the republicans using FEAR !

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

If you diminish the safety net isn't that precisely what would be happening?


Because he was raised a Mormon. I've flown out of Salt Lake and have been surrounded by Mormon's on their way to mission...they were as naive as can be and were doing what they thought their Church expected of them. They were really nice people mind you, I've never met a Mormon I didn't like.


Again, because he's a Mormon and tithing is a part of the church...when you're filthy stinking rich you get to donate more.

The real quest is why didn't he deduct all of it, I mean, that is a test to be a Republican President right?


If he did I'm sure Obama would call it Jihad, right?

-spence

"They were really nice people mind you"

So if Mormons are really nice people, and Romney is a mormon, are you saying he's a nice guy? And if that's the case, why is Obama telling people that Romney only cares about making rivh pepole richer? Do you think that's what Romney believes? Is that consistant with Mormonism?

Spence, one of these days you should try rational thought. Not all liberals are good, not all conservatives are sinister. Your hero Obama is telling outright lies. Obama knows that Medicare and SS cannot be sustained, yet he attacks conservatives for saying it out loud.

And you did exactly that, too. I'm really curious to see if you think that those safety nest do not need to be diminished in order to be saved. Please be specific...

Every good thing Romney does, you tarnish it. Every bad thing Obama does, you defend it. every single time. You might be the most predictable, thoughtless person in the forum.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So if Mormons are really nice people, and Romney is a mormon, are you saying he's a nice guy?

Can't say as I've never met him.

And if that's the case, why is Obama telling people that Romney only cares about making rivh pepole richer? Do you think that's what Romney believes? Is that consistant with Mormonism?

I'm not aware of President Obama ever claiming that's the only thing Romney cares about...but I think we'd all agree that Romney's policies would significantly and disproportionately benefit the wealthy.

Spence, one of these days you should try rational thought.

Good one, wow, still stings.

Not all liberals are good, not all conservatives are sinister. Your hero Obama is telling outright lies. Obama knows that Medicare and SS cannot be sustained, yet he attacks conservatives for saying it out loud.

No, he attacks the methods they propose to address the issues.

Be careful with the lie word. Unless you can justify it you should be using it.

And you did exactly that, too. I'm really curious to see if you think that those safety nest do not need to be diminished in order to be saved. Please be specific...

Indirectly.

Every good thing Romney does, you tarnish it. Every bad thing Obama does, you defend it. every single time. You might be the most predictable, thoughtless person in the forum.

That's simply not true.

I think Romney's government sponsored health care plan was a good idea. I think his balanced approach to the MA budget was a good idea. I think he showed leadership letting gay people get married as Governor.

The question is...WTF HAPPENED TO MITT ROMNEY?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not aware of President Obama ever claiming that's the only thing Romney cares about...but I think we'd all agree that Romney's policies would significantly and disproportionately benefit the wealthy.


No, we would not all agree with your framing and its implications. Romney's policies would, supposedly, benefit the so-called "economy." Which would, presumably, benefit everybody. Some more than others? How do you create "policies" that "benefit" everybody in "significantly" and proportionally the same way? Do Obama's policies "benefit" the poor and so-called "middle class" significantly and disproportionately over the "wealthy"? Is it the Federal Governments responsibility to benefit various classes? Is that class warfare? In a society of free individuals, does not the responsibility for "benefits" rest on those individuals? If it rests on a massive central government, then those individuals are not free. They are dependent on government for "benefits." And if we ask government to distribute, equally or proportionately, our benefits, we are asking, not only a bureaucratic impossibility, but flying in the face of human nature and the politicians desire to be elected and re-elected.

I think Romney's government sponsored health care plan was a good idea. I think his balanced approach to the MA budget was a good idea. I think he showed leadership letting gay people get married as Governor.

The question is...WTF HAPPENED TO MITT ROMNEY?

-spence

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Perhaps he has realized, or has been forced to realize, that State government and Federal government have, constitutionally, different powers.

BINGO!

American Thinker- Print Article

[Jim in CT]

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?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?

[Jim in CT]

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.

...