Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Entitlements can be contained although it will take some sacrifice.
-spence
|
Spence, I agree with you. But it's funny, because when someone like Paul Ryan says the exact same thing, Obama accuses Ryan of proposing "social Darwinism".
Spence, the only thing liberals are proposing to fix entitlement reform is tweaking tax rates on the jillionaires. Do the math. That won't get us 1% of what we need, and that's IF you concede that the tax hikes will be followed by increased tax revenue (which is a very big "if").
Our curreent operating debt is $16 trillion-ish. That excludes another $40 - $60 trillion that Medicare and Social Security need to fund current benefits. There are 300 million Americans. Do the math.
Spence, you nailed it, this problem is solvable, but it will involve sacrifice. Painful sacrifice. The longer we wait, the more painful the sacrifice will be.
Where is the Democratic solution to this? I follow this stuff closely, and I have seen nothing. As far as I can tell, the only idea Democrats have is to call Paul Ryan "mean" for suggesting the exact kind of sacrifices that you youself said are required.
Last year, when Ryan proposed a plan to address entitlement reform, he specifically said this his plan would not reduce benefits for current seniors. No matter. The next day, liberals released a commercial of Paul Ryan pushing a wheelchair-bound senior citizen off a cliff.
Spence, that's as dishonest as it gets. Actuaries have been predicting this tsunami since the baby boomers were in diapers, that's sixty years. No one has done anything to fix it, because it's been considered political suicide to propose the sacrifices you refer to.
Spence, where is the Democratic plan to call for these sacrifices? Obama had Democrat majorities in both houses for 2 years, and what did he do to address entitlement programs? ZERO. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkus. And Obama has the balls to attack Ryan's character for proposing the exact sacrifices you say are necessary?
As I've said, liberalism is a mental disorder. Liberals refuse to admit that major sacrifices are necessary here. The only thing they propose is insignificant tax hikes. Those hikes won't even cover the deficit for next year, let alone help address entitlement programs.
Spence, I just don't see how you can understand this situation the way you do, and even CONSIDER voting Democrat.
Because a generation of politicians chose to kick the can down the road, we have tens of trillions in shortfalls. Paul Ryan is proposing a budget to start fixing it. Do Democrats challenge Ryan's math? Nope. Do Democrats offer different data that suggests Ryan is exaggerating the severity of the situation? Nope. Do Democrats propose an alternative? Hell no. So what do they do? They do what they always do, the only thing they can do (because they sure as hell cannot talk about the issue). They attack Ryan's character.
Is Ryan's plan the fairest way to address these issues? I have no idea. But he's admitting the problem exists, and proposing a solution. He deserves to be called a hero for that.
What is the liberal alternative solution? That we all put our fingers in our ears and stick our heads in the sand? Is that decisive leadership? Is that honest? Is that fair to the next generation?
I don't get it. I don't see how anyone sides with Democrats on this.
Spence, you seem to grasp the mathematical realities here. Given that, how can you defend your side's behavior on this vital issue, an issue that literally effects all of us?