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

[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.

Man airshocker, did it not feel great when the markets were rebounding under Obama and D-Majority in the House? Did it not upset you in the least when the Tea Party Republicans disrupted the market and the economyfor no good reason other than expensive political shots?

I'm sorry but business was terrified by what the Republicans in the House were doing. Your investments suffered for it, yet you would reward them?

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

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

Ultimas_Blade

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 sickpeople. Call me crazy.

And me? I prefer to not pay into a program that in the future will probably not even exist because of lack of funds...

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] Funny how the Paul Ryan plan to reduce the deficit and get rid of Medicare actually increased the deficit by 6 trillion over 10 years. Also funny ending temporary tax breaks and ending tax subsidies are off the table (until one is proposed being extended by Obama that's just for income up to $106,000 per year).

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

mattbbpl

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.

Maybe so, but either way 14 trillion dollars isn't going to be reduced quickly.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

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.

Vari3ty

That's just me though.

Maybe so, but either way 14 trillion dollars isn't going to be reduced quickly.

Paul Ryan's plan would have largely been deficit neutral in the short term if he hadn't included massive tax cuts in it as well. But he just couldn't help himself. And you think he cares about reducing the deficit?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]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.m0zart

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.

It seems a lot of this discussion is winding back down to deficits, which makes sense. But I'd like everyone to remember that the Republicans had their chance in the early-mid '90s to pass a balanced budget amendment in congress and send it to the States, as part of their "Contract with America". They failed to do this in the Senate, which was Republican Majority.

Of course, the Democrats heavily opposed this at the time as well, but Republicans had a clear majority to at least meet the Congressional requirement for the amendment, and basically passed on it.

Man airshocker, did it not feel great when the markets were rebounding under Obama and D-Majority in the House? Did it not upset you in the least when the Tea Party Republicans disrupted the market and the economyfor no good reason other than expensive political shots?

I'm sorry but business was terrified by what the Republicans in the House were doing. Your investments suffered for it, yet you would reward them?

Ultimas_Blade

If investers were terrified of what was going on with the debt deal, this crash would have happened during it, not after. This crash was caused by the European debt crisis, not us. Else our treasury bonds would have reflected the skittishness.

Business is terrified of the President.

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

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 forand 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.

And me? I prefer to not pay into a program that in the future will probably not even exist because of lack of funds...

Hell if you cap the amount that can be taxed for SS and keep other revenues weak as hell when the mythical"job-creators" aren't creating jobs in America of course people will talk about it going "broke". But you have to remember, SS was ingreat shapeuntil elected officials conveniently decided to start borrowing from the program.

The program will not be there for you if you don't support measures to sustain it, and honestly Republicans will never try tostrengthen any of the Entitlements. Raise taxes on millionaires and eliminate corporateloopholes and subsidies that costus billions in tax expendaturesand be amazed how the programs are suddenly sustainable.

Well to be fair, after 9/11 it'd be hard for any president to keep to a non-interventionalist stance. And the lefty in me is glad that Bush chose not to adopt a Kissinger-esque view of the world in strictly amoral, realpolitik terms, and instead adopted the world view of those ex-trotskyists who've been "mugged by reality" (i.e. the neoconservatives). It's too bad he relied so much on Rummy and Vice when it came to actually administering these policies though.-Sun_Tzu-

I don't want to give you the impression that the point I am making is that he should have left us undefended at home, failed to go on the offensive against the organization that caused the incident, or failed to investigate and act against nations which were directly supporting that organization. My main issue is that he used that as an excuse to continue some of the activities his father had started and failed to finish, in an area of the world that to this day seemed to have at best a tenuous link to that organization while mostly ignoring a few that had more categorically supported it. To top it off, the activities taken against the one country that was literally harboring and protecting the leadership of the organization were downplayed while the continuation of paternally inherited grievances were talked up on evidence that was not related to the incident and seems to have been manufactured.

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

Man airshocker, did it not feel great when the markets were rebounding under Obama and D-Majority in the House? Did it not upset you in the least when the Tea Party Republicans disrupted the market and the economyfor no good reason other than expensive political shots?

I'm sorry but business was terrified by what the Republicans in the House were doing. Your investments suffered for it, yet you would reward them?

airshocker

If business was terrified of what was going on with the debt deal, this crash would have happened during it, not after. This crashed was caused by the European debt crisis, not us. Else our treasury bonds would have reflected the skittishness.

Business is terrified of the President.

This crash is definitely acombination of the two issues (EU debt and US political obstinance) but IMO Business isn't afraid of the President. They've been getting their way on most issues, with the only bit of uncertainty is the nuances of the PPACA as it comes into effect.

This crash is definitely acombination of the two issues (EU debt and US political obstinance) but I can definitely tell you that Business isn't afraid of the President. They've been getting their way on most issues, with the only bit of uncertainty is the nuances of the PPACA as it comes into effect.

Ultimas_Blade

Business is. It's one of the reasons why they aren't spending their profits. I guarantee you, if we saw a drop in the marginal tax rates for all business, while closing the loopholes, we'd see an increase in revenue and an increase in growth. Unfortunately we're only talking about one.

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

This crash is definitely acombination of the two issues (EU debt and US political obstinance) but I can definitely tell you that Business isn't afraid of the President. They've been getting their way on most issues, with the only bit of uncertainty is the nuances of the PPACA as it comes into effect.

airshocker

Business is. It's one of the reasons why they aren't spending their profits. I guarantee you, if we saw a drop in the marginal tax rates for all business, while closing the loopholes, we'd see an increase in revenue and an increase in growth. Unfortunately we're only talking about one.

There isn't a historical account that squares with tax cuts unleashing an sort of massive spending by business. There has been a decade of massive tax cuts (that have produced an anemic revenue stream) that amounted in no huge job creation at all. Why cut more when it isn't working?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Well to be fair, after 9/11 it'd be hard for any president to keep to a non-interventionalist stance. And the lefty in me is glad that Bush chose not to adopt a Kissinger-esque view of the world in strictly amoral, realpolitik terms, and instead adopted the world view of those ex-trotskyists who've been "mugged by reality" (i.e. the neoconservatives). It's too bad he relied so much on Rummy and Vice when it came to actually administering these policies though.m0zart

I don't want to give you the impression that the point I am making is that he should have left us undefended at home, failed to go on the offensive against the organization that caused the incident, or failed to investigate and act against nations which were directly supporting that organization. My main issue is that he used that as an excuse to continue some of the activities his father had started and failed to finish, in an area of the world that to this day seemed to have at best a tenuous link to that organization while mostly ignoring a few that had more categorically supported it. To top it off, the activities taken against the one country that was literally harboring and protecting the leadership of the organization were downplayed while the continuation of paternally inherited grievances were talked up on evidence that was not related to the incident and seems to have been manufactured.

But something had to be done about Iraq. The sanctions against Saddam were so devastating (something like 500,000 children under the age of five died as a result) that even Osama Bin Laden, who was not a fan of Saddam or the large number of shiite Iraqis, cited it as one of the reasons for the 9/11 attacks. You couldn't really just lift the sanctions though because of Saddam's tendency for ethnic cleansing and invading neighboring countries. Iraq under Saddam just really not doing anyone any good. So that put the US between a rock and a hard place, and the only real solution was regime change (which was the official US position since latter half of the 90's). With that said, Bush failed hard when it came to actually carrying out that change, and the way he argued for the war was really disingenuous.

There isn't a historical account that squares with tax cuts unleashing an sort of massive spending by business. There has been a decade of massive tax cuts (that have produced an anemic revenue stream) that amounted in no huge job creation at all. Why cut more when it isn't working?

Ultimas_Blade

We haven't cut enough where it counts. Small businesses need the tax cuts more than big businesses. Everyone knows this. If we close the loopholes and set a top rate of 20%, we're going to get more revenue,. Some massive corporations aren't even paying 10%! I don't see the downside in giving our small businesses the means to grow, at all.

i find it a bit ironic that he is saying Social Security and Medicare made us weak, and then goes on to say we need to take care of eachother.

Hmmm...lets think about that for a second:

-I pay taxes, some of which go into social security and medicare
-Other people use social security and medicare to take care of themselves
-Therefore, I do take care of other people

Once again, Republicans appeal to emotion and idealists as opposed to dealing with reality.

Not to mention that it doesnt matter where help comes from, be it medicare or your neighbor, it still instills a sense of reliance on other people, which in a skewed, Republican state-of-mind is apparently weakness, except...not? If its your neighbor? Ugh who the frack knows any more where they get these ideas...

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

There isn't a historical account that squares with tax cuts unleashing an sort of massive spending by business. There has been a decade of massive tax cuts (that have produced an anemic revenue stream) that amounted in no huge job creation at all. Why cut more when it isn't working?

airshocker

We haven't cut enough where it counts. Small businesses need the tax cuts more than big businesses. Everyone knows this. If we close the loopholes and set a top rate of 20%, we're going to get more revenue,. Some massive corporations aren't even paying 10%! I don't see the downside in giving our small businesses the means to grow, at all.

Well there needs to be a clear, defining line between whatqualifies a small business and what qualifies as a large corporation, otherwise S Corps (known as pass-throughs) will again dodge taxes. I don't mind giving to real small businesses, hell that would personallybe incredibly benefitial to my family, however I don't want huge billion dollar corporations taking advantage of programs/funds specifically set aside for small businesses.

If we eliminate Agribusiness subsidies and some of the defense spendingand cash those out for a permanent small business focused program (yes a small business Entitlement) that consists of either low-interest loans, tax credits, etc we'd have someactual bipartisan mojo going here, but the effort/pressure to deny President Obama a win weighs too heavily for them to do much anything other than gum up the works....

Well there needs to be a clear, defining line between whatqualifies a small business and what qualifies as a large corporation, otherwise S Corps (known as pass-throughs) will again dodge taxes. I don't mind giving to real small businesses, hell that would personallybe incredibly benefitial to my family, however I don't want huge billion dollar corporations taking advantage of programs/funds specifically set aside for small businesses.

If we eliminate Agribusiness subsidies and some of the defense spendingand cash those out for a permanent small business focused program (yes a small business Entitlement) that consists of either low-interest loans, tax credits, etc we'd have someactual bipartisan mojo going here, but the effort/pressure to deny President Obama a win weighs too heavily for them to do much anything other than gum up the works....

Ultimas_Blade

I can't support a program that increases the size of government and ignores the underlying problem: We aren't getting enough revenue from corporations that can afford it. I think we can achieve the same thing---or deam near enough---by fixing our tax code.

Firearms also made americans weak, otherwise they would be fighting to death with bare hands like real men. ;)

On a more serious note, I guess he thinks pharmaceutical companies would rub my feet and prepare me a chicken soup when I have a cold.

There's some truth to that although I wouldnt have phrased it how he did. Certain social programs have been very beneficial and the government should play a role in regulating some aspects of business to assure fairness. However, the far left pushes an ideology that focuses on providing every service possible to some people. They can't say no. Entitlements are a natural right and people should take out far more than they ever paid into a system. There has to be some kind of balance. Self-independence is a good thing and it should be encouraged for people to be able to take care of most of their problems themselves. The government should act more as a safety net, not as a way of life.

There's some truth to that although I wouldnt have phrased it how he did. Certain social programs have been very beneficial and the government should play a role in regulating some aspects of business to assure fairness. However, the far left pushes an ideology that focuses on providing every service possible to some people. They can't say no. Entitlements are a natural right and people should take out far more than they ever paid into a system. There has to be some kind of balance. Self-independence is a good thing and it should be encouraged for people to be able to take care of most of their problems themselves. The government should act more as a safety net, not as a way of life.

sonicare

Nonsene the so called "far left" pushes entitlements because they more than often have a net benefit, I'm not saying entitlements can't get to the point where they cost more than they save, what I am saying though is that the social safety net in the United States today is such a weak pathetic joke that in no area whatsoever does it really approach that level.

If you don't the poor access to medical care they wait till they have to go to the emergency room, small problems that could have been delt with cheaply cost massive money, they give the single mom emergency care because you have to do that at least! right? She dies anyway to late, her kid becomes an orphan, which costs the government far more, broken homes make the kid a criminal and he's in the prison system the rest of his life.

Not only do you end up spending far more in a situation like the one above, you trade a net positive (giving someone health help) for a negative (locking someone in prison)

A stretch? I guess I could look up the article for you several months ago about the guy commiting a crime just to get arrested for the food and healthcare in prison.

Or look at this!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/24/1007200/-Raising-the-Medicare-eligibility-age-is%C2%A0expensive?via=blog_1

Nonsene the so called "far left" pushes entitlements because they more than often have a net benefit, I'm not saying entitlements can't get to the point where they cost more than they save, what I am saying though is that the social safety net in the United States today is such a weak pathetic joke that in no area whatsoever does it really approach that level.

If you don't the poor access to medical care they wait till they have to go to the emergency room, small problems that could have been delt with cheaply cost massive money, they give the single mom emergency care because you have to do that at least! right? She dies anyway to late, her kid becomes an orphan, which costs the government far more, broken homes make the kid a criminal and he's in the prison system the rest of his life.

Not only do you end up spending far more in a situation like the one above, you trade a net positive (giving someone health help) for a negative (locking someone in prison)

A stretch? I guess I could look up the article for you several months ago about the guy commiting a crime just to get arrested for the food and healthcare in prison.

Or look at this!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/24/1007200/-Raising-the-Medicare-eligibility-age-is%C2%A0expensive?via=blog_1

Raising the Medicare eligibility age actually costs the country more than it saves while making the country a crappier place.

zipozal

Are you advocating a social safety net like the one that Britain has? We all know what's happening to that.

[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.

And Rubio is demonizing those programs because it seems he actually has a set of values and doesn't just try to appease all of the old people in Florida.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

There's some truth to that although I wouldnt have phrased it how he did. Certain social programs have been very beneficial and the government should play a role in regulating some aspects of business to assure fairness. However, the far left pushes an ideology that focuses on providing every service possible to some people. They can't say no. Entitlements are a natural right and people should take out far more than they ever paid into a system. There has to be some kind of balance. Self-independence is a good thing and it should be encouraged for people to be able to take care of most of their problems themselves. The government should act more as a safety net, not as a way of life.

zipozal

Nonsene the so called "far left" pushes entitlements because they more than often have a net benefit, I'm not saying entitlements can't get to the point where they cost more than they save, what I am saying though is that the social safety net in the United States today is such a weak pathetic joke that in no area whatsoever does it really approach that level.

If you don't the poor access to medical care they wait till they have to go to the emergency room, small problems that could have been delt with cheaply cost massive money, they give the single mom emergency care because you have to do that at least! right? She dies anyway to late, her kid becomes an orphan, which costs the government far more, broken homes make the kid a criminal and he's in the prison system the rest of his life.

Not only do you end up spending far more in a situation like the one above, you trade a net positive (giving someone health help) for a negative (locking someone in prison)

A stretch? I guess I could look up the article for you several months ago about the guy commiting a crime just to get arrested for the food and healthcare in prison.

Or look at this!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/24/1007200/-Raising-the-Medicare-eligibility-age-is%C2%A0expensive?via=blog_1

Raising the Medicare eligibility age actually costs the country more than it saves while making the country a crappier place.

The absurdity of the statement is emphasised when you consider that the government taxes the public to pay for these services. That the government has increased spending beyond the capability of taxes to cover the expenses, is a failure on the governments part, not the peoples.

They're essentially criticising people for actually expecting the services they pay for.

[QUOTE="zipozal"]

Nonsene the so called "far left" pushes entitlements because they more than often have a net benefit, I'm not saying entitlements can't get to the point where they cost more than they save, what I am saying though is that the social safety net in the United States today is such a weak pathetic joke that in no area whatsoever does it really approach that level.

If you don't the poor access to medical care they wait till they have to go to the emergency room, small problems that could have been delt with cheaply cost massive money, they give the single mom emergency care because you have to do that at least! right? She dies anyway to late, her kid becomes an orphan, which costs the government far more, broken homes make the kid a criminal and he's in the prison system the rest of his life.

Not only do you end up spending far more in a situation like the one above, you trade a net positive (giving someone health help) for a negative (locking someone in prison)

A stretch? I guess I could look up the article for you several months ago about the guy commiting a crime just to get arrested for the food and healthcare in prison.

Or look at this!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/24/1007200/-Raising-the-Medicare-eligibility-age-is%C2%A0expensive?via=blog_1

Raising the Medicare eligibility age actually costs the country more than it saves while making the country a crappier place.

airshocker

Are you advocating a social safety net like the one that Britain has? We all know what's happening to that.

I'm from Britain. Do you care to enlighten me? I don't have an idea of what you are talking about.

I'm from Britain. Do you care to enlighten me? I don't have an idea of what you are talking about.

spacedog1973

Americans think we have death panels and terrible services remember? The people on the TV said so, so it must be true.

I'm from Britain. Do you care to enlighten me? I don't have an idea of what you are talking about.

spacedog1973

I guess you better watch the news, then.

[QUOTE="spacedog1973"]

I'm from Britain. Do you care to enlighten me? I don't have an idea of what you are talking about.

airshocker

I guess you better watch the news, then.

Maybe you could tell me? Or can't you?

[QUOTE="spacedog1973"]

I'm from Britain. Do you care to enlighten me? I don't have an idea of what you are talking about.

AnnoyedDragon

Americans think we have death panels and terrible services remember? The people on the TV said so, so it must be true.

Ahh.... now it makes sense!!!! The US news!! A great source of information and educating the masses...

Maybe you could tell me? Or can't you?

spacedog1973

Why? I mean I could, but why? It's clear you wouldn't take anything I link seriously. Doesn't seem worth it to me when you can just google, or turn on the TV.

Ahh we are back to democrats winning on the simple campagian of 'Hey we are not republicans'.

[QUOTE="spacedog1973"]

Maybe you could tell me? Or can't you?

airshocker

Why? I mean I could, but why? It's clear you wouldn't take anything I link seriously. Doesn't seem worth it to me when you can just google, or turn on the TV.

Becasue you say something that you think you uinderstand and I want to know what that thing is given that I am living in the country you claim to know something about. Is that a problem or is the comment you raise weak in nature?

I say this because when a point is made, it need to be backed up. You say 'i think we all know what is happening there', well, I consider myself one of the 'we' in that quote and I would be better placed than you to understand what is going on in my own country.

The bottom line is, we are not comparable to the US in any way and its no use in maming a comparison between the US social system and ours. Your comparison was weak, unless of course you care to back up the statment. Who knows, you may have a source of information I am unaware of - it can happen - but i strongly doubt it in this instance.

Edit: we are comparable to the US in Some ways

Ahh we are back to democrats winning on the simple campagian of 'Hey we are not republicans'.

EasyStreet

Naw, it doesn't boil down like that. Actually, where did you even draw that idea from? This is a Republican talking this non-sense, no Democrat involved.

I can't support a program that increases the size of government and ignores the underlying problem: We aren't getting enough revenue from corporations that can afford it. I think we can achieve the same thing---or deam near enough---by fixing our tax code.

airshocker

I think conservative resistance to and fear ofthe growth and/or use of government is in many cases unfounded. The size of government is a NON-ISSUE. It is the government's purpose and use that is the issue, if it's raw sizewerethe issue conservatives should be pleading to bust these corporate trusts to increase competition. The only way to properly help out small business is to create specific guidelines meant to help only small fry businesses and to prevent the anti-competitive activities of big wig corporations.

Sidenote: I still don't get why you like Perry. Many of the things you don't like are on his record.