The "RINO" Thread

[Old Rocks]

The moderate ground on abortion is somewhere between not allowing an abortion one day before birth and not forcing a woman to give birth because she was raped at knifepoint.

But where, exactly. Because both of those cases really cover less than 1% of abortions performed.

And here's the idealogical problem. If a fetus isn't a baby, then there is nothing morally wrong with aborting it one day before birth. (Not that any woman would do that unless something had gone so horribly wrong with the pregnancy she had no choice). If a fetus is a baby, then killing even one that result from rape would still be murder.

Now, me, I'm a pragmatist. Women are going to get abortions no matter what the law is. because they always have. So they should be safe, legal and between teh woman and her doctor.

You also fail on what a moderate means on the economy. A moderate conservative generally wants less government spending, lower taxes and less regulation. A moderate doesn't want no government spending (outside defense), no taxes and no regulations, or at least as minimal as possible as those on the hard right do. Moderates also want sane fiscal policies, unlike many of the so-called Supply Siders, who are more than happy to drive us towards bankruptcy by cutting every and all taxes under all circumstances under the totally discredited starve the beast theory.

Again, given the fact that not a one of these "moderate" conservatives seems to be in congress right now, I think you've got a moot argument.

Abortion is an example of a compromise between two differing belief systems in society, albeit one that has leaned to the left. There are many on the right who think abortion should be banned outright. Many on the left think it should be available anywhere, preferably funded by the government. Society compromises and it is somewhere in between. Moderates are generally around the compromise. It isn't necessarily a deep philosophical issue for moderates as it is on the extremes.

And again, you're wrong on the economy. For example, many Republicans don't want to end SS or see it as unconstitutional as some on the extremes do, but they do want to see it reformed. Reforming SS could be a moderate position because its unsustainable as is.

As for your meme regarding the working class, though I sympathize with it, I don't know if its true. I read that Romney won as much of the white vote as Reagan, implying that the Reagan Democrats, ie blue collar workers supported him, except in the auto states where Obama was polling 10% ahead amongst blue collar workers compared to the rest of the country. If you have anything empirically, please post it.

Romney lost enough people at the mill I work at with his 47% comment to be significant. Right now, even though most of the people I work with are somewhat conservative, most will not vote Republican because of what they percieve as the extreme position the party has taken on both social issues, and issues like SS. I fully realize that there are many Republicans like you, Toro, that do not wish to end the system, only to reform it to make it fiscally sound. However, you are not the voice that is being heard out here on the factory floor. Until people like you can represent the voice of the GOP, it will continue to lose voters.

 

[Gadawg73]

SS is not a ponzi scheme unless it fails. It won't.

A 17 year old starts paying 15% of his pay into social security as he is self employed.
He does so every year and averages income of $70,000 a year net for 44 years.
That is $440,000.00 he pays into social security and Medicare payments for 44 years.
He dies at age 61.
HIS FAMILY GETS NOTHING, THE MONEY IS GONE.
Which is worse, Ponzi scheme or this?

I paid auto insurance for many, many years before I ever was involved in an accident. And the amount that I have paid in far, far exceeds the amount of damage caused by the accident. So, you really think that I should just cease paying for auto insurance?

In life there are many, many things that are unfair on the small scale, but very beneficial on the large scale. SS is one of them. Try to do away with that, and, yes, you have touched the third rail. Even for the Teabagger freaks.

I am all for treating social security as we do auto insurance.
Social security was set up that way to begin with Rocks. You make a good point.
The life span of an American when social security started was 61.7 years old.
So you could not start collecting social security until age 62.
For a reason as social security was set up AS INSURANCE in case you did live longer than the average life span.
Social security was NEVER set up as a retirement system.
Accordingly, if you want it to be as an insurance system just like your auto insurance then we need to up the age that you can draw it at the same as the average life span of an American today.
We need to go back when social security was a SUPPLEMENT in case you outlived the average life span of an American.
We fucked up and never changed the start age EVER.

 

[Old Rocks]

.

My guess is that a candidate who looked like this would do pretty damn well at the ballot box:

Leans right on fiscal issues -- not hard right, but promotes a general restraint of spending and moderation in taxes, and does not look to the federal bureaucracy as the fix for every problem. Understands that creating and maintaining dependency on federal/state money and services in the name of "compassion" is in fact the opposite of compassion in the long run, but also knows that some are simply born with significantly more or significantly less natural ability to function adequately in a free market system, and that leveraging public funds to help the less fortunate can in fact raise all boats, including those at the top end.

Leans left on social issues -- not hard left, but is more interested in changing & improving our culture from within rather than via legislation. Is pro-choice but wants to find ways to significantly reduce demand; does not think that gay rights are the end of Western Civilization; understands a need for social programs but does not want to waste money on them or foster dependency, either.

In general, knows that Americans are more willing to consider mature, constructive, humble cooperation than are radio and teevee pundits, and would prefer compromise over paralysis.

I know, crazy stuff.

.

You had such a candidate in the primaries, Jon Huntsman. A man of high intelligence, and with a extremely good record as a governor. And the GOP rejected him, outright. Sad, because had he ran on a platform that reflected his veiws, and not those of the extreme wing of the GOP, I might have voted for him.

 

[Katzndogz]

The country is in the last stages of dividing. RINOs aren't seen as reasonable people trying to get along, but as collaborators not compromisers.

 

[Gadawg73]

The country is in the last stages of dividing. RINOs aren't seen as reasonable people trying to get along, but as collaborators not compromisers.

RINO SPINO BINO FINO KINO DINO BINO
Whatever.
As soon as we quit labeling everyone the quicker we solve problems.
The Founders bickered and fought over whether or not to have God in the Constitution and whether or not to make Christianity the national religion.
They fought over that for weeks.
And one side did compromise and give in.
Same with every issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gadawg73 is ignoring post #73, so I moved it so the remf can answer it.

Gadawg73 is ignoring post #73, so I moved it so the remf can answer it.

Because you say so?

What is the law on survivor benefits?

SS is not a ponzi scheme unless it fails. It won't.

A 17 year old starts paying 15% of his pay into social security as he is self employed.
He does so every year and averages income of $70,000 a year net for 44 years.
That is $440,000.00 he pays into social security and Medicare payments for 44 years.
He dies at age 61.
HIS FAMILY GETS NOTHING, THE MONEY IS GONE.
Which is worse, Ponzi scheme or this?

 

[Gadawg73]

Gadawg73 is ignoring post #73, so I moved it so the remf can answer it.

Gadawg73 is ignoring post #73, so I moved it so the remf can answer it.

Because you say so?

What is the law on survivor benefits?

A 17 year old starts paying 15% of his pay into social security as he is self employed.
He does so every year and averages income of $70,000 a year net for 44 years.
That is $440,000.00 he pays into social security and Medicare payments for 44 years.
He dies at age 61.
HIS FAMILY GETS NOTHING, THE MONEY IS GONE.
Which is worse, Ponzi scheme or this?

I did not ignore a damn thing.
Not my fault that you are too stubborn to see the truth.
EVERYTHING you contribute to social security is GONE WHEN YOU DIE if your spouse died before you.
Your kids GET NOTHING if they are over age 18 unless they have a disability.

 

[Gadawg73]

[

So your solution is make everyone poor.
Makes a lot of sense.
The "wealthy" force "poor" women to make bad choices and let the fathers of the bastards get off pretty much free.
Same old BS from Joe. Blame the rich.

No, my solution would be to make everyone middle class.

which wouldn't be hard if you redistributed the 90% of the wealth held by the top 10%.

And, yes, when the wealthy moved those good paying factory jobs that you disdain to Mexico or China, and the man who fathered those children can't support them, they created a lot of that problem.

I would prefer to not have welfare. But I'd rather have welfare than street riots.

You want them to get off the dole, bring back the jobs.

Fine with me but you need to move to North Korea as they are the first communist country that comes to mind that does that.
Joe Kim Ho.

 

[Gadawg73]

My cousin died years ago SINGLE.
He was late 50s self employed in the apple farming business Clintondale, NY.
His heirs RECEIVED NOTHING from all of the social security dollars he paid in for 40+ years.
NADA, ZERO
If he was in a private system like some countries offer HIS HEIRS GET ALL OF IT.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your point is nil if you can't address survivor benefits.

You have no point and fail.

Gadawg73 is ignoring post #73, so I moved it so the remf can answer it.

Gadawg73 is ignoring post #73, so I moved it so the remf can answer it.

Because you say so?

What is the law on survivor benefits?

I did not ignore a damn thing.
Not my fault that you are too stubborn to see the truth.
EVERYTHING you contribute to social security is GONE WHEN YOU DIE if your spouse died before you.
Your kids GET NOTHING if they are over age 18 unless they have a disability.

 

[JakeStarkey]

His wife received SS benefits if she were alive.

Did he have survivors? If so, what were their relationships to him?

You are as lousy as the lefties with your slanted, subjective nonsense.

 

[Toro]

The country is in the last stages of dividing. RINOs aren't seen as reasonable people trying to get along, but as collaborators not compromisers.

To the extreme right, that's correct.

But the extreme right is a small minority and can't get anything done without compromising with someone. That's the point. If they can't compromise with people who agree with them somewhat, they are going to get steamrolled by people who disagree with them vehemently.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then let's hope the ultra right and libertarian wings get smashed.

 

[YoungRepublican]

The country is in the last stages of dividing. RINOs aren't seen as reasonable people trying to get along, but as collaborators not compromisers.

To the extreme right, that's correct.

But the extreme right is a small minority and can't get anything done without compromising with someone. That's the point. If they can't compromise with people who agree with them somewhat, they are going to get steamrolled by people who disagree with them vehemently.

The basic fundamentals of politics seems to escape them on a daily basis.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The ultra right have to be taught the same lesson the ultra left has already been taught: the great majority of American are never going to allow them to have the power to make all of us do what they want.

 

[Gadawg73]

His wife received SS benefits if she were alive.

Did he have survivors? If so, what were their relationships to him?

You are as lousy as the lefties with your slanted, subjective nonsense.

He had NO WIFE.
Already told you that.
He had grown children as survivors. THEY ARE ENTITLED TO NOTHING, NO benefits under social security.
Admit you are wrong and move on.

 

[Gadawg73]

Your point is nil if you can't address survivor benefits.

You have no point and fail.

Gadawg73 is ignoring post #73, so I moved it so the remf can answer it.

I did not ignore a damn thing.
Not my fault that you are too stubborn to see the truth.
EVERYTHING you contribute to social security is GONE WHEN YOU DIE if your spouse died before you.
Your kids GET NOTHING if they are over age 18 unless they have a disability.

Survivor benefits:
wife or husbands get full benefits
children to age 18 get benefits
disabled children get benefits.
ALL OTHER CHILDREN AND HEIRS OVER 18 GET NOTHING

Person that pays $440,000 into social security and dies at age 61 that has no spouse and no children or children with no disabilities over age 18 GET NOTHING FROM SOCIAL SECURITY.
The $440,000 is gone.
Similar to the Ponzi scheme.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you FINALLY for full disclosure.

Nope, not a ponzi scheme.

And thank you for participating in SS.

Now in the situations, adopt a grand child or great grand child whenever possible (a year old) as necessary or incorporate.

Think!

 

[Gadawg73]

Thank you FINALLY for full disclosure.

Nope, not a ponzi scheme.

And thank you for participating in SS.

Now in the situations, adopt a grand child or great grand child whenever possible (a year old) as necessary or incorporate.

Think!

Incorporate????
That does nothing for your social security benefits.
Adopt a grand child?????????
Yes, many probably do try to cheat the system any way they can but I do not believe adopting one's grand kid stands any credibility as a survivor benefit.
You are desperate Jake. Give it up.
I was right so just admit it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, you are the one who has not been giving full disclosure and are desperate. Adopting a grand child is completely legal, or adopting a niece or nephew.

There are indeed problems, but you said flatly there are no remedies.

That is not the case.

Full disclosure, huh?

Thank you FINALLY for full disclosure.

Nope, not a ponzi scheme.

And thank you for participating in SS.

Now in the situations, adopt a grand child or great grand child whenever possible (a year old) as necessary or incorporate.

Think!

Incorporate????
That does nothing for your social security benefits.
Adopt a grand child?????????
Yes, many probably do try to cheat the system any way they can but I do not believe adopting one's grand kid stands any credibility as a survivor benefit.
You are desperate Jake. Give it up.
I was right so just admit it.