Liberal Plan: Everyone On Welfare!

[Flopper]

Yup and I remember reading about a country in South America that did the same thing.

They gave their citizens the optioin of staying with their SS or opting to privatize thier contributions.

Those that privatized are making way more each month than those that stayed with that countries SS program.

Wish I could remember which country it was.

Chile.

Thanks. I saw the story quite a while ago and couldn't remember which country it was.

"Both the G.A.O. and Social Security studies concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under Social Security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better, at least initially, under the Alternate Plan."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

In the US, workers have the safety net, Social Security and if they so choose, an alternate plan, 401K or IRA. It's really not a bad system.

 

[Flopper]

I tend to not post a link or source with many liberals, because they won't read it, can't accept it and often resort to the nearest talking points, which they don't understand or research. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've taken their sources and used them as a basis for rebuttal. The skill levels are just sad. So, it devolves into attacks of character. Predictable and boring.

I read your links, but not your posts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

2. Sadly....half of this nation depends on 'the dole' in one way or another:

a. At least 106 million Americans receive benefits from one or more of these programs.
Sara Murray, “Nearly Half of U.S. Lives in
Household Receiving Government Benefit,”
Wall Street Journal, October 5, 2011, http://blogs.
wsj.com/economics/2011/10/05/nearly-half-ofhouseholds-receive-some-government-benefit/.

How dare those lazy seniors who worked and paid into Social Security and Medicare all their lives collect a dime from the government. Don't they know the GOP expects them to work and pay until they drop dead from exhaustion???!!!

From your link:

Another 14.5% lived in homes where someone was on Medicare (the health care program for the elderly). Nearly 16% lived in households receiving Social Security.

Rs know that most "welfare" goes to the elderly, children and the disabled. They also know that most of the disabled are war veterens. Its just that they really don't care.

We have seen, right here on this forum, posters who defended dead best dad and scum teenager, Joe Walsh?. They also defended Noot Gingrich who openly deserted his children.

If pubs have the power, they will let (force) those people to starve to death. We MUST vote these monsters out of office.

Republicans waste more time being afraid of Democrats than they do robbing orphan, evicting widows, helping corporations- ...you know, what we’re paying them to do.
Coulter.

So, when clowns like you imagine some GOP-caused grievance, we just tell 'em to “put some ice on that,” as Juanita Broaddrick says Hillary’s husband said after raping her.
That was Coulter, too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Chile.

Thanks. I saw the story quite a while ago and couldn't remember which country it was.

"Both the G.A.O. and Social Security studies concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under Social Security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better, at least initially, under the Alternate Plan."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

In the US, workers have the safety net, Social Security and if they so choose, an alternate plan, 401K or IRA. It's really not a bad system.

It seems that there are pluses and minuses for both programs, as the NYTimes points out.

Let's concentrate on the important part of the story.

For Liberals, coercion is always the name of the game.
The choice, the wishes of those enrolled in any program, from education, to healthcare, to retirement programs, is never a consideration.

Liberal always see themselves as the prison guards, and the rest of us the prisoners.

Really...aren't you ashamed?

 

[kiwiman127]

I report, you decide.

You don't report, you editorialize by mainly using known highly slanted right wing resources.

She is one of the better debaters on this board.

So what was your question ?

My question is,,,if she wants to "report", why not used unbiased resources,,at least once in awhile! Who does she think she is, Fox News or MSNBC (oh, I guess not, that is reserved for the lefties). Debating is using facts from unbiased sources, not opinions via their translations of facts. Heritage Foundation,,I once saw a piece by them that argued wages were flat because wages hadn't gone down lol.

 

[Flopper]

Thanks. I saw the story quite a while ago and couldn't remember which country it was.

"Both the G.A.O. and Social Security studies concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under Social Security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better, at least initially, under the Alternate Plan."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

In the US, workers have the safety net, Social Security and if they so choose, an alternate plan, 401K or IRA. It's really not a bad system.

It seems that there are pluses and minuses for both programs, as the NYTimes points out.

Let's concentrate on the important part of the story.

For Liberals, coercion is always the name of the game.
The choice, the wishes of those enrolled in any program, from education, to healthcare, to retirement programs, is never a consideration.

Liberal always see themselves as the prison guards, and the rest of us the prisoners.

Really...aren't you ashamed?

Nope. I'm one of those hopeless liberals.

 

[francoHFW]

""Both the G.A.O. and Social Security studies concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under Social Security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better, at least initially, under the Alternate Plan."

...duh...until the Pubs cause ANOTHER cronyism, deregulation, corrupt boom and bust recession or depression. Which they do, EVERY TIME.

 

[PoliticalChic]

i think you could look into past performance as being indicative of future performance.

but heck, i wasn't the one who made fun of al gore when he said that the social security trust fund should be put in a lock box...

*shrug*

" i wasn't the one who made fun of al gore when he said that the social security trust fund should be put in a lock box..."

No, it wasn't .....it was Bill Clinton:

He took $152.3B from Social Security and claimed a surplus.
How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office

lol.. wiki answers? really? what nonsense....

nice deflect though. it's always fun watching you give a lesson in obfuscation, deflection and trolling.

Well....time to make Jillian eat her words:

1. The 1983 Greenspan Commission initiated changes in Social Security that generated large surpluses. “As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs.” How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off the Greatest Fraud Ever Perpetrated against the American People | Dissident Voice

a. In 1985, the Social Security Trust Fund surplus was only $7.5 billion, a decade later it was $60.4 billion.

b. In 2000, the surplus was $152 billion. Clinton took the $152 billion, and counted it as income, instead of the debt it actually repesented.

c. “Instead of Social Security subsidizing the rest of the budget, the rest of the budget will have to subsidize Social Security.” Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/31/politics/washingtonpost/main4906936.shtml

d. Update 3/31/2009: The Social Security "surplus"--which has been borrowed by the Federal Government every year, including under Clinton to generate the "surplus"--is now expected to evaporate within a year (2009 or 2010) rather than the 2017 mentioned above. The following quote also provides additional evidence that the "surplus" was indeed borrowed from Social Security "for decades."
SLICK WILLIE BILL CLINTON'S SHELL GAME > Citizens 4 Freedom


And:
"These numbers come from Table 6 Schedule D of the MTS for September 2000 . That table contains a complete list of all the trust funds and government accounts that contributed to the "surplus" due to their excess funds.

TRUST FUND SURPLUSES IN 2000 (table 6 schedule D)
Social Security $152.3 billion
Civil Service Retirement Fund $30.9 billion
Federal supplementary medical insurance Trust fund $18.5 billion
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund $15.0 billion
Unemployment Trust Fund $9.0 billion
Military Retirement Fund $8.2 billion
Transportation Trust Funds $3.8 billion
Employee life insurance & retirement $1.8 billion
Other $7.0 billion
TOTAL $246.5 billion


As can be seen from Table 6 Schedule D of the Treasury Department's MTS , all the government's trust funds contributed a total of $246.5 billion to the "surplus." That is extra money that was contributed to trust funds for the specific trust fund purposes, not as taxes, and is $246.5 billion that the U.S. government now owes to those trust funds and will have to pay back in the future. And although the government took in that extra $246.5 billion in non-tax revenue from those trust funds, the MTS indicates it only reduced the public debt by $223 billion. That's why even with all the excess money coming in from the trust funds, the national debt went up. The government received extra money from trust funds but didn't use all of it to reduce the public debt. Some of it was used on normal government spending during 2000."
The Clinton Surplus Myth- Part 2 - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 2


Poor Jillian....haven't you learned never to doubt that I can substantiate anything I post?

 

[PoliticalChic]

To a Republican "socialism" is any money spent on the non wealthy.

Never too late to learn, Chrissy....

1. "In truth, Republicans invented the first refundable tax credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), back in the 1970s. And it was Republicans who invented the child credit in the 1990s. As a result of the EITC, the child credit and other tax cuts, the percentage of those with no income tax liability has risen to 30 percent of all tax filers, according to the Tax Foundation.

The combination of EITC and the child credit offsets 100 percent of the income tax liability for almost all families with incomes below $30,000.
And because of refundability, 100 percent of the payroll tax is also offset for those with incomes below $20,000.
Those with earnings below $10,000 pay no income taxes and get a check from the government for 2.6 times their payroll tax liability."
Republicans and the Earned Income Tax Credit


2. "... the earned income tax credit (the pride of Ronald Reagan), which has become the biggest and most effective antipoverty program by giving working families thousands of dollars a year in tax refunds."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/opinion/the-new-resentment-of-the-poor.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

pc must be feeling bored today.

I report, you decide.

You don't report, you editorialize by mainly using known highly slanted right wing resources.

Actually, I didn't mean YOU decide....
....I thought it was clear that I meant people with a brain.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"both the g.a.o. And social security studies concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under social security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better, at least initially, under the alternate plan."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

in the us, workers have the safety net, social security and if they so choose, an alternate plan, 401k or ira. It's really not a bad system.

it seems that there are pluses and minuses for both programs, as the nytimes points out.

Let's concentrate on the important part of the story.

For liberals, coercion is always the name of the game.
The choice, the wishes of those enrolled in any program, from education, to healthcare, to retirement programs, is never a consideration.

Liberal always see themselves as the prison guards, and the rest of us the prisoners.

Really...aren't you ashamed?

nope. I'm one of those hopeless liberals.

word up!

 

[PoliticalChic]

You don't report, you editorialize by mainly using known highly slanted right wing resources.

She is one of the better debaters on this board.

So what was your question ?

My question is,,,if she wants to "report", why not used unbiased resources,,at least once in awhile! Who does she think she is, Fox News or MSNBC (oh, I guess not, that is reserved for the lefties). Debating is using facts from unbiased sources, not opinions via their translations of facts. Heritage Foundation,,I once saw a piece by them that argued wages were flat because wages hadn't gone down lol.

"Debating is using facts from unbiased sources,..."



How would you know...

....I've seen your posts: Let's be honest- you're an idiot.

Here, let me prove it: "Debating is using facts from unbiased sources,..."

OK....I'll be the one who decides what's 'unbiased.'

See what I mean? So we agree....you're a complete fool?

 

[francoHFW]

"People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter"

Coulter is absolutely FOS, and so are your Pub Propaganda "sources", dupe. Lets see something from a source of record, if you know what that means...

 

[jillian]

and given that the stockmarket is way higher than it was when bush was president,...

Dow, close, yesterday: 13032.75
Dow, close, 10-12-2007: 14093.08

Question:
Did you just lie, or are you -that- ignorant?

what did it close at when bush was president?

i think you're missing the point...intentionally, i'm sure.

 

[edthecynic]

To a Republican "socialism" is any money spent on the non wealthy.

Never too late to learn, Chrissy....

2. "... the earned income tax credit (the pride of Ronald Reagan), which has become the biggest and most effective antipoverty program by giving working families thousands of dollars a year in tax refunds."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/opinion/the-new-resentment-of-the-poor.html

You can always count on CON$ to edit in the most misleading way!
The full quote puts your precious Republicans in a completely different light!!!

In a decade of frenzied tax-cutting for the rich, the Republican Party just happened to lower tax rates for the poor, as well. Now several of the party’s most prominent presidential candidates and lawmakers want to correct that oversight and raise taxes on the poor and the working class, while protecting the rich, of course.

These Republican leaders, who think nothing of widening tax loopholes for corporations and multimillion-dollar estates, are offended by the idea that people making less than $40,000 might benefit from the progressive tax code. They are infuriated by the earned income tax credit (the pride of Ronald Reagan), which has become the biggest and most effective antipoverty program by giving working families thousands of dollars a year in tax refunds. They scoff at continuing President Obama’s payroll tax cut, which is tilted toward low- and middle-income workers and expires in December.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter"

Coulter is absolutely FOS, and so are your Pub Propaganda "sources", dupe. Lets see something from a source of record, if you know what that means...

C'mon....lemme see you spell 'Republican'....


...you can, if you try really, really hard....

 

[Foxfyre]

and given that the stockmarket is way higher than it was when bush was president,...

Dow, close, yesterday: 13032.75
Dow, close, 10-12-2007: 14093.08

Question:
Did you just lie, or are you -that- ignorant?

what did it close at when bush was president?

i think you're missing the point...intentionally, i'm sure.

And perhaps you are ignoring an unprecedented housing bubble collapse that sent the market down 1300 pts in a single 24-hour period. And the fact that the market has remained mostly flat and uninspired for the 3-1/2 years since that occurred. And the reasons the market is remaining flat and uninspired?

 

[PoliticalChic]

To a Republican "socialism" is any money spent on the non wealthy.

Never too late to learn, Chrissy....

2. "... the earned income tax credit (the pride of Ronald Reagan), which has become the biggest and most effective antipoverty program by giving working families thousands of dollars a year in tax refunds."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/opinion/the-new-resentment-of-the-poor.html

You can always count on CON$ to edit in the most misleading way!
The full quote puts your precious Republicans in a completely different light!!!

In a decade of frenzied tax-cutting for the rich, the Republican Party just happened to lower tax rates for the poor, as well. Now several of the party’s most prominent presidential candidates and lawmakers want to correct that oversight and raise taxes on the poor and the working class, while protecting the rich, of course.

These Republican leaders, who think nothing of widening tax loopholes for corporations and multimillion-dollar estates, are offended by the idea that people making less than $40,000 might benefit from the progressive tax code. They are infuriated by the earned income tax credit (the pride of Ronald Reagan), which has become the biggest and most effective antipoverty program by giving working families thousands of dollars a year in tax refunds. They scoff at continuing President Obama’s payroll tax cut, which is tilted toward low- and middle-income workers and expires in December.

Beets....even though I understand your.....'limitations'.....it becomes tiresome to have to explain each and every post....(sigh)...

...OK....just one more:

The sentence in question:
" They are infuriated by the earned income tax credit (the pride of Ronald Reagan), which has become the biggest and most effective antipoverty program by giving working families thousands of dollars a year in tax refunds.


" They are infuriated" refers to certain current opponents with whom the NYTimes, your mentor and master, refers.


The rest of the sentence, the part quoted, "...the earned income tax credit (the pride of Ronald Reagan), which has become the biggest and most effective antipoverty program by giving working families thousands of dollars a year in tax refunds." is the pertinent part with respect to Chris's erroneous post.
It defeats his point by indicating that Republicans are responsible for "the biggest and most effective antipoverty program."


Get it now?

Don't you realize yet that you should try to stick to subjects where you might actually have some cachet, such as favorite Crayola, or how far to sit from the tv….this is out of your league.

 

[Listening]

" i wasn't the one who made fun of al gore when he said that the social security trust fund should be put in a lock box..."

No, it wasn't .....it was Bill Clinton:

He took $152.3B from Social Security and claimed a surplus.
How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office

lol.. wiki answers? really? what nonsense....

nice deflect though. it's always fun watching you give a lesson in obfuscation, deflection and trolling.

Well....time to make Jillian eat her words:

1. The 1983 Greenspan Commission initiated changes in Social Security that generated large surpluses. “As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs.” How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off the Greatest Fraud Ever Perpetrated against the American People | Dissident Voice

a. In 1985, the Social Security Trust Fund surplus was only $7.5 billion, a decade later it was $60.4 billion.

b. In 2000, the surplus was $152 billion. Clinton took the $152 billion, and counted it as income, instead of the debt it actually repesented.

c. “Instead of Social Security subsidizing the rest of the budget, the rest of the budget will have to subsidize Social Security.” Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/31/politics/washingtonpost/main4906936.shtml

d. Update 3/31/2009: The Social Security "surplus"--which has been borrowed by the Federal Government every year, including under Clinton to generate the "surplus"--is now expected to evaporate within a year (2009 or 2010) rather than the 2017 mentioned above. The following quote also provides additional evidence that the "surplus" was indeed borrowed from Social Security "for decades."
SLICK WILLIE BILL CLINTON'S SHELL GAME > Citizens 4 Freedom


And:
"These numbers come from Table 6 Schedule D of the MTS for September 2000 . That table contains a complete list of all the trust funds and government accounts that contributed to the "surplus" due to their excess funds.

TRUST FUND SURPLUSES IN 2000 (table 6 schedule D)
Social Security $152.3 billion
Civil Service Retirement Fund $30.9 billion
Federal supplementary medical insurance Trust fund $18.5 billion
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund $15.0 billion
Unemployment Trust Fund $9.0 billion
Military Retirement Fund $8.2 billion
Transportation Trust Funds $3.8 billion
Employee life insurance & retirement $1.8 billion
Other $7.0 billion
TOTAL $246.5 billion


As can be seen from Table 6 Schedule D of the Treasury Department's MTS , all the government's trust funds contributed a total of $246.5 billion to the "surplus." That is extra money that was contributed to trust funds for the specific trust fund purposes, not as taxes, and is $246.5 billion that the U.S. government now owes to those trust funds and will have to pay back in the future. And although the government took in that extra $246.5 billion in non-tax revenue from those trust funds, the MTS indicates it only reduced the public debt by $223 billion. That's why even with all the excess money coming in from the trust funds, the national debt went up. The government received extra money from trust funds but didn't use all of it to reduce the public debt. Some of it was used on normal government spending during 2000."
The Clinton Surplus Myth- Part 2 - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page 2


Poor Jillian....haven't you learned never to doubt that I can substantiate anything I post?

As I said...one of the best, if not the best !!!

Shillian just can't compete.

 

[Chris]

Poor Republicans.

Spinning their wheels as the economy recovers.