Republicans Hate Babies, schoolchildren, the elderly, unemployed, welfare, immigrants

[bigrebnc1775]

Ironically, it's the Democrats who have pushed for stronger legislation to crack down on corporations who willingly hire illigal immigrants. But we're not ever going to go as far as deporting children of illegal immigrants who were born here, which is what some conservatives advocate. See as soon as something sensible makes it to the table, such as sweeping immigration reform, the yahoos come out with all sorts of wedges that place a stall on common sense legislation.

Do you also think a person is entitled to the fruits of his labors even though his actions were illegal?

Two separate issues. Children of illegal immigrants should not be punished for the illegal actions of their parents.

I also think that people who think it's "easy" for illegals to collect government welfare, don't know what they're talking about. First off, to even apply, they would be admitting they're not here legally, and all it would take is a quick phone call to ICE. That's why they stay in the shadows.

Two separate issues.

The law is the law you break it you are a criminal

I also think that people who think it's "easy" for illegals to collect government welfare, don't know what they're talking about.

I don't know about other states or cities but in Meckliburg county does give money to illegals.

The total cost of welfare, food stamps and Medicaid for suspected illegal immigrants in Mecklenburg county in July was 2-point-7 million dollars. About 3 and a half percent of the 77 million dollars in total payments. Not all of it county money.

Cover Story: Breaking law to punish lawbreakers? - WBTV 3 News, Weather, Sports, and Traffic for Charlotte, NC-

 

[Immanuel]

I think the fed has a lot more control of it since they control how strong our dollar is for the most part.

But I think it would take a lot more tax raises and a lot more cuts to clean the current mess.

Especially in a year.

I think Maggie's heart is in the right place on that, but I think she should do the math on it, because I simply don't see where she is getting her idea.

Immie

Because in the 90's, the budget was balanced (okay, we didn't have extra cash on hand, but money was moved around enough so that we were in the best financial position in decades), and it was balanced by raising taxes, cutting discretionary spending, scaling back Reagan's HUGE increase in defense spending to where it was before it was increased, and living by an established pay-go rule.

I don't see why it can't be done again. But I'll tell you how it won't happen, and that's if the powers that be continue to shove wedges into sane propositions offered by both sides before they can even iron out an agreement. Every time a big issue is tackled, everybody and his brother has to get his/her face on television and ask a bunch of obscure questions or make some ridiculous statements, which get taken back to the table for "discussion." The lawmakers need to shut out the noise and get down to business.

Yeah? But raising taxes only 2 points and cutting spending only 5%?

Do you really think that is enough? Hell, that should be frigging easy!

Easy unless you are a politician that is.

Immie

 

[Cuyo]

I can't speak for Republicans since I'm not one, but YES to a certain degree Conservatives do "hate" a large number of those groups; for one simple reason.... they are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves, thereby forcing us (and society in general) to help take care of them.

And you have Proof of this supposed Hate. Or are you nothing more then another chittering lemming speaking by rote?

Whoa, whoa, WHOA. Whoa.

Was your avy ALWAYS chewing grass?

 

[MaggieMae]

If the fringe elements from the left area making such ridiculous accusations (hate), then they're no better than the fringe elements from the right who are also capable of making absurd accusations.

The problem boils down to how Republicans plan to tackle the problem of a society that is living longer because of medical advances. Just handing them a check and telling them they're on their own seems rather stupid, for a variety of reasons.

What if a person 55 or younger, who would presumably be placed on this "new" voucher system instead of the Medicare system, exhausts his/her voucher allotment because of some ongoing illness or injury? Do those people thereafter get treated in an already overwhelmed and costly ER? Or do they just die in bed?

What if a person takes the annual check and cashes in for something other than medical care, maybe with a little kickback to some doctor?

I do like Paul Ryan's proposal for Medicaid, however, which is to make block grants available to all the states which will force them to work within those limits instead of getting reimbursed for expenditures. (Vermont already does that.) What has happened with Medicaid is there are too many contracted out middle-men involved which are administering the program, much of it totally unnecessary. So blame states, not the federal government, for screwing up the Medicaid program.

The problem is its the leadership of the democrat party such as pelosi, reid, dean, and obama saying these things not the fringe.

If it was just the fringe I would have never even made the thread.


EDIT: I'm not done yet maggie, i will adress the rest of your post shortly.....or tonight.

They can still cut back by using things like vouchers while putting things in the legislation to protect people in extreme circumstances. I wasn't really talking about medicare/cade here anyway but still.

You do realize if we dont do something right now about medicare, along with social security, to bring down the cost to the federal government those programs wont even exist anymore.

Would you prefer to cut back on peoples benefits or eliminate them completely? If we dont cut back we will lose these programs all together then no one gets anything back that they invested into the programs.

i tried to adress the rest of your post with my thoughts.

If Medicare ADVANTAGE is eliminated, it will save $500 billion. (That actually sounds low, to me, since among all my other older friends, I'm the only one who doesn't, er, take advantage of that huge subsidy, so I assume it's more popular all over than just hanging with the standard Medicare benefits.)

I think some kind of indexing needs to be done with the payroll tax; for example, the wealthiest Americans (pick a number) should not pay into a Medicare fund and they therefore would not be eligible for Medicare benefits either. The payout will always be far greater than the contribution, so that seems fair. (I haven't read Paul Ryan's entire proposal, but I think he has something like that in it.)

There's also the controversial question of how Medicare benefits are approved and then paid. Right now it is based on quantity, which is why physicians who accept Medicare patients like to order up every test in the book whether needed or not. Payments should be based on quality, but I have yet to see anyone expand on the definition of "quality" as a measurement of a doctor's services. There are studies available to emulate, however, from big health care facilities such as The Cleveland Clinic and The Mayo Clinic that base their services and expected patient payment on quality, not quantity, so that might be a start.

I think if the smartest people in the room put their collective heads together, there are all sorts of unique ways to reduce the cost of the Medicare program before the only two choices left are to allow it to suck up the biggest piece of the pie, or it is eliminated entirely.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I know this thread is meant to be a little silly, but when was the last time republicans had power in government and scaled back any big government program?

They created a huge one in the department of homeland security, and grew every big gov't program I can think of from 2001-2007 when they were in power.

Keep in mind this wasn't just a few rogue "rhinos" or whatever the term is, it was the entire party.

Hence my avatar

Trust me I know most republicans are exactly the same as most democrats, at least the freshmen republicans are causing a stir instead of abiding by the status quo.

Even freshmen republicans will soon find out how hard it is to stay the course when their arms are being twisted into pretzels by lobbyists and back door wheeling and dealing, and when it's time to start campaigning for reelection. That is the sad truth about ALL political maneuvering these days, boys and girls.

That will be their test. Their pass or fail moment for me will be if they can continue to match their actions to their rhetoric, the moment they turn on what they claimed were their values in order to get re-elected is the moment you hear me put the bus in reverse and run over them .

 

[MaggieMae]

Exactly. You understand why I made this thread making fun of the liberal herd of sheep all bleating the same sorry tune about republicans instead of debating the actual issues of what we must cut and by how much we can cut every single government agency and program to get our budget under control.

Notice I said cut and not eliminate.

Again, isn't it frustrating when a herd of sheep refuse to have a civil debate and instead turn to radical one-liners? Perhaps a review of the tea party rallies of 2009 would refresh your memory as to why it was so frustrating for us to try to attempt a civil conversation with conservatives. Karma's a bitch.

The tea party rallies dont really relate to the congress' inability to debate this issue without the B.S. liberal lines such as "republicans want seniors eating dog food" "Republicans will raise the national deficit by cutting spending more than they would if they dont cut spending"

Congress debating vs Union/Tea Party Protesting are apples and oranges.

I don't know which "congressperson" made the dog food comment, but I have heard the rationale that if certain programs are cut, that will result in more unemployment and more people collecting "welfare" anyway. There is some rationale to that, although I haven't seen any examples of what programs they're talking about.

I was merely pointing out the absurdity of how one-liners can capture an audience and dominate a debate. I'm not playing favorites with who does it, but you must admit the protesters at the tea party rallies were pros, as were the anti-war protesters when Bush was president.

 

[Cuyo]

Why don't we just let the Libs spend us into oblivion......

Then again how bout we don't.....

How we going to stop them? It seems to me that it is pretty clear that the American electorate will not vote very many incumbents out of office and unless we are willing to do so, we gain nothing. The American electorate won't make them accountable for their actions so we get no where.

Immie

On the contrary, tax cuts are very popular and so is most of the spending. Anyone to suggest - Or enact - doing away with either, loses. That's where most of the problem is coming from.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Again, isn't it frustrating when a herd of sheep refuse to have a civil debate and instead turn to radical one-liners? Perhaps a review of the tea party rallies of 2009 would refresh your memory as to why it was so frustrating for us to try to attempt a civil conversation with conservatives. Karma's a bitch.

The tea party rallies dont really relate to the congress' inability to debate this issue without the B.S. liberal lines such as "republicans want seniors eating dog food" "Republicans will raise the national deficit by cutting spending more than they would if they dont cut spending"

Congress debating vs Union/Tea Party Protesting are apples and oranges.

I don't know which "congressperson" made the dog food comment, but I have heard the rationale that if certain programs are cut, that will result in more unemployment and more people collecting "welfare" anyway. There is some rationale to that, although I haven't seen any examples of what programs they're talking about.

I was merely pointing out the absurdity of how one-liners can capture an audience and dominate a debate. I'm not playing favorites with who does it, but you must admit the protesters at the tea party rallies were pros, as were the anti-war protesters when Bush was president.

Honestly the tea party protestors were not pros. Not by a long shot. I know from experience. I had only been to 2 other ones in my life prior and both were after bush signed the first 700b bailout but prior to my first tax day tea party rally in 08. My liberal family was there with me at the first one in hyannis, it wasn't about politics for any of us that first time it was just about us all being pissed off about the bailouts and corporate welfare and we were hoping it would stop obama from continuing down the road.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm of the opinion that if taxes were raised another two points and a 5% across the board cut in every agency happened, we could be out of this fiscal mess in a year, and THEN start figuring out a permanent path to sustainability.

Your opinion is incorrect. Tax receipts are down because of lack of economic growth. Raising tax rates further will not increase growth.

I remember learning about that at college, the Laffer curve.

Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <-------why do so many on one side of the issue ignore this?!?!?!?!

In theory. But why, then, when the tax rates were reduced, sustainable jobs weren't created? That, to me, was a major assist to the economic collapse. Businesses were not able to maintain themselves due to lack of working capital in times of stress, so they had to lay people off. I call that the Laffmyassoff curve!!

 

[Immanuel]

Why don't we just let the Libs spend us into oblivion......

Then again how bout we don't.....

How we going to stop them? It seems to me that it is pretty clear that the American electorate will not vote very many incumbents out of office and unless we are willing to do so, we gain nothing. The American electorate won't make them accountable for their actions so we get no where.

Immie

On the contrary, tax cuts are very popular and so is most of the spending. Anyone to suggest - Or enact - doing away with either, loses. That's where most of the problem is coming from.

The problem is though that they don't lose for suggesting doing away with either the tax cuts or spending. Democrats whined about "tax cuts for the rich" and in the long run they do nothing and we still have a hell of a lot of Democrats sitting behind their desks after the last election. Republicans have been promising spending cuts, but I will not be surprised if when... er if the budget is passed we will see no significant cuts.

Edit: Um, the above paragraph admittedly doesn't seem to make any sense. Think I have to work on that.

I would also not be surprised to hear Democrats tell us that despite the fact that spending actually went up, they really gave us a spending cut because instead of the 8% increase they got, they really wanted 12%.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

It was not.

I noticed it, but wasn't going to say anything after my beef with Lasher from the other day.

Immie

It's was actually a legit question. My spell check doesn't work on USMB and my spelling stinks, not to mention my grammar [grammer?].

So my attempt at a little extra humor came up short b/c of that.
~~~~~

So was that a pun? Meatings - my 'beef' with Lasher. Or was that just funny to me?

Speaking of Lasher. Who the heck is Lasher?

If you've already submitted a post, read it immediately and you can correct any obvious misspellings. But once you've backed out of it, you'll need to "edit" to do the correction. By that time, typos are usually unimportant. I use Google Chrome and it highlights misspelled words, but of course doesn't know the difference in meaning between meat and meet.

 

[rdean]

Republicans Hate Babies, schoolchildren, the elderly, unemployed, welfare, immigrants

Difficult to make fun of something that seems absolutely true. From Republican candidates during the last election calling the unemployed "hobos" and comparing the poor to "animals" - if you feed them they' will "breed" (see Andre Bauer).

Do Republicans really believe insurance companies are standing in line to give health care to the elderly? We know what Republicans think of immigrants.

You have to save "sarcasm" for a lie. Otherwise, you look as creepy and "out of touch" as your leaders.

 

[MaggieMae]

Especially in a year.

I think Maggie's heart is in the right place on that, but I think she should do the math on it, because I simply don't see where she is getting her idea.

Immie

I agree that her heart is in the right place.

We need to raise federal tax revenue while cutting federal spending by enough to actually reduce our debt.

How to raise the revenues is a great debate
What to cut and how much to cut it is also a great debate.

It sucks that most people can't have that debate without degrading to namecalling or false labelling of opponents.

But don't you think that would take all the fun out of a site like this?

Immie

NO!! Just once, I'd like to enter a forum where all The Stupids from both "sides" are playing somewhere else.

 

[MaggieMae]

I remember learning about that at college, the Laffer curve.

Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <-------why do so many on one side of the issue ignore this?!?!?!?!

because it's been debunked?

Economist's View: Who

The Laffer Curve debunked; Part One | Jay Bookman

Debunked by blogger Jay bookman? C'mon now Jay Bookman? Really?

That link contains no factual debunking, just opinions as to why Bookman believes Laffer's theory to be wrong.

Laffer's, um, THEORY?! What's the difference?

 

[Immanuel]

I agree that her heart is in the right place.

We need to raise federal tax revenue while cutting federal spending by enough to actually reduce our debt.

How to raise the revenues is a great debate
What to cut and how much to cut it is also a great debate.

It sucks that most people can't have that debate without degrading to namecalling or false labelling of opponents.

But don't you think that would take all the fun out of a site like this?

Immie

NO!! Just once, I'd like to enter a forum where all The Stupids from both "sides" are playing somewhere else.

Oh? So now you too are telling me to STFU! Or actually GTFO (Get the F! Out).

Sheesh!!! I can't win for losing.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

Hence my avatar

Trust me I know most republicans are exactly the same as most democrats, at least the freshmen republicans are causing a stir instead of abiding by the status quo.

The freshman haven't had to prove themselves yet, my guess they're going against democrats because they're democrats, not because they believe in the principles of small gov't/low taxes/low spending.

When they get put in power, if they actually do those things, I'll ride my unicorn to voting booths the rest of my life voting republican.

I hope they do those things, thats how they got into office.

I hope even more that if they don't the get voted right back out into the real world again!

Well currently, with the continuing debate over another CR by midnight Friday, the tea party caucus is insisting to Boehner that unless $100 billion is cut for the balance of the 2011 budget (through September), they WANT the government shut down "to show that we mean business." I don't think they quite understand the repercussions, even at the smallest level, what shutting down the federal government will create. This article summarizes some of those.

Federal Eye - What might a government shutdown look like?

 

[MaggieMae]

because it's been debunked?

Economist's View: Who

The Laffer Curve debunked; Part One | Jay Bookman

Debunked by blogger Jay bookman? C'mon now Jay Bookman? Really?

That link contains no factual debunking, just opinions as to why Bookman believes Laffer's theory to be wrong.

Nice focusing on Bookman and ignoring Krugman.

cherry pick much?

Jay Bookman is also a senior fellow at The Brookings Institute, not your average Joe The Blogger.

 

[gautama]

Am I a good liberal lemming now?

Seriously you guys are saying that by cutting less than 1% of the total budget the republicans are trying to starve seniors?

Your also trying to say that by cutting the budget and spending they are actually going to add more to the debt than if they didn't spend less? This one is a doozie, and some liberals wonder why many americans view them as dim-witted.

Not all liberals mind you, there are many smart liberals out there but man the caliber of the ones posting here is just horrid.

Pilgrim,

You must be a real Stupido not to realize that if you don't run the Nation into bankruptcy, and create a world financial disaster our babies, seniors, cripples, men and women over and under 30.....even queers ...... will starve to death, and what's even worse...won't be able to take advantage of Obamacare !!!

What the fuck is wrong with you !!!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Your opinion is incorrect. Tax receipts are down because of lack of economic growth. Raising tax rates further will not increase growth.

I remember learning about that at college, the Laffer curve.

Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <-------why do so many on one side of the issue ignore this?!?!?!?!

In theory. But why, then, when the tax rates were reduced, sustainable jobs weren't created? That, to me, was a major assist to the economic collapse. Businesses were not able to maintain themselves due to lack of working capital in tim
es of stress, so they had to lay people off. I call that the Laffmyassoff curve!!

But in reality we have the actual data in these charts from actual government data not from blog sites:

united states

iceland

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Debunked by blogger Jay bookman? C'mon now Jay Bookman? Really?

That link contains no factual debunking, just opinions as to why Bookman believes Laffer's theory to be wrong.

Nice focusing on Bookman and ignoring Krugman.

cherry pick much?

Jay Bookman is also a senior fellow at The Brookings Institute, not your average Joe The Blogger.

No, he's the same Jay Bookman that has written article after article defending Obama at every turn. He's a subpar partisan hack.

Next.