ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
I agree that there should be a way to reduce benefits encouraging people to work what they can until they reach some level. Of course that opens a completely new can of worms.
I think there should be a base level of healthcare, food and shelter available to all. If you want to exist at that base level...have at it but it will be a spartan life. Any and all work raises you above that level.

I'm generally in the group that would say all government welfare is bad....but since welfare has been with us for generations, change will have to come slowly. If you take benefits from people cold-turkey, it's not a safe assumption that most of them will find or even seek jobs. They are more likely to steal from the rest of us or become involved in other illegal/money producing activities.

I don't have a problem with a base level of provision, but the base level should be spartan at best....with the purpose being only to sustain life. Food provided shoulld be dried beans, potatoes, flour, cornmeal, eggs some sort of soybean meat substitute, dried milk, etc. No frozen foods. No convenience foods. No softdrinks, coffee, tea, kool-aide, candy, cakes, sweets of any kind, alcohol, tobacco, etc... Allow them to keep these benefits as long as the family income is less than $15K. Reduce 10% of all gov benefits for every $1K they make above $15K. That would give many an incentive to pursue a better life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: warrior-cat
Woman says Obama let her print money at home

A woman from Kingsport, Tennessee told police that she was counterfeiting currency because she had read online that President Barack Obama had created a new law making it legal for her to print her own money, according to a report. . . .


. . . .“I don’t give a s**t, all these other b*****s get to print money, so I can too,” she told police when she was subsequently placed under arrest, the report said.

http://rt.com/usa/273682-counterfeit-money-blames-obama/

Note: this is a real news story, not from The Onion.
 
Will America ever have another one?...I am a Republican and I say no...the left has been successful in creating a welfare state thru illegal immigration and other methods and I don't think it can ever be reversed...I am an older American and fear what kind of country my kids and gkids are going to be living in 25 years...

I think this is the last shot. If the GOP loses the white house this election, its all over. For their party and the nation. Its already near a point of no return, if it isnt already. The handouts, and pandering to illegals will be too much for this country to recover. And itll be all downhill further from here if the Dems win again.

Plus any reversal of handouts will be tough, and will have to be gradual. Plus it will basically be political suicide for any Repub living in a poor state, and basically any Dem.

Thats why I think Trump must win if this nation has any hope. Not that I think hes a great candidate. Not at all. Hes the only candidate that can make these politically suicidal changes, because hes the only candidate that isnt a career politician. Anyone else, no matter the party, wont do it because theyll be concerned with politics. Rand maybe the other possibility. But Im not so sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drawing_dead
Oh good a "monumental" nuclear deal with Iran. You know, the deal where we get to inspect their sites and they get to continue nuclear "research". Oh wait....this is the same deal we've made 2 or 3 times prior and they NEVER ive up to their end of the bargain. We've been negotiating against ourselves the entire time, knowing theyll never follow through.

Oh and they get to keep our citizens wrongfully imprisoned.

WHAT A DEAL!
 
I think this is the last shot. If the GOP loses the white house this election, its all over. For their party and the nation. Its already near a point of no return, if it isnt already. The handouts, and pandering to illegals will be too much for this country to recover. And itll be all downhill further from here if the Dems win again.

Plus any reversal of handouts will be tough, and will have to be gradual. Plus it will basically be political suicide for any Repub living in a poor state, and basically any Dem.

Thats why I think Trump must win if this nation has any hope. Not that I think hes a great candidate. Not at all. Hes the only candidate that can make these politically suicidal changes, because hes the only candidate that isnt a career politician. Anyone else, no matter the party, wont do it because theyll be concerned with politics. Rand maybe the other possibility. But Im not so sure.
Right, because only a Republican can fix this mess and by Republican, you mean Donald F'ing Trump. I mean those last 8 years they were in office was so awesome and everything. What a hoot, reads like an Onion piece.
 
Woman says Obama let her print money at home

A woman from Kingsport, Tennessee told police that she was counterfeiting currency because she had read online that President Barack Obama had created a new law making it legal for her to print her own money, according to a report. . . .


. . . .“I don’t give a s**t, all these other b*****s get to print money, so I can too,” she told police when she was subsequently placed under arrest, the report said.

http://rt.com/usa/273682-counterfeit-money-blames-obama/

Note: this is a real news story, not from The Onion.

** Breaking News **

National Debt Increases Just $8 Trillion Dollars Under Obama

** Film at Eleven **
 
When I read studies that say Obama SoTU speeches are given at a 6th grade reading level I think of the catdaddies of the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drawing_dead
Right, because only a Republican can fix this mess and by Republican, you mean Donald F'ing Trump. I mean those last 8 years they were in office was so awesome and everything. What a hoot, reads like an Onion piece.
I can guarantee you one thing, there is not one politician running that is going to fix it. Either party. You admit its a mess which means you agree Obama has failed as well. You think Clinton is the answer and I would say you and your party mates are about as high as you were when you elected Obama. This coming from someone who knew Bush would be a disaster when he was "elected" in 2000 (everyone seems to forget how he got elected which was the voting fiasco in FL. Guess who was the Governor of FL at that time).

Obama and the rest of Washington are bought and paid for by lobbyist and donors. Same goes for Congress. It will take someone like a Trump who has nothing to lose politically and is wealthy beyond imagination who may have the guts to make the decisions Obama and others before him would not make. The big sticking point is can someone like a Trump somehow figure out how to crack the code of getting Congress to compromise and make decisions that are not popular. IMO, highly doubt it.

What the country has been electing has not worked. Maybe its about time folks think outside the box a little. Carson is not getting enough discussion and he is a well accomplished person in his own right. Carly is another.

BTW, this is not an endorsement of Trump. I just like the way he is going at the hard subjects that the other politicians refuse to discuss and has mad both them and the media talk about tough subjects (being illegal immigration right now).
 
Right, because only a Republican can fix this mess and by Republican, you mean Donald F'ing Trump. I mean those last 8 years they were in office was so awesome and everything. What a hoot, reads like an Onion piece.

Congrats on not reading my entire post. Or some attempt at a strawman.

I said noone from either party can fix it, except maybe Trump. And the reason I think Trump MAY be able to fix it has nothing to do with party affiliation. Its because the fixes are political suicide, he isnt a career politician, so hed be willing to make the tough choices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drawing_dead
What Democrat will fix this mess then CatDaddy?
It's gonna take both parties to fix this mess. I have faith in none of them. Not planning on voting in 2016 or any other year until there's actually someone worth voting for.

I liked ole Bill but I will not be voting for Hillary, ever, for anything. Yet I feel like Hillary would definitely do a better job than Donald Trump would. Rick Santorum would do a better job than Trump would. All he'd do is go around getting us involved in more wars and line his and his friends pockets. He's the classic Mr. Burns type who hates poor people and pretty much anyone who isn't in his color palette.

And bigblueinsanity, own your insanity, don't try to walk it back.
 
Congrats on not reading my entire post. Or some attempt at a strawman.

I said noone from either party can fix it, except maybe Trump. And the reason I think Trump MAY be able to fix it has nothing to do with party affiliation. Its because the fixes are political suicide, he isnt a career politician, so hed be willing to make the tough choices.
It wouldn't matter if insert president name here were willing to commit political suicide. He/She would also require at a minimum of 51 senators and 218 representatives also willing to commit political suicide along with them.
 
For those of you thinking our fiscal problems can be solved through welfare reform, think again. The pie diagram below shows where we spend money. The entire pie is about $3.5 Trillion. As you can see what they refer to as safety net programs (welfare) only represents 11% and funding for these programs have to be annually appropriated by congress. On the other hand social security, Medicare and Medicaid gobble up over half of the budget and are "mandated" expenses, which means congress does not fund them annually, they are automatically funded on an OPEN ENDED basis. The more recipients grow the more money we spend and congress cannot stop it except through legislation that modifies these programs.

As I have said before social security can be funded by some minor changes in eligibility age and lifting the upper limit of wages on which contributions are based, however the other piece is uncontrollable without instituting caps on benefits. On its present track we will need all of our revenue just to cover these programs and nothing else in the not to distant future.

Which politician has the courage to address this issue?



policybasics-wheretaxdollarsgo-f1.png
 
Thank god Defense has come along to lecture everyone on where the federal government should save money. The guy who led the "throw grandma over a cliff" brigade on Catspause, along with being one of the biggest supporters of the Obamacare and every dollar of federal spending and medicaid expansion that came with it.

But please, Defense, maybe you could tell us which politicians your prophecies show are going to have the courage to address that issue. We all know you'll be working for the campaign of the candidate that's going to do the exact opposite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drawing_dead
It wouldn't matter if insert president name here were willing to commit political suicide. He/She would also require at a minimum of 51 senators and 218 representatives also willing to commit political suicide along with them.

Probably. But they may be more willing to do it if they see POTUS is.

For those of you thinking our fiscal problems can be solved through welfare reform, think again. The pie diagram below shows where we spend money. The entire pie is about $3.5 Trillion. As you can see what they refer to as safety net programs (welfare) only represents 11% and funding for these programs have to be annually appropriated by congress. On the other hand social security, Medicare and Medicaid gobble up over half of the budget and are "mandated" expenses, which means congress does not fund them annually, they are automatically funded on an OPEN ENDED basis. The more recipients grow the more money we spend and congress cannot stop it except through legislation that modifies these programs.

As I have said before social security can be funded by some minor changes in eligibility age and lifting the upper limit of wages on which contributions are based, however the other piece is uncontrollable without instituting caps on benefits. On its present track we will need all of our revenue just to cover these programs and nothing else in the not to distant future.

Which politician has the courage to address this issue?



policybasics-wheretaxdollarsgo-f1.png

The entire social security system needs an overhaul. Its creation was the most devastating piece of legislation in American history.

The only politician that MAY have the courage to attempt change, would be a non career politician, or probably a group of them. Otherwise, expect more can kicking.
 
In what world is Medicaid not considered a "safety net" program?

Still searching for that world. Without Medicaid here in Florida, old people would be up shit creek without a paddle.

The amount allowable to qualify for Medicaid in Florida is $2K a month.
 
The entire social security system needs an overhaul. Its creation was the most devastating piece of legislation in American history.
LMAO, just because politicians have decided to do nothing to shore up social security since the 80s, doesn't mean it hasn't been a huge success. It's kept millions of seniors out of poverty over the years...not everyone wants to invest in the stock market or has a pension plan. I'd also think that Jim Crowe laws, prohibition, mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenders, just to name a few, would have been a bit higher.
 
LMAO, just because politicians have decided to do nothing to shore up social security since the 80s, doesn't mean it hasn't been a huge success. It's kept millions of seniors out of poverty over the years...not everyone wants to invest in the stock market or has a pension plan.

Um, what?
"Don't feel like saving for retirement? Great. Here's a giant government program you can rely on instead of being responsible. Now, instead of actually saving for yourself, the US government can take your money now and give it to other retirees. Then when you retire, just hope there's enough people still working in the shitty economy to support your retirement. If not, well hopefully the US can still borrow the money from China to keep the Ponzi scheme going."



It's an absolute failure of a program. If you're smart, you act like it doesn't exist anymore. I know I will never see a dime of the money I've "paid in". But, you can't change the program at this point or the Ponzi scheme will fail. Social Security is nothing but another income tax on my generation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drawing_dead
LMAO, just because politicians have decided to do nothing to shore up social security since the 80s, doesn't mean it hasn't been a huge success. It's kept millions of seniors out of poverty over the years...not everyone wants to invest in the stock market or has a pension plan. I'd also think that Jim Crowe laws, prohibition, mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenders, just to name a few, would have been a bit higher.

The difference - all those can be, and most have been, overturned/undone with relative ease.

This one probably cant, even if someone tried now. If it isn't done in the next few years, theres no way of turning back.
 
Um, what?
"Don't feel like saving for retirement? Great. Here's a giant government program you can rely on instead of being responsible. Now, instead of actually saving for yourself, the US government can take your money now and give it to other retirees. Then when you retire, just hope there's enough people still working in the shitty economy to support your retirement. If not, well hopefully the US can still borrow the money from China to keep the Ponzi scheme going."



It's an absolute failure of a program. If you're smart, you act like it doesn't exist anymore. I know I will never see a dime of the money I've "paid in". But, you can't change the program at this point or the Ponzi scheme will fail. Social Security is nothing but another income tax on my generation.

And this points out a very basic, but very large difference in conservative and liberal thinking.

Liberals believe someone else should be responsible for an individuals poor choices. Conservatives think the individual should be responsible for their own poor choices.
 
I can guarantee you one thing, there is not one politician running that is going to fix it. Either party. You admit its a mess which means you agree Obama has failed as well. You think Clinton is the answer and I would say you and your party mates are about as high as you were when you elected Obama. This coming from someone who knew Bush would be a disaster when he was "elected" in 2000 (everyone seems to forget how he got elected which was the voting fiasco in FL. Guess who was the Governor of FL at that time).

Obama and the rest of Washington are bought and paid for by lobbyist and donors. Same goes for Congress. It will take someone like a Trump who has nothing to lose politically and is wealthy beyond imagination who may have the guts to make the decisions Obama and others before him would not make. The big sticking point is can someone like a Trump somehow figure out how to crack the code of getting Congress to compromise and make decisions that are not popular. IMO, highly doubt it.

What the country has been electing has not worked. Maybe its about time folks think outside the box a little. Carson is not getting enough discussion and he is a well accomplished person in his own right. Carly is another.

BTW, this is not an endorsement of Trump. I just like the way he is going at the hard subjects that the other politicians refuse to discuss and has mad both them and the media talk about tough subjects (being illegal immigration right now).
I am wondering if Trump is not in it for that purpose alone and does not really care if he wins or not. You know, shake it up a bit to make people aware of what is going on.
 
It's gonna take both parties to fix this mess. I have faith in none of them. Not planning on voting in 2016 or any other year until there's actually someone worth voting for.

I liked ole Bill but I will not be voting for Hillary, ever, for anything. Yet I feel like Hillary would definitely do a better job than Donald Trump would. Rick Santorum would do a better job than Trump would. All he'd do is go around getting us involved in more wars and line his and his friends pockets. He's the classic Mr. Burns type who hates poor people and pretty much anyone who isn't in his color palette.

And bigblueinsanity, own your insanity, don't try to walk it back.
No way would Hillary do better. She lies at every turn, Trump does not. He says what's on his mind regardless of the PC police. Damn the torpedoe's, full speed ahead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drawing_dead
The appeal of Trump is that he's speaks his mind and doesn't care about the PC police. Probably too loose of a cannon to be a good POTUS I'm afraid.

Somebody has to stop the welfare state and get us on a budget somehow. Raising taxes isn't the answer, which stifles the economy. Both parties have to see these things, but they don't care, they just want to get re-elected. Founding fathers should have implemented terms limits on everything from the very beginning.
 
Some people are talking sense!

See, I thought Rand was that guy. Turns out he's a pussy. IMHO. He should be out here like trump, but he knows (and is right) that he will be labeled even crazier than what he already is, and he would be run off. Trump already has a career. He doesn't need to be a pussy. Rand needs/wants to be a politician, so he'll play the game like a good boy.


Anyway, doesn't make this election any less sad. It's very sad. F'n Trump.

I do think we'll see this "Hollywood politician" stuff become more popular, and I'm all for it. If nothing else, it's change. No politician today will bring us change because they need their job. We need politicians that have other jobs because like dude up there said, your job as a politician is to stfu and do what the money people (people like trump...) tell you to do. You're just a scape goat.
 
And this points out a very basic, but very large difference in conservative and liberal thinking.

Liberals believe someone else should be responsible for an individuals poor choices. Conservatives think the individual should be responsible for their own poor choices.
Except when it comes to morality, drugs, alcohol, beliefs, history. Then we'll tell you what you can and can't do.

I am all for personal responsibility as are most Americans. Not sure what that has to do with social security since it's for people who actually work. It helps protect children, spouses, the disabled, minorities and retirees. Nearly half of those over 65 would be in poverty without social security. It's overwhelmingly popular by both Democrats and Republicans. By any measure, it is the most successful program ever enacted by the US government.

Again, had politicians actually done something about social security it would not be on the path it is now. With some tweaking even now, it would be solvent for the next 75+ years.

For those who are able to save for their retirement, SS is a nice supplement that they earned over their lifetime. I'm planning on having reduced benefits but it will be there in one form or another for quite awhile.

I'd love to know all the people who didn't get their SS since it's such a ponzi scheme.
 
So we could cut that SS spending by offing old people! That would also help the medicare/caid spending too. Not sure what's taking so long.
 
Except when it comes to morality, drugs, alcohol, beliefs, history. Then we'll tell you what you can and can't do.

This doesn't even make sense. Conservatives don't favor punishing individuals who commit crime? New to me.

I am all for personal responsibility as are most Americans. Not sure what that has to do with social security since it's for people who actually work. It helps protect children, spouses, the disabled, minorities and retirees. Nearly half of those over 65 would be in poverty without social security. It's overwhelmingly popular by both Democrats and Republicans. By any measure, it is the most successful program ever enacted by the US government.

The government should protect and provide for children or the ACTUALLY disabled, who cant provide for themselves. Everyone else - no. Spouses? Minorities? Why should this have anything to do with money?

Again, had politicians actually done something about social security it would not be on the path it is now. With some tweaking even now, it would be solvent for the next 75+ years.

The problem isn't only the law, its the policy. For many, its more financially advantageous to not work, than to work. That's a problem with a huge domino effect, one of which being more people on the teet, and draining our nations financial resources.

I'd love to know all the people who didn't get their SS since it's such a ponzi scheme.

You obviously have no idea what a Ponzi scheme is, and should probably just stop talking.
 
Probably. But they may be more willing to do it if they see POTUS is.



The entire social security system needs an overhaul. Its creation was the most devastating piece of legislation in American history.

The only politician that MAY have the courage to attempt change, would be a non career politician, or probably a group of them. Otherwise, expect more can kicking.

The concept was good but the way it was structurally financed - like a ponzi scheme was bad. Had it been funded properly from the getgo it would have been OK, but social security is not going anywhere. The good news is, it could self fund for the next 50 years if we would make minor changes like raise the qualification age 1 or 2 years and increase the salary cap by about $10,000.

On the list of fiscal issues this one ranks as probably the easiest to resolve IMO.
 
On the list of fiscal issues this one ranks as probably the easiest to resolve IMO.

Logistically, the finances can be solved. We can print more, borrow more, etc. Itll all work, on paper.

But to solve the real problem, the policy behind rewarding apathy, is nearly impossible politically. Its political suicide.
 
And this points out a very basic, but very large difference in conservative and liberal thinking.

Liberals believe someone else should be responsible for an individuals poor choices. Conservatives think the individual should be responsible for their own poor choices.
Conservatives today don't know or don't understand the utter poverty that millions lived before Social Security.
First, Social Security was never meant to be a retirement program. It is a supplement to retirement. If you are retired and living only on Social Security you're not going to be doing much other than getting by.
Second, market crashes aren't the fault of individuals...nor are droughts that result in farmers losing their farms, economic conditions that result in businesses closing that in turn devalues one's assets at the same time robbing them of their income. There are many factors that can result in one's economic demise that aren't the result of "bad choices". If you are young you may have the opportunity to overcome those strokes of bad luck, not so if they happen to you when you are older.

There is a reason that every industrialized, non third-world country in the world has programs similar to Social Security. Perhaps you should move to one of those third world nations and fend for yourself. The rest of the civilized world has determined that it is better for all to cast safety nets that help assist those least capable of helping themselves because history has taught us that shit happens.
 
The concept was good but the way it was structurally financed - like a ponzi scheme was bad. Had it been funded properly from the getgo it would have been OK, but social security is not going anywhere. The good news is, it could self fund for the next 50 years if we would make minor changes like raise the qualification age 1 or 2 years and increase the salary cap by about $10,000.

On the list of fiscal issues this one ranks as probably the easiest to resolve IMO.
When Social Security was founded the life expectancy was 59 years...you had to be 62 to collect. Life expectancy today is nearly 79 years.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT