• 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!

Oh, Look ! Another Falsehood!

Conservative said:
Was that the purpose of SS, sole retirement benefits? Any idea how many trillions have been borrowed by the bureaucrats and not paid back?

You seem to love liberalism, why? Enjoy the dependence it creates? Who pays for it when you run out of other people's money to spend?
Click to expand...

On SS, I presume, with out looking up the 1930s discussions on the program, that it was intended to provide for old folks like me, and that it was amended some years later to assist the disabled.

I enjoy the notion of interdependence that is preached by liberal philosophy, such as it is. I am happy that Social Security has helped so many millions for so long. It is a wonderful national insurance. If it runs short of funds, we can raise the income cap, cut some benefits, or try other solutions. It's been around for many decades, done well so far.

I don't understand what you mean by "other people's money." We all get some benefit by ours and other people's money, everything from the military to FEMA, to the Weather Service, et al. What's your benefit?

As to liberalism, I am happy that racial discrimination is outlawed, that there exist workplace standards and protections, that we attempt to keep air and water cleaner, etc. Look around the developed world. All countries similar to ours do much the same thing, in some cases to a greater extent. It's the way of the modern world. Or do you want to go back to 1900, before all this evil mischief started?
 
=Nickyjo;1071977785]On SS, I presume, with out looking up the 1930s discussions on the program, that it was intended to provide for old folks like me, and that it was amended some years later to assist the disabled.
Click to expand...

SS was enacted when the lifespan of an individual was 62 to be received at age 65. It was signed as a retirement supplement. Over the decades it has generated trillions in revenue collection and had the gov't not borrowed the money and put it into the general fund your return would have been better that 1-2%

I enjoy the notion of interdependence that is preached by liberal philosophy, such as it is. I am happy that Social Security has helped so many millions for so long. It is a wonderful national insurance. If it runs short of funds, we can raise the income cap, cut some benefits, or try other solutions. It's been around for many decades, done well so far.
Click to expand...

Therein lies your problem you buy liberal rhetoric, doesn't it bother you that we have over 100 million Americans dependent on the federal gov't? SS as stated was intended to be a supplement, now it is a massive bureaucracy that serves as an ATM machine for bureaucrats

I don't understand what you mean by "other people's money." We all get some benefit by ours and other people's money, everything from the military to FEMA, to the Weather Service, et al. What's your benefit?
Click to expand...

Approximately 45% of income earning Americans don't pay any FIT and that is what funds the military, FEMA, and all the other agencies you seem to support. I suggest you learn the taxes you pay and their purpose.

As to liberalism, I am happy that racial discrimination is outlawed, that there exist workplace standards and protections, that we attempt to keep air and water cleaner, etc. Look around the developed world. All countries similar to ours do much the same thing, in some cases to a greater extent. It's the way of the modern world. Or do you want to go back to 1900, before all this evil mischief started?
Click to expand...

Aw, yes, feel good rhetoric, spending in the name of compassion, does compassion to you then mean making people dependent and multi millionaire public servants?

How about my wife contributing to SS for years then dying at age 62 and I got a check for $250? Liberals continue to make a fool out of good people like you, better wake up
 
Nickyjo said:
On SS, I presume, with out looking up the 1930s discussions on the program, that it was intended to provide for old folks like me, and that it was amended some years later to assist the disabled.

I enjoy the notion of interdependence that is preached by liberal philosophy, such as it is. I am happy that Social Security has helped so many millions for so long. It is a wonderful national insurance. If it runs short of funds, we can raise the income cap, cut some benefits, or try other solutions. It's been around for many decades, done well so far.

I don't understand what you mean by "other people's money." We all get some benefit by ours and other people's money, everything from the military to FEMA, to the Weather Service, et al. What's your benefit?

As to liberalism, I am happy that racial discrimination is outlawed, that there exist workplace standards and protections, that we attempt to keep air and water cleaner, etc. Look around the developed world. All countries similar to ours do much the same thing, in some cases to a greater extent. It's the way of the modern world. Or do you want to go back to 1900, before all this evil mischief started?
Click to expand...

This defines your party to a tee, do you have the guts to watch the entire 3 minutes?

New Democrat Campaign "Ad" - YouTube
 
Conservative said:
This defines your party to a tee, do you have the guts to watch the entire 3 minutes?

New Democrat Campaign "Ad" - YouTube
Click to expand...

I did. I saw several straw men drenched in drivel. Tell me, which bleeding heart democratic programs would you or she repeal? Even when democrats are out of power, the GOP doesn't try to end them. (I am waiting for their next shot at the ACA.)

If she defines our party, then Inhofe bringing a snowball into Congress to rebut the theory of climate change defines the GOP, as does Trump musing about taking out the families of terrorists (even pregnant family members?!? what about the fetuses?!?), and doing torture "worse than waterboarding." Face it, the US is committed to socialist-like programs, as is the rest of the developed world. Conservatives are good at being brakes, necessary for pointing out when we try to go too far.

She speaks as if democrats had a monopoly on hypocracy.
 
Nickyjo said:
I did. I saw several straw men drenched in drivel. Tell me, which bleeding heart democratic programs would you or she repeal? Even when democrats are out of power, the GOP doesn't try to end them. (I am waiting for their next shot at the ACA.)

If she defines our party, then Inhofe bringing a snowball into Congress to rebut the theory of climate change defines the GOP, as does Trump musing about taking out the families of terrorists (even pregnant family members?!? what about the fetuses?!?), and doing torture "worse than waterboarding." Face it, the US is committed to socialist-like programs, as is the rest of the developed world. Conservatives are good at being brakes, necessary for pointing out when we try to go too far.

She speaks as if democrats had a monopoly on hypocracy.
Click to expand...

No, the Democrats don't have a monopoly on hypocrisy they have a monopoly on creating dependence and appealing to the hearts of good people selling their fraudulent ideology of liberalism. Liberals appeal to good people like you and make you dependent. They love people like you
 
Conservative said:
No, the Democrats don't have a monopoly on hypocrisy they have a monopoly on creating dependence and appealing to the hearts of good people selling their fraudulent ideology of liberalism. Liberals appeal to good people like you and make you dependent. They love people like you
Click to expand...

You still haven't answered the question: which "creating dependence" program would you eliminate? For example, own experience in community work would have me suggest we reform the food stamp program back to what it used to be. Back in the day, one paid say, $25 to receive $125 worth of food stamps. Now you just get $100 worth without paying anything, I believe. (Going back would probably cost more in administrative expense, however.). Principles of organizing I was taught is that you require people to invest in their own assistance, get subsidies rather than handouts.

But if liberalism creates dependence, what liberal programs/laws, from the right to organize to unemployment insurance to Medicare would you get rid of or change? You keep repeating the mantra of dependence without saying what you would do about the problem, or even mentioning a study that analyzes whether that is true or how it happens. So what are we interested liberals to do if you won't guide us? And you seem to not recognize how the rich might be dependent. For example, I am reasonably well off, and still get the subsidy of mortgage interest deduction, though I could get by without it. But doesn't it create certain dependence in me, doesn't it subsidize the real estate industry, creating dependence?

We are an interdependent society. We are not, and no other similar societies are going back to the days before the 40-hour week, of poorhouses, child labor, death trap factories like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. If you are a conservative, tell us how to make things better with what we already have going, what to eliminate or what not even to try. But before you do so -- and just for a laugh -- go back to find what Conservative Saint Ronald Reagan said about Medicare when it was suggested, or what some people said about death panels when the ACA was passed. Same song, different beat.
 
Last edited:
Nickyjo said:
You still haven't answered the question: which "creating dependence" program would you eliminate? For example, own experience in community work would have me suggest we reform the food stamp program back to what it used to be. Back in the day, one paid say, $25 to receive $125 worth of food stamps. Now you just get $100 worth without paying anything, I believe. (Going back would probably cost more in administrative expense, however.). Principles of organizing I was taught is that you require people to invest in their own assistance, get subsidies rather than handouts.

But if liberalism creates dependence, what liberal programs/laws, from the right to organize to unemployment insurance to Medicare would you get rid of or change? You keep repeating the mantra of dependence without saying what you would do about the problem, or even mentioning a study that analyzes whether that is true or how it happens. So what are we interested liberals to do if you won't guide us? And you seem to not recognize how the rich might be dependent. For example, I am reasonably well off, and still get the subsidy of mortgage interest deduction, though I could get by without it. But doesn't it create certain dependence in me, doesn't it subsidize the real estate industry, creating dependence?

We are an interdependent society. We are not, and no other similar societies are going back to the days before the 40-hour week, of poorhouses, child labor, death trap factories like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. If you are a conservative, tell us how to make things better with what we already have going, what to eliminate or what not even to try. But before you do so -- and just for a laugh -- go back to find what Conservative Saint Ronald Reagan said about Medicare when it was suggested, or what some people said about death panels when the ACA was passed. Same song, different beat.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't eliminate any assistance program that the state implements, and that is the difference between me and you. States control all social programs except SS and Medicare. You buy the liberal rhetoric and nanny state, I don't. States are closer to the problem and HAVE TERM LIMITS
 
Conservative said:
I wouldn't eliminate any assistance program that the state implements, and that is the difference between me and you. States control all social programs except SS and Medicare. You buy the liberal rhetoric and nanny state, I don't. States are closer to the problem and HAVE TERM LIMITS
Click to expand...

Wonderful. Couldn't agree more. Local is better. But history shows us that when states drop the ball, people, seeking their self interest (adopting the capitalist ethic) go to DC to try to solve their problems. Mississippi won't let you vote if you are black? Go to the Feds for the Voting Rights Act.

Years ago I lived and worked I n Tulare County, California, which, as a pretty right wing place, chose not participate in the food stamp program. So hungry orchard and vineyard workers, getting nothing to live on because conservatives also excluded them from unemployment insurance and many other protections, (e.g., they didn't get overtime til after 54 hours), had to line up for bricks of cheese and flour. This wasn't the 1930s, it was the 1970s. The state then took action to solve the problem that "local control" wouldn't. People ate better.

Plus, it is my impression that states DO control many assistance programs. Some states have general assistance for indigent folks. Others don't have it at all. Guess whether they lean left or right. The problem as I see it is that conservative states like to have it both ways. Low minimum wage, fewer safety laws on the job, lousy mandated benefits for workers. What to do if you are a worker? You could organize into unions. SORRY! We have right to work laws that make that difficult. You see, our belief in the free market doesn't extend to workers bargaining with their employers. We restrict what you can discuss and agree to. And who could have imagined this would result? -- those states have lower wages and more dangerous workplaces. A conservative full court press against working people. No government benefits, but we limit your right to negotiate with your employer.
 
Last edited:
=Nickyjo;1071980631]Wonderful. Couldn't agree more. Local is better. But history shows us that when states drop the ball, people, seeking their self interest (adopting the capitalist ethic) go to DC to try to solve their problems. Mississippi won't let you vote if you are black? Go to the Feds for the Voting Rights Act.
Click to expand...

And we amended the Constitution to allow blacks to vote

Years ago I lived and worked I n Tulare County, California, which, as a pretty right wing place, chose not participate in the food stamp program. So hungry orchard and vineyard workers, getting nothing to live on because conservatives also excluded them from unemployment insurance and many other protections, (e.g., they didn't get overtime til after 54 hours), had to line up for bricks of cheese and flour. This wasn't the 1930s, it was the 1970s. The state then took action to solve the problem that "local control" wouldn't. People ate better.
Click to expand...

Oh, my, and you compare this to the Coronavirus? .5% of a percent infection rate and 5.8% death rate of those infected? This is about individual rights that you want taken away because you cannot exercise self control

Plus, it is my impression that states DO control many assistance programs. Some states have general assistance for indigent folks. Others don't have it at all. Guess whether they lean left or right. The problem as I see it is that conservative states like to have it both ways. Low minimum wage, fewer safety laws on the job, lousy mandated benefits for workers. What to do if you are a worker? You could organize into unions. SORRY! We have right to work laws that make that difficult. You see, our belief in the free market doesn't extend to workers bargaining with their employers. We restrict what you can discuss and agree to. And who could have imagined this would result? -- those states have lower wages and more dangerous workplaces. A conservative full court press against working people. No government benefits, but we limit your right to negotiate with your employer.
Click to expand...

You continue to miss the point, states are closest to the problem and STATES HAVE TERM LIMITS, you don't like what your state is doing work to change the gov't or MOVE!! California hasn't had a Republican Legislature since the 60's and leads the nation in poverty, homelessness, illegals, worst quality of life, largest wage gap, most polluted cities, and has the 5th largest world economy. That is liberalism, the top excel and middle and lower classes become dependent. People are exercising their rights in California, taxpayers are fleeing the state and being replaced by homeless coming there for the state benefits.

Your nanny state big gov't view is being activated in California and those are the results. Why aren't you promoting the federal gov't getting involved in California

California ranks No. 1 in poverty once again. Take one guess why. - The San Diego Union-Tribune

How Does Homelessness in California Compare With Other States? - The New York Times


Are the wealthy fleeing California taxes? – Orange County Register

Most Polluted Cities | State of the Air
 
Bullseye said:
Prove it or retract this statement.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry is I've misinterpreted your statement. Please explain what your point was when you posted this

Bullseye said:
Ah, yes. The ever-present "officials familiar with the situation . . .". Solid post Rex.
Click to expand...


Yeah, Vern. It's not like Trump's lying has ever been discussed on this board before.
Click to expand...
this statement is also unclear. Trump lies a lot and people start threads about it. And you seem to acknowledge his constant lying. So what exactly is your point? If I had to guess, I would say your confusing reply (and obligatory insult) is simply to avoid not explaining why trump's constant lies are acceptable to you. I really want to know what drives such obedience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom