START A PETITION34,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
Group Discussions
Why the Democrats are Favored PART II
4 years ago

thread is too long, I put up Part II if anyone wants to post.


Like those last threads by Jim.

4 years ago

It all boils down to the GOP's assault on Social Security and Medicare.


These are NOT entitlements; the democrats did expand them and caused a lot of the mess in these programs which are paid for by the people who work as they are deducted from our paychecks.


The thought of privatization with Wall St. thugsters is a joke and the American people didn't fall for it when GWB tried pushing that during his presidency.


Social security and medicare were originally designed as safety nets for senior citizens but the democrats expanded these programs to include taking care of alcoholics, drug addicts and depressed clients.  They put it under soc.sec. disability and this expansion along with medicaid for the welfare clients has drained the system.


Along with the robbing of the social security funds by every president who NEVER put the monies back into it; everyone is guilty of ruining this program.


Now that the baby boomers are ready to retire, the GOP wants to label SS and Medicare as entitlements.  I am sick and tired of these loosers who try and dupe us with their bull shyte.  This is why Romney LOST and I can say it now as it took me a long time to figure it all out and the answers are quite simple and it doesn't take Einstein theorizing to explain it at all!!!


Put Paul Ryan in 2016 and the assault on these programs start all over again.  I will not trust the GOP on this issue!!!!  My opinion only and I will take a good hard look at any candidate, irregardless of party and really listen to their beliefs.   But, I guarantee that anyone of them considering an attack on these programs and cont. calling them entitlements will LOSE every time.

This post was modified from its original form on 08 Jan, 7:59
4 years ago
  • To tell the truth, I don't like the use of the word "entitlement" for Social Security either Sheila. Medicare is somewhat of a different story, as payouts would far greater than what we put in. But even in that, we did pay into the system. We should get something back. In the case of Social Security, we should get ALL of what was promised as the average American who retires at this point will not get back the amount of what they and their employers put in.
  • And you are correct. The politicians used the revenue as a piggy bank. Much of what they blew the money on was pork for their buddies. Notice that they aren't suggesting that government/congressional pensions be cut? In addition, the GOP is always complaining that the Democrats want to tax the dead through estate taxes. While that is true, it's hypocritical to say that and then want to go back in time and declare SS as being a tax for the general revenues instead of the retirement insurance program they sold it as.
  • Worse. The money used drove up prices. Medicare part D for example. Under this legislation, the government guaranteed high prices and margins for big pharma. Obama care does the same. And Obama care also extended the patents on drugs. Big pharma is the largest advertiser for the major media, so the media supports the government on this stuff. A lot of the costs in health care are because of cronyism and monopolies set up by the government in exchange for stuff the politicians and the political class/ political party's get in exchange. This drove up healthcare costs so much that it became unaffordable and the politicians moved in to come up with another way, not to pay for health care so much as to pay off the increasing demands of their crony's for more. Essentially, this is creeping Statism in action.
  • As far as paying off Social Security? As I said, we need to find ways to pay for it without wrecking the next generations prosperity. Foremost, we must reverse the cronyism in government and end the cycle of payoffs to the powerful in exchange for political office. Another way to pay off the obligation is to sell government assets. Currently, land owned by the federal government is often "leased" at a loss to powerful special interests. Other land and resources owned by the federal government is under utilized and wasted. These resources would be better used in private hands. The process of this would be set up to give first shot at conservation groups and those that wished to contribute their present and future SS to such would be allowed to do so. 

This post was modified from its original form on 08 Jan, 10:33
4 years ago

Jim:  I don't want privitaziation as I do NOT trust Wall St. at all; forget it and the American people will NOT go that route.  Social Security is not an entitlement.


I don't trust private ownership of Federal lands at all.  Let them lease it out and they are all crooks when they are in power, both parties.    Cronyism and pay-offs will never end because bad people run for office.  Until the voters demand better, they will get what the scum that runs and lies.  It is a game who lies best, wins the booty.

This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.

New to Care2? Start Here.