More hope less change. by QuestionableQuestionality

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Isn't this exactly what every tea-bagging republican is running on?

They're running on a platform of cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, and outright doing away with Social Security completely, so it's more than just a little bit hypocritical to whine about this.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 2:05 AM

BLUEHANDEDMENACE

U beat me to it Kwicko.

Anyone remember back in the Bush years when he passed complete corporate handouts like the prescription drug bill? Several hundred billion straight to about 4 drug companies bottom lines...

but yeah, lets complain about a president struggling with the social security question...the biggest entitlement program, and most difficult spending question we will face in the next twenty years.

I wonder what will happen to it if conservatives, or god forbid the Tea Party, got ahold of the purse strings.

Ive got another of those simple questions...what happens when u cut taxes, and dont have enough money to even continue the current payments?

How do u cut spending across the board and keep paying out to grandma and grandpa? (Oh and the baby boomers are all retiring, so the costs are going way up, even if the freeze continues)

I havent heard a single coherent economic argument from any righty on HOW the government is suppossed to do any or all this?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 3:07 AM

No. Not one teabagger is running on dicking our seniors. Sure, most are running on phasing out a broken system(which has to happen) and finding a new way(too many approaches to discuse here). But what does any of that have to do with what THIS administration is doing? Seems like deflection to me.

Why can't anyone defend this president without saying "look over there"?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 3:21 AM

Quote:
Why can't anyone defend this president without saying "look over there"?

Probably for the same reasons that others can't applaud him when he does EXACTLY what their own candidates are promising to do.

John Boehner outright said that he wants to raise the retirement age and cut benefits, thereby "dicking" those exact same seniors you say nobody is planning on dicking. Several others have run on a campaign promise of abolishing Social Security altogether. To claim that not one candidate is running on such a platform is to show how ignorant you truly are.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 3:26 AM

BLUEHANDEDMENACE

Quote:

Why can't anyone defend this president without saying "look over there"?

Why cant anyone defend a Tea Bagger position without lying?

once again Kwicko is on the money.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 3:29 AM

John Boehner(is it pronounced Boner) is a jerk and I don't think he is a tea-bagger. The retirement age should be raised. Americans are living longer and longer every decade. How can we pay for people not to work for 30-40 yrs? I don't think it is financially possible even if we all wanted to.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 3:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace:
Quote:

Why can't anyone defend this president without saying "look over there"?

Why cant anyone defend a Tea Bagger position without lying?

once again Kwicko is on the money.

Actually, he deflected again. Answering a question with a question is usually an indication. I call it QuestionableQuestionality.

I was wrong. Kwicko answered. You did not.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 3:34 AM

BLUEHANDEDMENACE

Actually I agree that the age does need to be raised eventually.

There is no way we can continue to pay out the way we are now....but this is a problem over decades, not something that should be tackled during the back end of the worst economic situation we have faced since at miniumum the 70s, if not the 30s.

We need to actually take the time to hash out how to fix this program, as its eating into a larger portion of our budget every year.

plenty of the tea party heroes are on record about slashing govt programs however. It is extremely disengenous to suggest otherwise, or downright dishonest. But I wouldnt pretend to know your intentions :)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 5:51 AM

OPPYH

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace:
Actually I agree that the age does need to be raised eventually.

There is no way we can continue to pay out the way we are now....but this is a problem over decades, not something that should be tackled during the back end of the worst economic situation we have faced since at miniumum the 70s, if not the 30s.

We need to actually take the time to hash out how to fix this program, as its eating into a larger portion of our budget every year.

I would work until I'm 70. Actually that's a bad idea. I'd kill myself first.
There are alternatives rather than make people work until their efficiency is for shit.

----------------------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 5:52 AM

OPPYH

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace:

Why cant anyone defend a Tea Bagger position without lying?

What's a tea bagger?

----------------------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 5:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by QuestionableQuestionality:
John Boehner(is it pronounced Boner) is a jerk and I don't think he is a tea-bagger. The retirement age should be raised. Americans are living longer and longer every decade. How can we pay for people not to work for 30-40 yrs? I don't think it is financially possible even if we all wanted to.

So you agree with the President not giving out more money to old folks, in other words. Right?

Or do you only DISAGREE with it because he's a Democrat?

You're contradicting yourself.

By the way, if there were a "fair tax" put into place on the Social Security payroll taxes (Social Security payouts dont't come from your federal income tax payments), AND if the politicians on both sides of the aisle would stop raiding the Social Security trust fund (which currently sits at over 2.5 TRILLION dollars), the system would be fine.

But you wouldn't be able to run on abolishing a system then, would you? In typical neo-con fashion, you want to irretrievably break the system in order to prove that it doesn't work.

You tea-baggers are not one iota different from the neo-cons who created you, and whose ranks you filled just a few years ago. It's really cute to hear you try to tell us how different you really are.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 5:58 AM

A tea bagger is a term used by liberals to moniker people in the tea party movement. They use it because it was a term that discribed dunking a person's balls in another's mouth. The irony is it has always been used by bigots as a gay-bashing term. That the liberal media and supporters use it in a negative way is odd. Tolerance?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 6:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by QuestionableQuestionality:
John Boehner(is it pronounced Boner) is a jerk and I don't think he is a tea-bagger. The retirement age should be raised. Americans are living longer and longer every decade. How can we pay for people not to work for 30-40 yrs? I don't think it is financially possible even if we all wanted to.

So you agree with the President not giving out more money to old folks, in other words. Right?

Or do you only DISAGREE with it because he's a Democrat?

You're contradicting yourself.

By the way, if there were a "fair tax" put into place on the Social Security payroll taxes (Social Security payouts dont't come from your federal income tax payments), AND if the politicians on both sides of the aisle would stop raiding the Social Security trust fund (which currently sits at over 2.5 TRILLION dollars), the system would be fine.

But you wouldn't be able to run on abolishing a system then, would you? In typical neo-con fashion, you want to irretrievably break the system in order to prove that it doesn't work.

You tea-baggers are not one iota different from the neo-cons who created you, and whose ranks you filled just a few years ago. It's really cute to hear you try to tell us how different you really are.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

No. I think we have to live with our promises. I do feel we have to redefine what those promises are for future seniors. bParty affiliation has zero to do with it. This is a national problem and the two major parties are lost. Why is it always about the two dominant parties? What about the majority that belong to neither?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 6:42 AM

STORYMARK

So, who's sock puppet is this questioning fella?

Have to assume it is one, since there seems to be no posting history, but they refer to past posts. Hmmm....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 7:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
So, who's sock puppet is this questioning fella?

Have to assume it is one, since there seems to be no posting history, but they refer to past posts. Hmmm....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

And that is why you are a horrible person. Assume. makes an ASS of U

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 7:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by QuestionableQuestionality:
A tea bagger is a term used by liberals to moniker people in the tea party movement. They use it because it was a term that discribed dunking a person's balls in another's mouth. The irony is it has always been used by bigots as a gay-bashing term. That the liberal media and supporters use it in a negative way is odd. Tolerance?

"Tea-Baggers" are what the Tea Party followers called themselves originally. Now they get upset when people use their own term to refer to them.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 7:24 AM

http://www.blueindiana.net/diary/4750/todd-young-on-social-security-it
s-a-ponzi-scheme

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
So, who's sock puppet is this questioning fella?

Have to assume it is one, since there seems to be no posting history, but they refer to past posts. Hmmm....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

A hint: he "shelved" one of his other sockpuppets, allegedly "forever".

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 7:34 AM

STORYMARK

Yeah, kinda figured.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 2:57 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

A) The Tea Party ITSELF began using “tea bagger”, until they realized what it meant and were embarrassed about it. THEY put it out there, there should be no surprise their opponents picked up on it for a while.

B) Neither the liberal media nor any other has used the phrase “tea bagger” since shortly after that whole debacle. Only people on the internet and perhaps some very low-class pundits use it. The joke was on the tea partiers, it was a small joke, it passed.

Quote:
if the politicians on both sides of the aisle would stop raiding the Social Security trust fund (which currently sits at over 2.5 TRILLION dollars), the system would be fine.

There’s the crux of the matter, when it comes down to it. IF they hadn’t been consistently raiding it, it would have accrued interest as it was supposed to all these years, and be In fine shape today...and would have swung pendulum-fashion with each increase and decrease in population. Can’t go backwards, unfortunately...

But to say the Republicans don’t want to dick seniors, middle class, poor, disabled, etc., is to lie outright. They have been against virtually anything that would benefit those groups for many, many years. They’ve been working at getting rid of Social Security and Medicare for literally decades. Their candidates have been mealy-mouthed about it, but if you push, they say that “eventually” we have to get away from the system. “Eventually” they want privatization. Check out “Twelve Reasons Why Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea” - http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503 – for an excellent breakdown on that point.

The only point that NEEDS to be made is, if we currently had privatized Social Security and Medicare, where would the vast majority of retiring or disabled Americans stand, with their MANDATORY retirement accounts invested in the market?? I can tell you, since our only non-Social-Security income is in our retirement accounts, which have taken one HELL of a hit. Our old age—forget “retirement”!—is going to be very painful, and we’ve been pretty frugal, paid our house off decades ago and don’t use ANY credit. How about those not as lucky as us??

As to specific candidates:

Quote:
Republican Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan wants to eliminate Medicare altogether and replace it with some vouchers seniors can use to buy health insurance with a new Republican sponsored plan (H.R. 4529) called a Roadmap for America’s Future.

http://www.americaforpurchase.com/republicans/republican-privatization
-to-eliminate-medicare-and-social-security/ (Same plan, by the way, that Bush tried to push in 2005 and failed)

Quote:
Jesse Kelly, who won the Republican primary in Arizona's 8th Congressional District described Social Security as “the biggest pyramid scheme in history"”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-social-security-2
0100929,0,7966788.story (He backtracked afterwards, vowing to "honor our commitment to seniors

Sharon Angle can speak for herself:

She also said during a radio interview in May that the only room for argument was one of implementation and the timeline: "The idea of privatizing and getting out of Medicare and Social Security is not up for grabs."

Todd Young calls Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.” If you haven’t seen the clip, it’s at

Quote:
Todd Young is incredibly incoherent and unclear in this clip as to what the hell he actually thinks about Social Security. He's vaguely against privatization, but he also thinks it's necessary, and he also wants to transfer federal powers (see: Social Security) to the states, but he also wants to preserve solvency.

Quote:
Minnesota Republican Michele Bachmann told the Constitutional Coalition’s annual conference in St. Louis that we should “wean” future generations off of Social Security and Medicare. She suggests reorganizing Social Security, presumably along the lines of a favorite conservative nostrum, i.e., partial privatization, with personal investment accounts for future retirees that could presumably increase the potential for growth. (Though what would happen in a market crash a la 2008-09 is not clear).

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/84037872.html

We could go on and on all day; that’s as much time as I’m willing to put into it. The Republicans have favored,a and worked toward, privatizing social security and Medicare for decades, that’s a fact; now, their less circumspect candidates feel they can speak out publicly about it, tho’ many of them are denying, backtracking and avoiding it.

Ah, Mike, thank you for the illumination. I can’t put money on it unless you can prove it, but the chronology makes sense, as does the far-less-visible posts of the “other”. Hey, if this persona wants to debate with less obscenity, that’s fine with me, in fact, it’d be a major improvement, as far as I’M concerned!.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 12:16 PM

DREAMTROVE

Really, Son of a Bitch. This actually sent me to call my mom and check: Yes, Obama means no COLA, and she's a big Obama supporter.

So, as for the Tea Party, this is nothing new: Conservatives oppose Soc. Sec. It's a terrible program. I actually wrote a plan for the RPUSA and submitted it to congress, a replacement plan. Any thinking person has a replacement plan.

Here are the major problems with Soc. Sec.

Issue #1. It's welfare for the rich. 2/3 of all dollars paid out go to households with assets of over a million dollars. That's just moronic.

Here's the defense of Soc. Sec. given by both parties to Issue #1:

"It's not a welfare program, it's an investment program"

Let me shoot down that defense with Issue's #2 and #3:

#2: If it's an investment program, it a Ponzi scheme. The dollars that go out come from the FICA taxes which were just taken in. That means the workers of today were taxed this past year to pay for the entitlement payments sent out, and 2/3 of that money went to millionares. The money came from the middle class, largely from workers who not only don't have a million dollars, their scheduled collection "retirement" dates are *after* the doomsday date for Soc. Sec., meaning they aren't guaranteed to get anything.

#3: The total avg. payout per person for those who paid in was 33 cents on the dollar not inflation adjusted. No interest accrued, the money just went down 67%. Now that's bad, but it gets worse: Adjusted for inflation, the payouts come to 3%-6% depending on when you put in your labor (more if it was later in life, that's sort of more random than fair). But when you *do* get something out, it's not a lump sum, it's dribbling amounts, so you aren't really ever getting your money back, you're getting interest on your money. So the basic investment scheme as it is supposed to work is: Pay now, and the average dollar put in will generate nothing for you for 20 years, in fact, it will lose 2/3 of its value, and then you'll start collecting interest, and the annual interest rate of, adjusted for inflation, get this: 0.1%.

So, you put in for 40 years, the avg $ is in there for 20 years, generation 0.0%, and then it goes up to 0.1%. That's what happens if they actually *fix* Soc. Sec. If they don't, it stays 0.0%. Oh, and an added kicker: You never ever can get your principle back. It doesn't get passed on to you kids either.

And, the final major flaw:

Issue #4

There's no protection to prevent the govt. from simply spending that money in the meantime on whatever they want. That's what's happened to the Soc. Sec. trust fund at least most of our lives. Every admin robs it to pay for their own spending excesses, usually corporate handouts to their buddies and wars in places we have no business sticking our business in.

So, there are lots of elegant solutions, but let's be honest with ourselves: What we are supposed to be doing is providing a safety net welfare system for the elderly poor. If we're going to do that, let's just do it. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than this one trillion dollar program.

There are 14 million elderly poor, meaning they have no major incomes or liquid assets. If you're poor, right now, Soc. Sec gives you a fairly measly $300/mo. That's $50.2 billion. Let's be nice, and double that, and then stick it in the budget. If you wanted, you could tax each citizen $1/day to pay for it. You could make it a toll, on commutes, parking spaces, whatever.

There's a million ways to do it.

Here's a way not to do: Let's tax the poor and middle working classes 20% of their salaries and then take 2/3 of that money and give it to the govt. to spend on wars and bailouts, and then give 2/3 of the remainder on welfare to the rich, let the rest rot for 20 years, and then dole pieces of it out to the poor. Does that sound like a terrible system? 'cause that's the system people are fighting to defend here. Ya might want to think about it. Jes saying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 12:34 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
I would work until I'm 70. Actually that's a bad idea. I'd kill myself first.
There are alternatives rather than make people work until their efficiency is for shit.

Rambo is still kicking fascist a*s at 63- why can't WE???

Love your avi, BTW.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 4:31 PM

QQ you are fantastic. I think you are a puppet. And I am sure I know whose.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 4:32 PM

SkidMark you are correct. Every conserevative is kaneman. Remember this on nov. 3rd

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:29 AM

QQ...check this out

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Applications-for-jobless-apf-647526260.h
tml?x=0&.v=2

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:29 AM

QQ how bout this

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69D0SF20101014

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:31 AM

QQ this....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39666662

I love change and hope...crickets?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
So, who's sock puppet is this questioning fella?

Have to assume it is one, since there seems to be no posting history, but they refer to past posts. Hmmm....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

November 2nd...only Kaneman is voting...Hilarious.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:12 AM