all 11 comments

[–]MagicMike 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

99% of politicians give the rest a bad name.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

99% of politicians give the rest a bad name.

Saved!

I want to make that into stickers and a T-shirt.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Ferretman 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

    This is of course false.

    The debt ceiling proposal has zero....repeat, no..cuts to social security.

    There have been proposals to raise the age to start social security to 70, and/or to allow (not force) recipients to invest part of their social security into some kind of 401K. There are rational cases to be made for either and/or both.

    Neither of those are by any definition a "cut".

    The more you know....

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]Ferretman 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      You're cherry-picking from those reports; none of those are law or likely to be.

      Taxes on the wealthy is a fool's game and shows a lack of understanding of the economy. Bernie Sanders said "taxes on millionaires", until he became one--then magically he started saying "taxes on billionaires". What would you personally consider to be "the welathy"?

      If "the wealthy" (which includes Biden by the way) want to they are welcome to send extra taxes to the IRS. They have a website and everything to accept them and would gladly take their money.

      I'll bet dollars to donuts they don't exercise that option.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]Ferretman 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        You're moving the goalposts and tossing out new grievances to get mad about, not sticking to the subject. First you said Republicans want to cut social security and when that was shown to not be the case you moved to "tax the wealthy". I'm still waiting for your definition of what "the wealthy" is. We know that Bernie's, for example, is a bit "fluid".

        The Republicans have no serious proposal on the table to cut social security. As I noted, there's a case to be made that some changes do need to be made (particularly raising the active age to 70), but there's nothing being voted on. I consider such proposals no more consequential than when Biden wanted to stop all social security payments (which he has proposed at least twice).

        To speak of your new goalpost items:

        Trump's tax cuts were a good first step and of course would have been followed up. You'll be happy to hear to much of them will expire in 2024 or 2026, I believe, unless they are re-voted.

        I'll cut aid to Israel if you'll cut aid to Ukraine....fair trade?

        The "rich" don't typically get welfare, other than social security. I do actually think that's not right and such monies should not be paid, however that's not the way the law actually reads. Should it? Probably. Congress can fix that...let me know how it goes.

        Can you expand on the "tax money to charter/religious" schools assertion? I want to make sure I'm looking at the right thing.

        Stopping offshore tax havens would be an interesting move....I'd have to read more about it. I doubt you'd get what you would want though....it wouldn't happen immediately, and if there's a (say, one year) run up before implementation you'd have "the wealthy" moving all of their stuff to other countries or venues where they can't be taxed. Rather like Obama's attempt to put a "wealth tax" on construction of private yachts, the wealthy just moved their business to other countries....it got rescinded a few years later.

        I'll give you credit for engaging though, kudos.

        [–]MagicMike 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Roosevelt wanted to do something like this but Dems shut it down. He also wanted to make benefits partially inheritable. Imagine how wealthy the country would be if a steady stream of capital flowed into the markets. We’d make Switzerland look like the poor neighbors.

        [–]Drewski[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        The moment it's their priorities they'll spend like drunken sailors on shore leave.

        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]Ferretman 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          Dude, already disproven....there are no such bilsl regarding Social Security or Medicaid on the table.

          But hey, you keep on keeping on, okay?

          [–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          Member when the Democrats shut down the government for 1.5 years under Trump, in efforts to hamstring the country under his presidency, using a lame politicized issue as an excuse?

          Then they were forced to keep just the essentials of government going, with bipartisan legislation allowing temporary stopgap measures, such as funding hurricane relief and education.

          Deceptive reporting today, pretends that bipartisan legislation for stopgaps, while under the Democrats' neck stomp, was actually "Republicans increasing the debt limit without spending cuts."

          Later, after hurting the country for the last two years, Democrats again blackmailed the country for partisan pork in the budget, threatening to shutdown the government and default. This resulted in a budget bill named "bipartisan", but which was not at all, it was 'blackmailed partisan,' like everything with "bipartisan" in the bill's name.

          The same trick worked for the first pandemic relief funds. They were recklessly excessive and responsible legislators worried about long term economic impact.. yet republicans were mostly on board for large relief funds including checks...but blackmailing Democrats blocked the Republican senate bill everyone agreed on, with a last minute nod from Pelosi herself. Democratic house members took the same bill, packet it with contentious partisan pork, then lamented for a news cycle or two how Republicans were blocking Covid relief. After propagandizing Covid relief, and hurting the country to trick people into thinking the relief was all from Democrats, in the first of many efforts to buy the next election, they removed the contentious pork after delaying much needed relief a week or more for politics, then of course, the now back to the same Republican bill, sailed through Congress.

          [–]Drewski[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          I remember when Republican and Democratic governors alike locked down their states in blatant violation of the Constitution. I also remember when Trump criticized Georgia governor Brian Kemp for reopening his state "too soon", and pushed his fast-tracked vaccine on the American people.

          I'll grant that Republicans are nominally better on certain issues, or at least they pay lip service to those ends. When it comes to passing the budget, military spending, spying on the American people and violating their rights, they may do some political theatre in opposition but at the end of the day they all come together in a grand show of "partisanship" and pass the bill together.