Social Security and Medicare made Americans weak -Senator Rubio (R-FL)

Cue the huge disconnect from reality (video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuvW3SeWxkM):

These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities. All of a sudden, for an increasing number of people in our nation, it was no longer necessary to worry about saving for security because that was the government's job.Senator-Rubio

Yep Americans definitely can save and should invest on their own because that's worked out so great, with Republicans blocking jobs programs to address the high unemployment and economy rattling hostage taking that's frightened the markets again.

I see nothing wrong with what he said.

Eh, it's a rather unsurprising rhetoric piece. He's rallying a voting block opposed to the programs. I can't really say that I am too fond of them, myself. That said, I really question the wisdom of touching the third rail.

I guess so since they prevent us from killing off the poor.

Eh, it's a unsurprising rhetoric piece. He's rallying a voting block opposed to the programs. I can't really say that I am too fond of them, myself. That said, I really question the wisdom of touching the third rail.

coolbeans90

Well the more these Tea Party politiciansreach for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid the more vulnerable they are on Defense Spending (fiscally anyway). But honestly the fiscal cognitive dissonance that their voters must go through reconciling defense spending versus entitlement spending, but I guess that's what makes some Americans truly exceptional :P

Between the Paul Ryan budget plan to lower to deficit which actually raises the deficit 6 trillion dollars over 10 years and the strict rules against raising any taxes and cutting any subsidies until Obama proposed extending the payroll tax, it seems to me that Republicans as a party aren't even pretending to be sensible anymore. They're making direct contradictions and hoping that enough people either don't pay attention or justify/deny what they're saying due to cognitive dissonance that a majority will vote for them anyway.mattbbpl

Was just posting about that. I think it's mind-boggling how these voters get knotted into these mental pretzels and still vote against their own self interest with investigating the issues further.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Eh, it's a unsurprising rhetoric piece. He's rallying a voting block opposed to the programs. I can't really say that I am too fond of them, myself. That said, I really question the wisdom of touching the third rail.

Ultimas_Blade

Well the more these Tea Party politiciansreach for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid the more vulnerable they are on Defense Spending (fiscally anyway). But honestly the fiscal cognitive dissonance that their voters must go through reconciling defense spending versus entitlement spending, but I guess that's what makes some Americans truly exceptional :P

Well, voters value some types of spending over others. The Republicans for the past few decades have been fans of big military, while Democrats support more social welfare. The Tea Party seems to differ quite little from the establishment GOP on military spending while supporting significant cuts in social welfare. I would imagine that progressives support a significant downsizing of the military while increasing social welfare. The common misnomer amongst, well, everyone, is that Tea Party seeks to minimize government spending. More correctly, it appears that they seek to eliminate a fair amount of spending, but from specific areas. (read: almost everything but military) I am not convinced that they've earned the title of "fiscal hawks".

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Eh, it's a unsurprising rhetoric piece. He's rallying a voting block opposed to the programs. I can't really say that I am too fond of them, myself. That said, I really question the wisdom of touching the third rail.

coolbeans90

Well the more these Tea Party politicians reach for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid the more vulnerable they are on Defense Spending (fiscally anyway). But honestly the fiscal cognitive dissonance that their voters must go through reconciling defense spending versus entitlement spending, but I guess that's what makes some Americans truly exceptional :P

Well, voters value some types of spending over others. The Republicans for the past few decades have been fans of big military, while Democrats support more social welfare. The Tea Party seems to differ quite little from the establishment GOP on military spending while supporting significant cuts in social welfare. I would imagine that progressives support a significant downsizing of the military while increasing social welfare. The common misnomer amongst, well, everyone, is that Tea Party seeks to minimize government spending. More correctly, it appears that they seek to eliminate a fair amount of spending, but from specific areas. (read: almost everything but military) I am not convinced that they've earned the title of "fiscal hawks".

Agreed.

The tea party is IMO just an amalgamation of the red meat bases (anti-choice, anti-tax, anti-regulation,a-gun-in-every-hand-voters, etc) that allows Republicans to call to a larger audience instantly instead of covering every single-issue voter bulletpoint. I think true Independents (the portion of the unaffiliated voters that actually voter differently depending on the breeze, not the anti-establishment-but-consistent-Republican-voting Independents) have disassociated themselves from the TP after the debt ceiling snafu and all the anti-choice legislation.

Well if you would look at it from his point of views, it makes pure sense. Not the whole "government is evil" but conservatives still hold strong family values. Things like medicare, increase reliance on nursing home and 3rd party help for ones families is really straying away from strong family values. So if that makes sense...

Having good intentions and actually doing are two different things. Just shipping your parents off to some medicare sponsored nursing homes is not what we did 30 years ago.

Florida's status as a retirement destination for a great many individuals, particularly from Democrat States, makes me question the political expediency of advertising that particular position.

Then again, he was apparently elected as a Senator saying some of these things in his campaign, so he must know what he's doing.

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Eh, it's a unsurprising rhetoric piece. He's rallying a voting block opposed to the programs. I can't really say that I am too fond of them, myself. That said, I really question the wisdom of touching the third rail.

coolbeans90

Well the more these Tea Party politiciansreach for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid the more vulnerable they are on Defense Spending (fiscally anyway). But honestly the fiscal cognitive dissonance that their voters must go through reconciling defense spending versus entitlement spending, but I guess that's what makes some Americans truly exceptional :P

Well, voters value some types of spending over others. The Republicans for the past few decades have been fans of big military, while Democrats support more social welfare. The Tea Party seems to differ quite little from the establishment GOP on military spending while supporting significant cuts in social welfare. I would imagine that progressives support a significant downsizing of the military while increasing social welfare. The common misnomer amongst, well, everyone, is that Tea Party seeks to minimize government spending. More correctly, it appears that they seek to eliminate a fair amount of spending, but from specific areas. (read: almost everything but military) I am not convinced that they've earned the title of "fiscal hawks".

I really don't know what is compelling all of these high profile Republicans to demonize these incredibly popular programs. Especially a senator from Florida.

Have to agree with him.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Well, voters value some types of spending over others. The Republicans for the past few decades have been fans of big military, while Democrats support more social welfare. The Tea Party seems to differ quite little from the establishment GOP on military spending while supporting significant cuts in social welfare. I would imagine that progressives support a significant downsizing of the military while increasing social welfare. The common misnomer amongst, well, everyone, is that Tea Party seeks to minimize government spending. More correctly, it appears that they seek to eliminate a fair amount of spending, but from specific areas. (read: almost everything but military) I am not convinced that they've earned the title of "fiscal hawks".

Ultimas_Blade

It's starting to look like GOP lost my vote.

I see nothing wrong with what he said.

QuistisTrepe_

Sorry TC, not really seeing how relying on government comes across as a strength...

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

Well the more these Tea Party politiciansreach for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid the more vulnerable they are on Defense Spending (fiscally anyway). But honestly the fiscal cognitive dissonance that their voters must go through reconciling defense spending versus entitlement spending, but I guess that's what makes some Americans truly exceptional :P

-Sun_Tzu-

Well, voters value some types of spending over others. The Republicans for the past few decades have been fans of big military, while Democrats support more social welfare. The Tea Party seems to differ quite little from the establishment GOP on military spending while supporting significant cuts in social welfare. I would imagine that progressives support a significant downsizing of the military while increasing social welfare. The common misnomer amongst, well, everyone, is that Tea Party seeks to minimize government spending. More correctly, it appears that they seek to eliminate a fair amount of spending, but from specific areas. (read: almost everything but military) I am not convinced that they've earned the title of "fiscal hawks".

I really don't know what is compelling all of these high profile Republicans to demonize these incredibly popular programs. Especially a senator from Florida.

The Tea Party is many things. Politically savvy has never struck me as one of those.

If anything, I would say that the Tea Party did anything but allow the Republicans to appeal to a broader base. There were quite a number of people who were further right on various issues, but a minute percentage weren't voting Republican already. Various people who were pissed off for whatever reason seemed to adopt an anti-government/establishment position following the election of 2008. This resulted in grassroots campaigns and so forth of candidates who didn't quite tow the party line. Ideally, you know, it's a better, more democratic way to elect politicians. However, for the Republican Party, it's a nightmare. Not sure how the establishment lost control of that one, but a large number of idiots ran in and lost elections that should have been won. Many of those who won simply are not capable of handling routine legislation, the debt ceiling deal, for instance. (and even then, a sizable number still voted against the deal) And I don't see independents voting Republican in 2012 unless a not-crazy candidate is run. And, for a while, I thought Romney had the nomination. He's not an idiot and I think he would have stood a good chance at actually winning. If anything, the party may have had a shot of restoring some level of legitimacy. But along came another governor from Texas:

It's starting to look like GOP lost my vote.

coolbeans90

Do you think he'd be worse than Obama?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

If anything, I would say that the Tea Party did anything but allow the Republicans to appeal to a broader base. There were quite a number of people who were further right on various issues, but a minute percentage weren't voting Republican already. Various people who were pissed off for whatever reason seemed to adopt an anti-government/establishment position following the election of 2008. This resulted in grassroots campaigns and so forth of candidates who didn't quite tow the party line. Ideally, you know, it's a better, more democratic way to elect politicians. However, for the Republican Party, it's a nightmare. Not sure how the establishment lost control of that one, but a large number of idiots ran in and lost elections that should have been won. Many of those who won simply are not capable of handling routine legislation, the debt ceiling deal, for instance. (and even then, a sizable number still voted against the deal) And I don't see independents voting Republican in 2012 unless a not-crazy candidate is run. And, for a while, I thought Romney had the nomination. He's not an idiot and I think he would have stood a good chance at actually winning. If anything, the party may have had a shot of restoring some level of legitimacy. But along came another governor from Texas:

It's starting to look like GOP lost my vote.

airshocker

Do you think he'd be worse than Obama?

Perry? Holy hell yes. I'd be willing to give Romney serious consideration, though.xaos

Why exactly? Just curious.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

Well the more these Tea Party politiciansreach for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid the more vulnerable they are on Defense Spending (fiscally anyway). But honestly the fiscal cognitive dissonance that their voters must go through reconciling defense spending versus entitlement spending, but I guess that's what makes some Americans truly exceptional :P

-Sun_Tzu-

Well, voters value some types of spending over others. The Republicans for the past few decades have been fans of big military, while Democrats support more social welfare. The Tea Party seems to differ quite little from the establishment GOP on military spending while supporting significant cuts in social welfare. I would imagine that progressives support a significant downsizing of the military while increasing social welfare. The common misnomer amongst, well, everyone, is that Tea Party seeks to minimize government spending. More correctly, it appears that they seek to eliminate a fair amount of spending, but from specific areas. (read: almost everything but military) I am not convinced that they've earned the title of "fiscal hawks".

I really don't know what is compelling all of these high profile Republicans to demonize these incredibly popular programs. Especially a senator from Florida.

Trying to balance the budget maybe? I don't think anyone can disagree with the fact that a whole lot of money goes into Medicare and Social Security.

Though I will agree we also need to stop wasting our time in Afghanistan and the Middle East in general. It's nothing but a money sink. And really, stop giving aid to all these countries that hate us.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

If anything, I would say that the Tea Party did anything but allow the Republicans to appeal to a broader base. There were quite a number of people who were further right on various issues, but a minute percentage weren't voting Republican already. Various people who were pissed off for whatever reason seemed to adopt an anti-government/establishment position following the election of 2008. This resulted in grassroots campaigns and so forth of candidates who didn't quite tow the party line. Ideally, you know, it's a better, more democratic way to elect politicians. However, for the Republican Party, it's a nightmare. Not sure how the establishment lost control of that one, but a large number of idiots ran in and lost elections that should have been won. Many of those who won simply are not capable of handling routine legislation, the debt ceiling deal, for instance. (and even then, a sizable number still voted against the deal) And I don't see independents voting Republican in 2012 unless a not-crazy candidate is run. And, for a while, I thought Romney had the nomination. He's not an idiot and I think he would have stood a good chance at actually winning. If anything, the party may have had a shot of restoring some level of legitimacy. But along came another governor from Texas:

It's starting to look like GOP lost my vote.

airshocker

Do you think he'd be worse than Obama?

I am not impressed by his record. He seems to be quite similar in many regards to both Bush and Obama in ways that cause me to be discontent. For all of his rhetoric, he doesn't seem to be a small-government kinda guy.

If it wasn't for Medicare, my girlfriend would be dead right now. So no thanks Mr. Rubio. I didn't vote for you and I would never vote for you.ShadowDeathX

Doesn't matter how you feel about him, all that matters is what he said was pretty much true.

I am not impressed by his record. He seems to be quite similar in many regards to both Bush and Obama in ways that cause me to be discontent. For all of his rhetoric, he doesn't seem to be a small-government kinda guy.

coolbeans90

So you wouldn't vote for him no matter what?

[QUOTE="xaos"]Perry? Holy hell yes. I'd be willing to give Romney serious consideration, though.airshocker

Why exactly? Just curious.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Well, voters value some types of spending over others. The Republicans for the past few decades have been fans of big military, while Democrats support more social welfare. The Tea Party seems to differ quite little from the establishment GOP on military spending while supporting significant cuts in social welfare. I would imagine that progressives support a significant downsizing of the military while increasing social welfare. The common misnomer amongst, well, everyone, is that Tea Party seeks to minimize government spending. More correctly, it appears that they seek to eliminate a fair amount of spending, but from specific areas. (read: almost everything but military) I am not convinced that they've earned the title of "fiscal hawks".

Vari3ty

I really don't know what is compelling all of these high profile Republicans to demonize these incredibly popular programs. Especially a senator from Florida.

Trying to balance the budget maybe? I don't think anyone can disagree with the fact that a whole lot of money goes into Medicare and Social Security.

Though I will agree we also need to stop wasting our time in Afghanistan and the Middle East in general. It's nothing but a money sink. And really, stop giving aid to all these countries that hate us.

These people don't care about reducing the deficit. Not really.

I am not impressed by his record. He seems to be quite similar in many regards to both Bush and Obama in ways that cause me to be discontent. For all of his rhetoric, he doesn't seem to be a small-government kinda guy.

coolbeans90

Before Bush took the White House, he played that small government rhetoric in Texas for years, and even seemed to believe it in some instances. He also took a role of being the peacemaker between the Democrats and Republicans in the State legislature, spending a lot of time bringing the votes together and trying to quench controversies. During the campaign for the Presidency, many had touted his record in Texas as one showing his ability to bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats, and his seemingly strong dedication to small government.

And then he took the White House, and showed that he really was a Bush after all.

Perry strikes me the same way. As a result, I am concerned about a Perry Presidency. I don't think we could take another Bush.

Well if you would look at it from his point of views, it makes pure sense. Not the whole "government is evil" but conservatives still hold strong family values. Things like medicare, increase reliance on nursing home and 3rd party help for ones families is really straying away from strong family values. So if that makes sense...

Having good intentions and actually doing are two different things. Just shipping your parents off to some medicare sponsored nursing homes is not what we did 30 years ago.

Wasdie

Let me parse this...

1) So wait...only "conservatives still hold strong family values" as opposed to liberals not holding those same or similar values? Right.

2) I don't know what poor people you're talking about about, but nursing homes are expensive and folks who aren't makinga ton of moneygenerally take care of their elderly at home. The poor aren't relying on nursing homes widely at all,and if you can provide a reliable source which states otherwise that could bring more to the conversation. There are only two limited access Medicare programs that can provide nursing home care: Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) and Social Managed Care Plan (which is only available in Portland, Oregon; Long Beach, California; Brooklyn, New York; and Las Vegas, Nevada). You must meet your state's standard and live within the areabefore you can enter into either of those programs, so you can't just thow grandma in there on demandlike you suggest.

Your appeal to tradition is pretty much full of holes. This is along the lines of "government is evil" rhetoric, it's the same "let's get the government out the way/shrink it down small enough to drown in the bathtub" talk.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Well, voters value some types of spending over others. The Republicans for the past few decades have been fans of big military, while Democrats support more social welfare. The Tea Party seems to differ quite little from the establishment GOP on military spending while supporting significant cuts in social welfare. I would imagine that progressives support a significant downsizing of the military while increasing social welfare. The common misnomer amongst, well, everyone, is that Tea Party seeks to minimize government spending. More correctly, it appears that they seek to eliminate a fair amount of spending, but from specific areas. (read: almost everything but military) I am not convinced that they've earned the title of "fiscal hawks".

Vari3ty

I really don't know what is compelling all of these high profile Republicans to demonize these incredibly popular programs. Especially a senator from Florida.

Trying to balance the budget maybe? I don't think anyone can disagree with the fact that a whole lot of money goes into Medicare and Social Security.

Though I will agree we also need to stop wasting our time in Afghanistan and the Middle East in general. It's nothing but a money sink. And really, stop giving aid to all these countries that hate us.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I am not impressed by his record. He seems to be quite similar in many regards to both Bush and Obama in ways that cause me to be discontent. For all of his rhetoric, he doesn't seem to be a small-government kinda guy.

airshocker

So you wouldn't vote for him no matter what?

I would have to take a deeper look into his record than I have before the decision is set in stone, as admittedly all I know about him comes from reading his Wikipedia article. That said, for all that I criticize third-party voters, it seems to be the most appealing option.

I have a number of issues with him; heck just a few days ago here there was a thread on changes he advocates to the Constitution, which ranged from troubling to flatout crazy in my bookxaos

Ah okay. What do you think about Huntsman?

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Even majorities of the tea party support social security and medicare.

I really don't know what is compelling all of these high profile Republicans to demonize these incredibly popular programs. Especially a senator from Florida.

mattbbpl

Trying to balance the budget maybe? I don't think anyone can disagree with the fact that a whole lot of money goes into Medicare and Social Security.

Though I will agree we also need to stop wasting our time in Afghanistan and the Middle East in general. It's nothing but a money sink. And really, stop giving aid to all these countries that hate us.

These people don't care about reducing the deficit. Not really.

In the long run though the plan does help balance it. At the current rate the deficit is going, it would become 90% of the GDP by 2050. Ryan's plan brings it down to around 10% by 2050. Of course, there are flaws to it.

I would have to take a deeper look into his record than I have before the decision is set in stone, as admittedly all I know about him comes from reading his Wikipedia article. That said, for all that I criticize third-party voters, it seems to be the most appealing option.

coolbeans90

I can't bring myself to do it. I just have to think what Obama being unleashed for another four years is going to do to my IRA and bam, party-line voter I am again.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="xaos"]Perry? Holy hell yes. I'd be willing to give Romney serious consideration, though.xaos

Why exactly? Just curious.

I believe he was asking about your take on Romney, not Perry.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I am not impressed by his record. He seems to be quite similar in many regards to both Bush and Obama in ways that cause me to be discontent. For all of his rhetoric, he doesn't seem to be a small-government kinda guy.

m0zart

Before Bush took the White House, he played that small government rhetoric in Texas for years, and even seemed to believe it in some instances. He also took a role of being the peacemaker between the Democrats and Republicans in the State legislature, spending a lot of time bringing the votes together and trying to quench controversies. During the campaign for the Presidency, many had touted his record in Texas as one showing his ability to bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats, and his seemingly strong dedication to small government.

And then he took the White House, and showed that he really was a Bush after all.

Perry strikes me the same way. As a result, I am concerned about a Perry Presidency. I don't think we could take another Bush.

[QUOTE="xaos"]I have a number of issues with him; heck just a few days ago here there was a thread on changes he advocates to the Constitution, which ranged from troubling to flatout crazy in my bookairshocker

Ah okay. What do you think about Huntsman?

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]If it wasn't for Medicare, my girlfriend would be dead right now. So no thanks Mr. Rubio. I didn't vote for you and I would never vote for you.airshocker

Doesn't matter how you feel about him, all that matters is what he said was pretty much true.

The most ironic thing about Bush in 2000 was that he criticized Gore for all the nation building that went on during the Clinton administration. He actually ran as a non-interventionalist.-Sun_Tzu-

I definitely remember that criticism. I think he would have been called out on it a lot more too, if 9/11 hadn't happened and given him an extra Ace in the deck.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I would have to take a deeper look into his record than I have before the decision is set in stone, as admittedly all I know about him comes from reading his Wikipedia article. That said, for all that I criticize third-party voters, it seems to be the most appealing option.

airshocker

I can't bring myself to do it. I just have to think what Obama being unleashed for another four years is going to do to my IRA and bam, party-line voter I am again.

Had I reason to think that Perry would govern better in that respect than Obama, I would give the guy a bit of consideration, despite his other quirks. But his fiscal record in Texas is a trainwreck, IIRC.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

Why exactly? Just curious.

coolbeans90

I believe he was asking about your take on Romney, not Perry.

Sorry TC, not really seeing how relying on government comes across as a strength...

Vari3ty

Yeah, two programs that I pay into right now so I can use them later really doesn't make sense...oh wait...

Why don't you refuse to use programs your taxes pay for and see how strong you are for it? Hell it might even put some hair on your chest. Me? I believe in government that can provide for its elderly, poor, and sick people. Call me crazy.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I am not impressed by his record. He seems to be quite similar in many regards to both Bush and Obama in ways that cause me to be discontent. For all of his rhetoric, he doesn't seem to be a small-government kinda guy.

m0zart

Before Bush took the White House, he played that small government rhetoric in Texas for years, and even seemed to believe it in some instances. He also took a role of being the peacemaker between the Democrats and Republicans in the State legislature, spending a lot of time bringing the votes together and trying to quench controversies. During the campaign for the Presidency, many had touted his record in Texas as one showing his ability to bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats, and his seemingly strong dedication to small government.

And then he took the White House, and showed that he really was a Bush after all.

Perry strikes me the same way. As a result, I am concerned about a Perry Presidency. I don't think we could take another Bush.

This perfectly describes my feelings on the matter.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Trying to balance the budget maybe? I don't think anyone can disagree with the fact that a whole lot of money goes into Medicare and Social Security.

Though I will agree we also need to stop wasting our time in Afghanistan and the Middle East in general. It's nothing but a money sink. And really, stop giving aid to all these countries that hate us.

Vari3ty

These people don't care about reducing the deficit. Not really.

In the long run though the plan does help balance it. At the current rate the deficit is going, it would become 90% of the GDP by 2050. Ryan's plan brings it down to around 10% by 2050. Of course, there are flaws to it.

That's just me though.