we strive for equality as the Democrat would have it, wealth equally distributed, everyone being equally dirt eating poor... that is just and fair I am sure.

That is just, sorry to have to break it to ya, a completely naive and/or dumb idea.

And, regarding all the things of which you accuse just the Republicans... I think the apropos saying here, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
 
calamity said:
The list of "unconstitutional" overreach here in the USA is long. Most of it approved by SCOTUS long before Obama was a sprouting seed in his mamma's uterus.
Click to expand...
I agree.

In my mind ninety percent of the guns laws, like thoes which ban felons from possessing weapons, are like that.
Click to expand...
I still agree.

So too are all the infringements on protections against search and seizure. We now have Habeas Corpus requirements denied by SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
I continue to agree.

And, in some ways, even the Constitutional protection against the Quartering of Soldiers has been ignored as no Knock Warrants which give agents of the government the Right to enter your home uninvited to arrest you and set up temporary base there as they build a case against you.
Click to expand...
Yep. I agree.

Obamacare is the least egregious of any of those gvt overreaches I listed,
Click to expand...
I believe this is the most damaging to our liberty and to the remaining life of the US as a 'free" nation. This is what the communists did in the former Soviet Union.

but yet few "Conservatives" ever rail against those infringements. So...excuse me for calling out their hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
Are you speaking for everyone?

Constitutional Conservatives are fighting the Article V fight to restore the nation to a Constitutionally limited government. That covers everything you listed above and probably more.
 
haymarket said:
The only people I see urging we screw the American people on social security is the right.
Click to expand...
In what way Hay? Social Security cannot be sustained as it is. If we begin today to completely privatize it for every child under 26 (you know the age to which someone can mooch off their Parents before they begin to mooch off their still working and productive neighbors) and every year expand the opportunity for another year group to go private we can destroy the beast and save the people and the nation.

For those above the age of 50 we can have the option. If you like your social security you can keep it. If you don't you can cash it in and take that money to the private sector.
 
haymarket said:
We had that debate.

Your side lost.
Click to expand...
Did we? Can you point to the Constitutional Amendment that allows such a horrible, tyrannical thing? Do you believe it is okay because we have been doing this for a long time?
 
pbrauer said:
Apparently you like being fooled, however I do not. They would have paid the same amount whether or not the bottom paid taxes or not. You can call it a progressive tax until you're blue in the face, but it is clearly not.
Click to expand...

It is progressive by any definition of the term. Higher incomes pay a greater percentage and a greater amount.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
It is progressive by any definition of the term. Higher incomes pay a greater percentage and a greater amount.:peace
Click to expand...
But that doesn't happen on an individual basis as I've said before. It a bogus claim.
 
Jack Hays said:
It absolutely happens on an individual basis.
Click to expand...
Wrong, the amount of taxes paid by the individual is the same whether or not the lower incomes pays taxes. What changes when the lower incomes are eliminated, is the percentage of the total of all taxes the individual pays. I think that's what your talking about.
 
haymarket said:
So you do not believe that the government of the American people should honor their commitments to the American people?
Click to expand...

Certainly. I believe all commitments should be honored. But in the case of governments, changing administrations, unforeseen circumstances and massive spending and debt, I don't believe they can honor their commitments.

Keep in mind that these commitments were made by other administrations, not by those responsible for those commitments when they come due. I certainly wouldn't put myself in the position where I had to trust the government for my well being when I'm retired, no matter how well intentioned they might have been at the time.
 
pbrauer said:
We didn't necessarily specially need Al Gore, but we needed someone who had the vision and he was the one.
Sometimes a project is so big and expensive it takes the government to undertake it.
Click to expand...

But it wasn't big and expensive and it was begun privately. Do you really believe politicians are visionaries?

Al Gore did very well with his global warming hustle but that was done privately also.
 
haymarket said:
It is always interesting to see how the far right finds ways to renege on promises to the people.
Click to expand...

It's the left making promises they cannot possibly keep or politicians making promises in order to get elected, left or right. There's a tragedy arriving for those people not familiar with the concept of planning for their own future. Short Stories: The Ant and the Grasshopper by Aesop
 
haymarket said:
Tell us how many people who have fulfilled their end of the bargain have not gotten their promised benefits in the last 80 years. But now the far right wants to screw them all.
Click to expand...

That's when the boomers were young and contributing tax revenues. But now the boomers are expecting all the gravy they were promised but where is that money going to come from? George Bush recognized the inevitable dilemma but was shouted down by the Democrats for being a fear-monger, that everything is in place. They said the same thing about the housing market, remember?

It's all about demographics.
 
reinoe said:
That's an unquantifiable number. Lots of Blacks were never issued social security numbers and so when it became time to collect they simply could not. Of course, at the early onset of the program there were plenty of people who also collected benefits without ever paying.

Every time you talk about "promised benefits" it's an appeal to the sunk cost fallacy.

If it's really a savings system like you claim then it can be ended today, and everyone who has paid into the system can get their money back. If it's a pyramid scheme then it cannot be ended because the people collecting benefits didn't contribute to any sort of worthwhile fund at all.

Also whether it runs out of money in 2015, 2030, or 2221 if it were really a savings system like you claim then it would be impossible to run out of money at all.
Click to expand...

O have never head this story about Blacks and no cards. Can you provide some evidence for that?

People were NOT promised their money back. That was NOT the commitment.

Where did I say this was a savings system?
 
haymarket said:
We had that debate.

Your side lost.
Click to expand...

So you take the position that the government ought to be handing taxpayer money to people. And you consider it ethical to take one person's money in order to give it to another?
 
Misterveritis said:
Did we? Can you point to the Constitutional Amendment that allows such a horrible, tyrannical thing? Do you believe it is okay because we have been doing this for a long time?
Click to expand...

This site will allow you to read the law on Social Security. No amendment was necessary.
 
Grant said:
Certainly. I believe all commitments should be honored. But in the case of governments, changing administrations, unforeseen circumstances and massive spending and debt, I don't believe they can honor their commitments.
Click to expand...

Why would they not be able to do that?
 
haymarket said:
They are here voluntarily and they understand the rules and they stay just the same. Yes - they are exercising free choice.
Click to expand...

I see. So they didn't actually voluntarily enter into the commitment. Thank you for clarifying.
 
Green Man said:
I see. So they didn't actually voluntarily enter into the commitment. Thank you for clarifying.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. I told you very clearly their participation in the USA and its programs is entirely voluntary and they can leave at any time they desire.
 
Grant said:
That's when the boomers were young and contributing tax revenues. But now the boomers are expecting all the gravy they were promised but where is that money going to come from? George Bush recognized the inevitable dilemma but was shouted down by the Democrats for being a fear-monger, that everything is in place. They said the same thing about the housing market, remember?

It's all about demographics.
Click to expand...

The money comes from taxation - as does all government revenues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom