GOP: Millions For The Wealthy But We Can't Afford To Award $250 Social Security COLA

[Soggy in NOLA]

Is making rich people richer worth the additional debt?

I'd have to say if your debt is getting bigger because you're not confiscating enough money from 5% of the population.. well... some thing's way outta whack and frankly, pretty solid eveidence of a ponzie scheme like tax system.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Unemployment was low and steady when Bush was President, until Democrats controlled Congress.

That is quite possibly the biggest load of horse shit I've ever seen on these boards... and that's saying something. We lost 2.4 MILLION jobs from 2000 to 2004 alone.

 

[Mr Natural]

Is making rich people richer worth the additional debt?

In the minds of our conservative friends it is because:

Working people and retirees make too much and the rich don't have enough.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unemployment was low and steady when Bush was President, until Democrats controlled Congress.

That is quite possibly the biggest load of horse shit I've ever seen on these boards... and that's saying something. We lost 2.4 MILLION jobs from 2000 to 2004 alone.

Since the UE rate was about or under 6% for most of that time, how do you explain that? The only answer is that while we had very big job losses, we also had very large job creation. That is the distinction between 2001-2003 and 2009-2010. Job creation under Obama has been abysmal, largely because of his failed tax and regulatory policies.

 

[The Rabbi]

Is making rich people richer worth the additional debt?

In the minds of our conservative friends it is because:

Working people and retirees make too much and the rich don't have enough.

So why do you support sending $250 checks to millionaires?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Is making rich people richer worth the additional debt?

In the minds of our conservative friends it is because:

Working people and retirees make too much and the rich don't have enough.

I don't recall anyone saying this... could you give us a citation?

 

[Immanuel]

It depends on the individual situation. In some situations it probably could.

Why do you ask and where are you getting this 80 cents a day at?

Actually it is 69.4 cents a day... $250/365 = .694.

So really it is not even 70 cents a day.

And no, I don't think that will help many seniors especially those who can't make ends meet.

Immie

And you know it wouldn't help them how? In the right hands even $.70 a day can be stretched pretty well in a grocery store, especially like Aldi's. That would be a pound of bacon per week (with money left over) or a bag of lettuce every other day, or a can of tuna per day, or any number of canned goods.

That's really pretty presumptuous that you can tell someone what would or would not be helpful in their lives.

So can I assume that you wouldn't be at all upset over a $250 speeding ticket since it's really only costing you 69.4 cents per day over the course of a year?

The last one was given in a lump sum. Here today, gone tomorrow.

Might have helped buy some groceries, but it really does not solve their problems.

As for the speeding ticket, well, cost wise it would mean nothing... points on my record would be a different thing.

Immie

 

[edthecynic]

Unemployment was low and steady when Bush was President, until Democrats controlled Congress.

I've lost track of how many times you've posted this crap!
Unemployment ROSE from 3.90% at the end of Clinton's term to 5% when the Dems took over. That is not steady by any definition of steady.

Now tell us what law the Dems got past the record number of GOP filibusters and Bush's veto pen that caused the UE rate to rise after the Dems took over Congress.

3.9 to 5 from 2000 to 2006 is not steady?? Maybe on Planet Leftist that's the case, but not in the real world.
In fact UE rose from 5% when the Dems took Congress to between 9.5 and 10% today. That's an impressive record of failure.

Again you were asked what new law got passed over the record number of GOP filibusters and Bush's veto pen that caused UE to rise after the Dems took over. Without that law then the economy tanked as a result of the inertia of the GOP economic policies already in place.
You know it and I know it.

 

[loosecannon]

See, you are mistaking something.

SS COLA is something the government would be GIVING to people.

Taxes are something that the government TAKES from people.



SS is a fund the government collects from everyone. If that pool of $$$ is short, it's short. Theres nothing we can do about it other than raise taxes, which no one wants to do.

But thats the ideological difference. The right sees people's money as belonging to the individual person. Whereas the left sees money as being government property that the government can forcefully take from the individual whenever it needs a bigger pot of $$$ to use.

You couldn't be more wrong. SS is the government giving back what it already collected from tax payers. Just like the tax cuts.

If it is short of money it draws against the surplus which previous republican leaders spent furiously. The government therefore owes SS recipients their stolen money.

 

[The Rabbi]

I've lost track of how many times you've posted this crap!
Unemployment ROSE from 3.90% at the end of Clinton's term to 5% when the Dems took over. That is not steady by any definition of steady.

Now tell us what law the Dems got past the record number of GOP filibusters and Bush's veto pen that caused the UE rate to rise after the Dems took over Congress.

3.9 to 5 from 2000 to 2006 is not steady?? Maybe on Planet Leftist that's the case, but not in the real world.
In fact UE rose from 5% when the Dems took Congress to between 9.5 and 10% today. That's an impressive record of failure.

Again you were asked what new law got passed over the record number of GOP filibusters and Bush's veto pen that caused UE to rise after the Dems took over. Without that law then the economy tanked as a result of the inertia of the GOP economic policies already in place.
You know it and I know it.

Still maintaining that UE rose during Bush's tenure?

 

[edthecynic]

Unemployment was low and steady when Bush was President, until Democrats controlled Congress.

That is quite possibly the biggest load of horse shit I've ever seen on these boards... and that's saying something. We lost 2.4 MILLION jobs from 2000 to 2004 alone.

Since the UE rate was about or under 6% for most of that time, how do you explain that? The only answer is that while we had very big job losses, we also had very large job creation. That is the distinction between 2001-2003 and 2009-2010. Job creation under Obama has been abysmal, largely because of his failed tax and regulatory policies.

No, the only explanation is Bush cooked the UE numbers just like he cooked the deficit numbers. The deficit rose $6 trillion during Bush's 8 budgets but he only showed a $2.5 trillion deficit for the same period.

Only 1 million jobs were created during Bush's 8 years but 12 million new workers entered the work force. Bush simply didn't count the unemployed as unemployed, just as he didn't count deficit spending as deficit spending.

 

[edthecynic]

3.9 to 5 from 2000 to 2006 is not steady?? Maybe on Planet Leftist that's the case, but not in the real world.
In fact UE rose from 5% when the Dems took Congress to between 9.5 and 10% today. That's an impressive record of failure.

Again you were asked what new law got passed over the record number of GOP filibusters and Bush's veto pen that caused UE to rise after the Dems took over. Without that law then the economy tanked as a result of the inertia of the GOP economic policies already in place.
You know it and I know it.

Still maintaining that UE rose during Bush's tenure?

UE rose from 3.9% when Clinton left office to 7.4% when Bush left office.

 

[The Rabbi]

That is quite possibly the biggest load of horse shit I've ever seen on these boards... and that's saying something. We lost 2.4 MILLION jobs from 2000 to 2004 alone.

Since the UE rate was about or under 6% for most of that time, how do you explain that? The only answer is that while we had very big job losses, we also had very large job creation. That is the distinction between 2001-2003 and 2009-2010. Job creation under Obama has been abysmal, largely because of his failed tax and regulatory policies.

No, the only explanation is Bush cooked the UE numbers just like he cooked the deficit numbers. The deficit rose $6 trillion during Bush's 8 budgets but he only showed a $2.5 trillion deficit for the same period.

Thanks for confirming you have no credibility here. Bush cooked the numbers. Probably single-handedly. That's a good 'un.

 

[cutter]

As long as the GOP keeps this up the Dems will have no problems in 2012.

"House and Senate Republicans on Wednesday thwarted Democratic efforts to award $250 checks to Social Security recipients facing a second consecutive year without a cost-of-living increase."


GOP blocks legislation to award seniors $250 - Yahoo! News

It's funny how the left believes letting people keep the money they earn is a gift from the government. I'm on social security and I don't believe we can afford a cola increase at this time The government already gets way too much money, they just need to quit spending. Live on a budget and spend ONLY what it takes in. They are NOT entitled to 1c more in tax $$.

 

[shintao]

Every cent will be spent into the econony

Well Hell, then lets just all get $100,000 each from the Treasury...

That would Fix EVERYTHING, wouldn't it.



peace...

As a matter of fact, yes it would, providing the stimulus was handled properly.

 

[edthecynic]

Since the UE rate was about or under 6% for most of that time, how do you explain that? The only answer is that while we had very big job losses, we also had very large job creation. That is the distinction between 2001-2003 and 2009-2010. Job creation under Obama has been abysmal, largely because of his failed tax and regulatory policies.

No, the only explanation is Bush cooked the UE numbers just like he cooked the deficit numbers. The deficit rose $6 trillion during Bush's 8 budgets but he only showed a $2.5 trillion deficit for the same period.

Thanks for confirming you have no credibility here. Bush cooked the numbers. Probably single-handedly. That's a good 'un.

He cooked the deficit numbers and he cooked the WMD intel, why would anyone be stupid enough to believe anything from the Bush administration???

 

[Gadawg73]

If I get to keep more of the $$ I earn how is that the government giving me $$?
The $250 is BORROWING AND TAKING $$ from middle class workers that are hurting and giving it to wealthy seniors that do not need it.

 

[DiveCon]

If I get to keep more of the $$ I earn how is that the government giving me $$?
The $250 is BORROWING AND TAKING $$ from middle class workers that are hurting and giving it to wealthy seniors that do not need it.

you do understand that not all seniors are wealthy, right?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If I get to keep more of the $$ I earn how is that the government giving me $$?
The $250 is BORROWING AND TAKING $$ from middle class workers that are hurting and giving it to wealthy seniors that do not need it.

Because their starting point is that it is not your money.

 

[The Rabbi]

If I get to keep more of the $$ I earn how is that the government giving me $$?
The $250 is BORROWING AND TAKING $$ from middle class workers that are hurting and giving it to wealthy seniors that do not need it.

you do understand that not all seniors are wealthy, right?

But some of them are. Why would anyone want to take money from middle class families and give them to wealthy senior citizens?