LOL.. So true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, yesterday you said that Romney is engaging in social darwinism by diminishing social security and medicare.

I asked you a very specific question, and instead of answering, you chose to hide. So I'll ask it again.

Spence, do you believe that Social Security and Medicare can continue ro exist if they are not "diminished"? If so, where does the $40 trillion come from that would be needed?

Who cares more about the safety net? Romney, who is trying to save it, or Obama, who isn't honest enough to admit the problem, and is willing to let the safety net collapse?

Perhaps he has realized, or has been forced to realize, that State government and Federal government have, constitutionally, different powers. Perhaps he believes that on social issues, State and local governments are more responsive to the "will of the people" in their different localities than a distant central government, and that the Constitution does not grant power over those social issues to the central government, but to the States and the people therein. Perhaps, he does not believe that it is the Central governments responsibility to redistribute benefits.

BINGO!

American Thinker- Print Article

spence? Oh, yoo-hoo, Spence! Yo, Spence!

I'm really, really excited about your proposal to fund Social Security and Medicare at current benefit levels! After all, you criticized Romnay for wanting to "diminish" those programs. Since you are critical of those who say we need to alter those programs in order to save them, you musttherefore have an alternative proposal, right?

Spence, don't keep me in suspense too long, OK?

:hidin: :huh: ;)

Spence? Anything to say?

Folks, at current benefit levels, SS and Medicare will run a deficit of at least $40 trillion dollars. That means we have 3 choices.

(1) we do nothing, and let those programs collapse under the weight of the Baby Boomers. This is what politicians of both parties have chosen to do for 50 years,but it's a lot easier to get re-elected if you don't talk about cutting htings.

(2) you raise taxes ti the point that we generate an additional $40 trillion in the next 5o years. That would require North-Korea tax levels, and it's not ever going to happen.

(3) we cut benefits to levels that we can afford to pay for. That's what Romney/Ryan are proposing (I don't know if their proposal is a good proposal, but it's a proposal that, as Spence says, diminishes teh benefits. Unfortunately, that's exactly what is required.

Obama (and most liberals) choose to attack Ryan and Romney for daring to proipose cutting these benefits. Spence, predictably, jumped right on this bandwagon, saying Romney doesn't care about the needy because he wants to diminish these programs.

If liberals want to attack those who are merely stating th emathematical facts, we need to start asking these azzholes exactlly what I asked Spence...if you don't want to cut these programs, where is the $40 trillion going to come from.

If any politician (from any party) can come up with a way to increase taxrevenue by $40 trillion without harming the country, I will support him.

Spence, either tell us your plan, or admit that you're just regurgitating Obama talking points like a well-trained parrot.

we have serious problems. I'm not saying Romney/Ryan have the best possible solutions. But their solution is better than doing nothiingt, which is whatr Obama has done thus far to save those programs.

...

channeling Spence

the Federal Government should "work out a deal with the telecom providers" to add another fee "the Universal Save Social Security and Medicare and Other Stuff Fee" to their customer's bills, which should not be construed as a Federal Tax even though it is essentially a tax, and use the money to subsidize the Social Security and Medicare benefits which have been promised, if the Bush tax cut fueled recession hadn't forced so many into Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, Free Obama Phones and poverty in general, we wouldn't be where we are today...Certainly the objective of Social Security, Medicare and pretty much every Federal and State entitlement program which are just too lengthy to include here is to help disadvantaged and disabled people who can't afford...stuff......Obama is reforming the various plans to achieve gazillions in savings in 2012 and bazillions in savings over three years.

I don't have an issue with the programs as long as they're monitored for abuse, althought the true measure of any good entitlement program is how many people we can pile on to it before we have to go shakedown the taxpayers for more money to expand it. But the characterization that these are "ponzi schemes"...pffft... or that this has somehow created a massive Federal liability....pfffft..... or unnecessary and abused government entitlements....pffffft... are just patently false and probably the result of closed minded thinking and or the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:)

shoot your neighbors dog and U could host a sit down dinner for Obama....:)