• 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!

Nancy Pelosi says Republicans will starve seniors

American

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,099
Reaction score
33,416
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Link

NANCY PELOSI: "In one of the bills before us, six million seniors are deprived of meals -- homebound seniors are deprived of meals. People ask us to find our common ground, the middle ground. Is middle ground three million seniors not receiving meals? I don't think so. We've got to take this conversation from a debate about numbers and dollar figures and finding middle ground there to the higher ground of national values. I don't think the American people want any one of those six million people to lose their meals or the children who are being thrown off of Head Start and the rest of it."
Click to expand...



^^^ Pull out the Democrat playbook and accuse Republicans are starving children. No doubt the Republicans are causing a Holocaust. See the similarity?

Nancy Pelosi and Democrats demogoguing the issue....is anyone surprised?
 
American said:
^^^ Pull out the Republican playbook and accuse Democrats of trying to kill your grandmother. No doubt the democrats are causing a Holocaust. See the similarity?

Sarah Palin and Republicans demogoguing the issue....is anyone surprised?
Click to expand...

Can anyone say "death panels" :coffeepap

See how easy that was American?

It's not excusing this behaviour.

It's your selective outrage.

Unless we all demand an end to this behaviour from Both sides it will continue.
 
The simple fact is we must choose between evils here. Either we take care of our society and pay for it or we don't. :shrug:
 
I think both parties are actually quite bold and finally bringing a fact out into the open that we all know is true but no one dares admit, "you're too old grandma you need to die already."
 
Wiseone said:
I think both parties are actually quite bold and finally bringing a fact out into the open that we all know is true but no one dares admit, "you're too old grandma you need to die already."
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is going to end up happening whether we go public or private. The baby boomer population is too great to support unless we cut funding for more expensive procedures that have limited effect and thats going to happen whether we pay for it publicly or privately. Either it will come out of a cost/benefit study by some agency or insurance company or it will come in the form of an empty bank account. Either way, people die.
 
The propose cuts would lower the the number of meals delivered about it's not going to cause a mass starvation of the Senior Population.
 
Well, if they killed off all the over 65's, (about 13% of the population), it would go a long way to balancing the budget, so I say go for it. :mrgreen:
 
There's nothing wrong with a government funded retirement plan it just has to be budget conscious and reflect the reality of the situation. When people only lived to 65-70 on average hey retirement wasn't a big deal for a few years, but now there are more living for longer periods of time, and that combined with the literal life and death need of some people to stay on this program because either they were too poor to save or were just stupid with their money.

So you got a few choices either raise taxes, decrease benefits or make people work longer. I think doing all 3 is a good idea but I'll admit its just a hunch, I dont have specifics. Of course I do know making people work for longer in life will only add to the unemployment problem and drive wages even lower.
 
yeesh. :roll:

again, this woman is completely unhinged from reality. democrats are going to regret keeping her in place after 2010.
 
Wiseone said:
There's nothing wrong with a government funded retirement plan it just has to be budget conscious and reflect the reality of the situation. When people only lived to 65-70 on average hey retirement wasn't a big deal for a few years, but now there are more living for longer periods of time, and that combined with the literal life and death need of some people to stay on this program because either they were too poor to save or were just stupid with their money.

So you got a few choices either raise taxes, decrease benefits or make people work longer. I think doing all 3 is a good idea but I'll admit its just a hunch, I dont have specifics. Of course I do know making people work for longer in life will only add to the unemployment problem and drive wages even lower.
Click to expand...


Raise the Retirement age as Life Expectancy goes up.
 
cpgrad08 said:
Raise the Retirement age as Life Expectancy goes up.
Click to expand...

I agree, but many people will complain its now even harder for young adults, or anyone, to find jobs. There's no solution that doesn't hurt someone, but of course you know that its just a matter of us all accepting it.
 
American said:
Link





^^^ Pull out the Democrat playbook and accuse Republicans are starving children. No doubt the Republicans are causing a Holocaust. See the similarity?

Nancy Pelosi and Democrats demogoguing the issue....is anyone surprised?
Click to expand...

I didn't see her say anywhere that this is akin to the holocaust or that the GOP would starve people. She said that one of the bills would cut funding for meals for seniors. If you think she is incorrect in saying this then please do tell, but if you just want to lie about what she said in an effort to make her look bad then take it somewhere else and quit dropping turds all over the forum.
 
Wiseone said:
I agree, but many people will complain its now even harder for young adults, or anyone, to find jobs. There's no solution that doesn't hurt someone, but of course you know that its just a matter of us all accepting it.
Click to expand...

I never had trouble finding a job. It's just all about location and the state of economy and such.
 
Our culture has a more substantial fear of death than many previous ones. We spend so much time distancing ourselves from it that it scares us... well... to death. We don't look at it as the satisfying conclusion to a life well lived, but instead as some terrible fate to be fought at all costs. Americans haven't chosen "death before dishonor" in more than a century. We have built this cultural fear of death so strongly that we burn our entire life savings on trying to squeeze six more painful months onto the end of our lives, and then we die alone in a hospital bed, far from family and friends. Our fear of death has taken us to not only deny ourselves any ability to live our final months with dignity, free from pain, but we also deny ourselves the opportunity to die amongst loved ones, to take our final breath surrounded by caring faces, and heartfelt goodbyes.

The efforts we spend on keeping the elderly limping on for a little while longer... it's the effect of this cultural choice. If we can change our minds about the end of life, I think we can deal with this problem much easier.
 
megaprogman said:
The simple fact is we must choose between evils here. Either we take care of our society and pay for it or we don't. :shrug:
Click to expand...

We just can't automatically "buy" that 6 million people will lose their Meals on Wheels. We must be willing to look closer at all of the cost-saving measures that come before us. We can't just buy into the rhetoric. We can't afford to anymore.

Example: In my area, Meals on Wheels delivers lunchtime dinner-sized portions to seniors for $5.50 a day/5 or 6 days a week. That's awesome. They make deals with local restaurants and use volunteers to deliver the meals. A typical meal would be something like meatloaf with mashed potatoes and gravy, vegetable, a cup of soup, bread and butter, and milk or juice.

I'm passing that information along to say this: I investigated Meals on Wheels for a brother and sister in their early 80's. She has $1.2 million in the bank; he has probably about $300K in the bank. They are financially self-sufficient, obviously. Meals on Wheels never asked what assets or income they had, and set them up on the program.

Would it be wrong to cut funding so that somebody with $1.2 million in the bank in their early 80's had to pay $3/day for food delivered to their door? I mean, what does this bill actually do? And, further, how much does Meals on Wheels actually cost? What does the restaurant charge? The meals are delivered by loyal volunteers, after all. What is the actual subsidy? Or does the money go for top-heavy administration expenses?
 
MaggieD said:
We just can't automatically "buy" that 6 million people will lose their Meals on Wheels. We must be willing to look closer at all of the cost-saving measures that come before us. We can't just buy into the rhetoric. We can't afford to anymore.

Example: In my area, Meals on Wheels delivers lunchtime dinner-sized portions to seniors for $5.50 a day/5 or 6 days a week. That's awesome. They make deals with local restaurants and use volunteers to deliver the meals. A typical meal would be something like meatloaf with mashed potatoes and gravy, vegetable, a cup of soup, bread and butter, and milk or juice.

I'm passing that information along to say this: I investigated Meals on Wheels for a brother and sister in their early 80's. She has $1.2 million in the bank; he has probably about $300K in the bank. They are financially self-sufficient, obviously. Meals on Wheels never asked what assets or income they had, and set them up on the program.

Would it be wrong to cut funding so that somebody with $1.2 million in the bank in their early 80's had to pay $3/day for food delivered to their door? I mean, what does this bill actually do? And, further, how much does Meals on Wheels actually cost? What does the restaurant charge? The meals are delivered by loyal volunteers, after all. What is the actual subsidy? Or does the money go for top-heavy administration expenses?
Click to expand...

Whether we buy the rhetoric or not is irrelevent. We as a society are going to have to accept that there will be sacrifice and that includes death if we want to balance our budget and not raise taxes (or even if we do raise taxes). There is no other way to do it. There will always be more need than money. Personally, I am ok (in the lord help me accept things I cannot change type of prayer level) with letting some people die or suffer because I have no choice and can personally do nothing to save them, so its not my fault, however it still sucks to think about :( But at some point, we will have to realize that we cannot have both a just society and a govt small budget (and the whole charity angle is laughable). Its either/or.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Whether we buy the rhetoric or not is irrelevent. We as a society are going to have to accept that there will be sacrifice and that includes death if we want to balance our budget and not raise taxes (or even if we do raise taxes). There is no other way to do it. There will always be more need than money. Personally, I am morally ok with letting some people die because I have no choice and can do nothing to save them, so its not my fault, however it still sucks to think about :(
Click to expand...

Nobody should have to die to balance our budget.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Can anyone say "death panels" :coffeepap

See how easy that was American?

It's not excusing this behaviour.

It's your selective outrage.

Unless we all demand an end to this behaviour from Both sides it will continue.
Click to expand...

It will continue regardless of our demands.
 
MaggieD said:
Nobody should have to die to balance our budget.
Click to expand...

Your statement assumes a narrow path to the solution of the problem.
 
Wiseone said:
I think both parties are actually quite bold and finally bringing a fact out into the open that we all know is true but no one dares admit, "you're too old grandma you need to die already."
Click to expand...

This caused me to laugh out loud, everyone in my office is looking at me like I'm crazy *Presses Like Button*
 
My parents just called me and told me they were low on bread. I told them to suck it up. :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom