Proof! That liberal progressives want to destroy the country!!

[ProfJohn]

I like it...I like it alot!!!

If it such a good idea then why don't you do it yourself?

You run your own business? Cut your salary by half and hire someone to drive you around from job to job...

 

[ProfJohn]

Its in several articles, and I posted a link as such in the other thread. I can't make it any easier for you.

So for the umpteenth time, please explain how Obama, who moved to within 2% of the GOP plan didn't compromise.

Then explain how the GOP, having gotten all but 2% of what they wanted, moved further away from their position, to 100/0.

I have asked several times, but you cannot or will not answer. Why is that? It couldn't' possibly be because you have no way to justify it?

Your OP claimed Obama didn't compromise. My link (and plenty of others on the web) all say he did, followed by the GOP refusing and moving further away. So prove your OP correct or admit you are lying.

This isn't your personal spam forum where we have to take your BS at face value. Post real evidence and defend your posts (of you can of course).

edit: Just for PJ, a simple google serach found several articles discussing this.

Link

Link

Two things to note:
1. It is accepted that the GOP moved from their 85/15 proposal to 100/0. Everyone is talking about the GOP and the "no tax increase"
2. It is accepted that Obama moved to within 2% of the GOP deal, and that many Dem's don't/didn't like it.

So again, npj, explain your lies about Obama not compromising and then explain for the GOP compromise was to move AWAY from their original proposal.

Perhaps you need to go back and re-read your links.

Here is the actual report that you keep talking about:
http://www.speaker.gov/UploadedFiles/JEC_Jobs_Study.pdf

It was a REPORT it was not an deal or an offer or even a starting point for an offer.
Read the conclusion and explain to me where they suggest raising taxes at all?

This is why I don't respond to your posts accusing me of lying. You claim I am lying over and over but when pressed to offer proof you point to an Ezra Klien OP-Ed as proof? Instead of listening to Klien read the report for yourself and find for me this 'proposal' you keep talking about.

VII. CONCLUSION
The current fiscal condition of the U.S. government is perilous. During fiscal year 2011, the CBO projects that federal spending will be 24.7% of GDP, well above the average of 19.4% of GDP for fiscal years 1947–2007, and will remain far above its post World War II average for the next decade. Moreover, the CBO projects that federal spending will increase to 35.2% of GDP by 2035 in the alternative fiscal scenario under current policies. The United States cannot maintain this level of federal spending—let alone allow it to escalate—without seriously damaging its economy.

The abundant empirical evidence is clear and irrefutable; increasing federal spending as a percentage of GDP will slow economic growth in the long term. Therefore, U.S. policymakers should embark on a fiscal consolidation program based on reducing federal spending as a percentage of GDP.

Keynesians warn that significant federal spending reductions now would weaken the current economic recovery. During the last two decades, however, numerous studies have identified expansionary “non-Keynesian” effects from government spending reductions that offset at least some and possibly all of the contractionary “Keynesian” effects on aggregate demand. In some cases, these “non-Keynesian” effects may be strong enough to make fiscal consolidation programs expansionary in the short term as well the long term.

According to empirical studies, fiscal consolidation programs that (1) eliminate government agencies and programs; (2) cut the number and compensation of government workers; and (3) reduce transfer payments to households and firms have strong expansionary “non-Keynesian” effects. Fiscal consolidation programs that reform government pension and health insurance programs for the elderly to make them sustainably solvent in the long term may also have strong positive “non-Keynesian” factors even if reforms are phased in slowly, do not affect current beneficiaries, and do not significantly reduce outlays in the short term.

Obama Administration officials have emphasized the risk of starting a fiscal consolidation program now while ignoring the risk of delay. There are significant external risk factors to the U.S. economy in both the short run and the long run that cannot be foreseen, such as: (1) resurging price inflation, (2) loss of confidence in the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency, (3) euro-zone sovereign debt defaults, and (4) war in the Middle East. But, the many examples cited in this commentary show that the United States will be in a better position to respond to any of these challenges by reducing federal spending sooner rather than later.

 

[sonicdrummer20]

At this point, I mostly agree with The Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

Social Security has a surplus. I'd be open to means testing benefits, but at this time I'm wary of cuts in benefits. People have been in a long a long time, and the ROI is already dismal so I can't justify benefit cuts.

Medicare and Medicaid are, IMO, burdened by our fustercluck of the existing HC system problems. You fix that underlying problem, you probably fix Medicare and Medicaid. Trying to fix medicare and Medicaid without fixing the underlying HC problems is foolish.

I really don't understand why SS is mentioned in this whole issue. It's got a $2.6 trillion surplus. SS has been extremely difficult to approach on it's own, to roll it up with the debt ceiling etc strikes me as stupid and unnecessarily problematic.

Fern

I think the Point ProfJohn is trying to make is this: Social Programs suck money out of the system, someone will always choose free stuff over quality stuff. Social Programs give people free stuff costing the people who fund the social programs(tax-payers) money which should be spent elsewhere. I'm all for small government but more importantly freedom from paying to support someone I dont need. I don't need the fat welfare bitch with 12 kids pulling in money from SS/food stamps. I would rather pay for nice roads, decent infrastructure, and ramped up military defense. These social programs, public school systems and MEDICAID/MEDICARE waste so much money, if you didn't plan for your retirement then sux2bu, not my fault and I'm no gonna get fucked by the government just so you can live off my paycheck. We should establish a cutoff of 35 by the end of the fiscal year, if you aren't 35 then you will not receive a SS check, you will be investing in your own retirement.

 

[Engineer]

If it such a good idea then why don't you do it yourself?

You run your own business? Cut your salary by half and hire someone to drive you around from job to job...

1. Don't run my own business.
2. Don't make anywhere near $250,000. Wife and I together don't make 40% of that.

not happening.

And I still like it alot.......don't give two shits whether you like it or not.

 

[sonicdrummer20]

I just created a petition entitled Democrats: End Social Security, welfare programs and cut spending for Public Schools., because I care deeply about this very important issue.

http://www.change.org/petitions/dem...for-public-schools?share_id=CgtZPmWkfD&pe=pce

Here's something you can do about it!

 

[Fern]

I think the Point ProfJohn is trying to make is this: Social Programs suck money out of the system, someone will always choose free stuff over quality stuff. Social Programs give people free stuff costing the people who fund the social programs(tax-payers) money which should be spent elsewhere. I'm all for small government but more importantly freedom from paying to support someone I dont need. I don't need the fat welfare bitch with 12 kids pulling in money from SS/food stamps. I would rather pay for nice roads, decent infrastructure, and ramped up military defense. These social programs, public school systems and MEDICAID/MEDICARE waste so much money, if you didn't plan for your retirement then sux2bu, not my fault and I'm no gonna get fucked by the government just so you can live off my paycheck. We should establish a cutoff of 35 by the end of the fiscal year, if you aren't 35 then you will not receive a SS check, you will be investing in your own retirement.

Well, I'm pretty much in agreement with his point.

My point though is that social security doesn't have anything to with welfare, Medicaid and y other social programs (they're really welfare IMO).

Under social security the recipients specifically paid for it. This is not so for the welfare programs, not at all.

Moreover, Congress has stolen funds from SS (which btw has a surplus of $2.6 trillion). I don't mean by investing the surplus in special treasury bonds; you've got to invest the surplus somewhere. But those bonds have traditionally paid a crappy lower than FMV amount of interest. All that really does is give SS the short-shrift and help reduce our expenses on the general fund side by reducing the debt service. Robbing Peter (SS) to pay Paul (general fund).

Another example is in the stimulus plan. To help finance it they used SS funds to try to create jobs. The credit for new employees 'forgives' employer SS contributions. IMO, that's flat out diverting SS funds to improve the economy. SS funds are NOT to be used for any purpose but SS programs.

Social Security doesn't have a thing to do with the debt ceiling, it's a separate account and is in a surplus. Nor does it have anything to do with our deficit, SS receipts are for SS only and can't count for or against the (regular) budget deficit. SS shouldn't even be mentioned in this whole discussion, it's got nothing to do with it.

Fern

 

[nyker96]

Here you have it. Liberal progressives want to destroy the country!

this is a single group called "Progressive Change Campaign Committee", but in your title and message you generalized to ALL Liberal progressives. This is like saying, see that KKK guy belongs to republican party so there you go, it proves all republicans are racist.

No it doesn't mean all liberal groups will withhold support if medicaid, medicare is cut, here just ONE group will do that. And keep in mind many Tea Partiers are not happy about cutting medicare either. 70% of Tea Partiers Don't Want to Cut Medicare Either:

"A new McClatchy-Marist poll shows 70 percent of "Tea Party supporters" oppose cutting those programs--and 80 percent of registered voters agree."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/04/70-tea-partiers-dont-want-cut-medicare-either/36820/

 

[werepossum]

Well, I'm pretty much in agreement with his point.

My point though is that social security doesn't have anything to with welfare, Medicaid and y other social programs (they're really welfare IMO).

Under social security the recipients specifically paid for it. This is not so for the welfare programs, not at all.

Moreover, Congress has stolen funds from SS (which btw has a surplus of $2.6 trillion). I don't mean by investing the surplus in special treasury bonds; you've got to invest the surplus somewhere. But those bonds have traditionally paid a crappy lower than FMV amount of interest. All that really does is give SS the short-shrift and help reduce our expenses on the general fund side by reducing the debt service. Robbing Peter (SS) to pay Paul (general fund).

Another example is in the stimulus plan. To help finance it they used SS funds to try to create jobs. The credit for new employees 'forgives' employer SS contributions. IMO, that's flat out diverting SS funds to improve the economy. SS funds are NOT to be used for any purpose but SS programs.

Social Security doesn't have a thing to do with the debt ceiling, it's a separate account and is in a surplus. Nor does it have anything to do with our deficit, SS receipts are for SS only and can't count for or against the (regular) budget deficit. SS shouldn't even be mentioned in this whole discussion, it's got nothing to do with it.

Fern

This is true, but overlooks the fact that the Social Security money has been spent - it contains only US government securities. So all future Social Security obligations above Social Security receipts will effectively have to be paid out of the general fund, to redeem those securities. Social Security will eventually have to become means tested - which is totally unfair and rewards those who save nothing while punishing those who saved for a better retirement, but is inevitable.

I don't think it's quite accurate to say that most progressives want to destroy the country; they want to destroy the country as it is currently constituted by turning it into a socialist utopia. That's not quite the same, as it is different from how radical Islam or Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro want to destroy the country.

 

[Fern]

This is true, but overlooks the fact that the Social Security money has been spent - it contains only US government securities. So all future Social Security obligations above Social Security receipts will effectively have to be paid out of the general fund, to redeem those securities.

Whoa there buddy.

Surplus SS funds have to be invested somewhere. Other than the traditionally crappy rate of interest I have no problem with it being invested in Treasuries.

So that surplus has been invested or loaned, not spent. Anytime you invest or loan that money is spent by someone; that's the whole idea from the POV of the borrower etc. I see no difference that it's the US Treasury or some other place invested.

IMO, the SS fund and the General fund are rightly seen as two different things entirely. They shouldn't be mixed together at all.

Yeah, the General Fund has to pay that money back. But how does that change anything? No matter who they borrowed it from they'd still need to pay it back. An no matter who the SS Dept invested it with, they'd still need to be paid back.

Social Security will eventually have to become means tested - which is totally unfair and rewards those who save nothing while punishing those who saved for a better retirement, but is inevitable.

I don't think that's how it would necessarily work. What you're describing is far more like a means testing based on wealth. I can't see that happening, not at all. I think it more likely to be income tested. You got a nice fat pension plan, like a municipal employee or Fortune 500 person? I don't have much problem with that type of means testing.

And how is paying over 15% of my gross earnings for a retirement plan (SS) not saving?

After that 15%, and fed/state income taxes, sales taxes and r/e taxes and living expenses, juniors college fund etc just how much am I supposed to save and where is to come from?

I consider my 15% off the top an investment.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Whoa there buddy.

Surplus SS funds have to be invested somewhere. Other than the traditionally crappy rate of interest I have no problem with it being invested in Treasuries.

So that surplus has been invested or loaned, not spent. Anytime you invest or loan that money is spent by someone; that's the whole idea from the POV of the borrower etc. I see no difference that it's the US Treasury or some other place invested.

IMO, the SS fund and the General fund are rightly seen as two different things entirely. They shouldn't be mixed together at all.

Yeah, the General Fund has to pay that money back. But how does that change anything? No matter who they borrowed it from they'd still need to pay it back. An no matter who the SS Dept invested it with, they'd still need to be paid back.

The big difference is that the federal government borrowed it and the federal government has to pay it back to the federal government. For years, excess Social Security receipts have been used to allow the federal government to spend more money than it takes in without borrowing quite so much. Now that Social Security needs to pay out more than it takes in, the federal government (i.e. the General Fund) is taking a double hit - it has to pay back, and it loses the excess. Had the excess Social Security receipts actually been invested, the federal government would not be accustomed to spending the excess, nor would it be the entity paying it back. Thus, the General Fund would not be affected either way by Social Security flipping from a net positive to a new negative cash flow.

I don't think that's how it would necessarily work. What you're describing is far more like a means testing based on wealth. I can't see that happening, not at all. I think it more likely to be income tested. You got a nice fat pension plan, like a municipal employee or Fortune 500 person? I don't have much problem with that type of means testing.

And how is paying over 15% of my gross earnings for a retirement plan (SS) not saving?

After that 15%, and fed/state income taxes, sales taxes and r/e taxes and living expenses, juniors college fund etc just how much am I supposed to save and where is to come from?

I consider my 15% off the top an investment.

Fern

I think it will be means tested according to what you receive or draw out, not overall wealth. If you have a million dollars in the bank and you draw out $30,000 then government will decide you "don't need" your Social Security check, so you'll have to pay it back. Remember, our national creed is now "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I don't disagree with your assessment of Social Security as a forced retirement investment. Unfortunately this just shows the folly of trusting government with money. A private retirement program company who took clients' money and spent it, without building up real assets, would be prosecuted. (I would say "soon be prosecuted" except that Madoff killed that conceit.) Unfortunately I'm not sure there was really a better alternative; as government would still be the one making the investments, it would probably all be invested in junk Fannie Mae derivative mortgage bonds with zero net worth.

 

[ProfJohn]

1. Don't run my own business.
2. Don't make anywhere near $250,000. Wife and I together don't make 40% of that.

not happening.

And I still like it alot.......don't give two shits whether you like it or not.

So you want other people to sacrifice their life style, but you are not willing to do it yourself?

 

[Engineer]

So you want other people to sacrifice their life style, but you are not willing to do it yourself?

Yep. As you said...for the better good for ALL OF US.

You are the most hell bent son of a bitch I've ever seen on taxes on the upper income earners in my life. Not a damn word on the possibility that stupid ass and the rest of congress may be raising our rates (middle class and down) but boy oh boy, try to raise a dime on your precious rich and you cry like a fucking baby. It's getting old. If anyone's rate is raised, it should be the upper rates, period. End of discussion from me to you on this.

 

[ProfJohn]

Yep. As you said...for the better good for ALL OF US.

You are the most hell bent son of a bitch I've ever seen on taxes on the upper income earners in my life. Not a damn word on the possibility that stupid ass and the rest of congress may be raising our rates (middle class and down) but boy oh boy, try to raise a dime on your precious rich and you cry like a fucking baby. It's getting old. If anyone's rate is raised, it should be the upper rates, period. End of discussion from me to you on this.

Do you understand the morality issue of making one person do something that you aren't willing to do yourself?

It is okay to raise taxes on the rich because you aren't rich. But if I suggest that we should raise everyones taxes you get pissed off.

Why is it okay to raise taxes on a millionaire, but not on someone making $100k?

Why is it okay to cap the income of someone making $500,000 but not someone making $100,000??

Having rich people hire a bunch of people to stand around and do nothing will hurt the economy in the long run because the money going to them is wasted. Our economy needs capital to grow, but when the government takes that capital it hurts the ability of the economy to grow.

Look at Europe. Their median income is lower than us, their median GDP is lower than us, their unemployment rate is higher than us. And all if it is because their government sucks up all the money and pours it into social programs that hurt the ability of the country's economy to grow.

I am opposed to taxes on the rich because it does not address out main problem which is out of control spending. Obama is spending 25% of our countries entire output!! We can not survive in our current state with the government sucking HALF of every penny earned into its pockets.

Go back and look at history. The best economic growth since WW 2 occurred when government spending was shrinking! After peaking in 1983 spending dropped for almost 20 straight years and during that time unemployment dropped and the deficit dropped as well. We had the two longest peace time expansions in our history as well.

Government spending is our problem. Not tax rates on the rich.

 

[Engineer]

End of discussion from me to you on this.

...

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

This is why I don't respond to your posts accusing me of lying. You claim I am lying over and over but when pressed to offer proof you point to an Ezra Klien OP-Ed as proof? Instead of listening to Klien read the report for yourself and find for me this 'proposal' you keep talking about.

Awww...poor wittle pj. wittle boy having problems telling the truth? WAAA!!!


It has been reported all over the internet (you know the internet, don't you? It's where we found those thousands of articles about the Syria comments coverage that you lied about a couple of times, when you lied about claiming that wasn't covered and were proven wrong again) about the GOP original proposal, and their subsequent move to 100/0. It's also been widely covered about Obama's attempted compromise. My links were just the first couple on a google search. You are welcome to google it and educate yourself.

So again, since you continue to ignore the facts, explain your lies. You claim:

1. Obama didn't compromise - all articles show he moved to within 2% of the 85/15 GOP proposal. This is compromise

2. GOP compromise - moving AWAY from their proposal to demanding 100/0hat is the exact OPPOSITE of compromise.

You obviously cannot defend your actions, which is typical for you. You lie all the time and never can provide anything to back your claims. Claims are not proof. so typicall pj, always able to lie, never able to post any facts. What a true GOP'er.

 

[ProfJohn]

It was NOT a proposal.

It was a report!

Do you understand the difference?

 

[JSt0rm]

It was NOT a proposal.

It was a report!

Do you understand the difference?

stop it.

 

[BarneyFife]

I want to know what PJ does for a living? I work as an engineer for the government.

 

[GeezerMan]

The so called surplus SS funds have been invested in US government securities, since the federal govt wanted access to all of that cash just sitting there. As Werepossum pointed out , "So all future Social Security obligations above Social Security receipts will effectively have to be paid out of the general fund, to redeem those securities."

Now, if my bankrupt uncle, I'll call him Uncle Sam, asked me for a loan out of my savings account should I do it? My Uncle Sam has a pretty poor history of racking up more and more debt for 50 years while his son, I'll call him The Fed, is printing up money in the basement, fiat money based on IOU's or a debt based money.

Sounds like I should tell my uncle to go to a loan shark instead...

 

[feralkid]

...

He's a paid shill; it's always been hopeless invoking logic with PuffJo.

 

[sm625]

Here's a question: Do you know what a liberal is? The precise definition of a liberal? I'm willing to bet that most people dont really know, and those that do will find that their definition does not quite match the definition others may have. Which makes much of the debating absolutely meaningless. Because if you cant agree on the terms, the language, you cant agree on anything. But none of this will stop the paid shills of the elite (the Limbaughs) from spewing meaningless hate against meaningless groups based on meaningless words.

You want a real mind bender? Try this:

Rush Limbaugh is a liberal.

He is a liberal because he is a proponent of big government. He may say otherwise but he supports candidates who increase the size of government. That's a fact. It is also a cold hard fact that he attacks candidates who actually do intend to shrink government. (Like Ron Paul.) So he is by the most simple terms and definitions, a liberal. If you define liberal as a person (or politician) who wants (or acts) to expand the size and scope of government. That is my definition by the way. And 97% of congress is, by definition, liberal. If you wish to argue against any of this then you must include your precise definition of "liberal".

 

[fskimospy]

Here's a question: Do you know what a liberal is? The precise definition of a liberal? I'm willing to bet that most people dont really know, and those that do will find that their definition does not quite match the definition others may have. Which makes much of the debating absolutely meaningless. Because if you cant agree on the terms, the language, you cant agree on anything. But none of this will stop the paid shills of the elite (the Limbaughs) from spewing meaningless hate against meaningless groups based on meaningless words.

You want a real mind bender? Try this:

Rush Limbaugh is a liberal.

He is a liberal because he is a proponent of big government. He may say otherwise but he supports candidates who increase the size of government. That's a fact. It is also a cold hard fact that he attacks candidates who actually do intend to shrink government. (Like Ron Paul.) So he is by the most simple terms and definitions, a liberal. If you define liberal as a person (or politician) who wants (or acts) to expand the size and scope of government. That is my definition by the way. And 97% of congress is, by definition, liberal. If you wish to argue against any of this then you must include your precise definition of "liberal".

The size of government has nothing to do with whether or not someone is a liberal.

Modern liberalism is defined by its pursuit of positive liberty, in that each person should have access to the circumstances that allow them to fulfill their full potential. This is in contrast to modern conservatism which believes in negative liberty. (and don't take the terms positive and negative to be a quality judgment, they simply refer to active aid for liberty vs. hands off liberty)

It's far better to describe Limbaugh as a corporatist and perhaps in practice a statist.

 

[werepossum]

The size of government has nothing to do with whether or not someone is a liberal.

Modern liberalism is defined by its pursuit of positive liberty, in that each person should have access to the circumstances that allow them to fulfill their full potential. This is in contrast to modern conservatism which believes in negative liberty. (and don't take the terms positive and negative to be a quality judgment, they simply refer to active aid for liberty vs. hands off liberty)

It's far better to describe Limbaugh as a corporatist and perhaps in practice a statist.

I'd define four important classes. A classic liberal believes in maximum personal liberty, as classically defined by a lack of externally imposed constraints. Government needs to be big enough to provide for those who cannot (due to disability) provide for themselves and to protect against others imposing constraints on you. The private sector and capitalism are good because they allow people opportunity to succeed, and government should regulate them as lightly as possible while not allowing them to impose constraints on others. A classic liberal knows that government cannot provide any "positive liberties" to one person without removing them from another person.

A progressive believes in your "positive liberties", meaning government should see that your basic needs are met so that you may do whatever you wish without worrying about housing, education, health care, food, even such things as broadband access. Government needs to be as large as possible, so that it can provide as many services to the populace as possible. The private sector and capitalism are at best necessary evils which cause wealth imbalances and at worst ultimately unnecessary evils, and as such government needs to heavily regulate these to make sure that the results are equitable. A progressive understands that providing "positive liberties" to some people means reducing liberties to other people; this is acceptable because the progressive's belief is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". With, of course, government as the arbiter of ability and need.

A classic conservative believes that government should be limited to its Constitutionally spelled out goals. The private sector and capitalism are good because they allow people opportunity to succeed, and government exists mainly to protect the private sector, capitalism, and individual liberties.

A big government conservative believes that government should be empowered to protect our traditional ways. Individual liberty is good, but the majority has a right (if not an obligation) to enforce its preferences on the minority; individual liberty must give way to the majority's wishes where the two conflict. A big government conservative does not necessarily want bigger government, but he does want a more powerful government that can prevent society from changing in ways he doesn't like.

Of the four, classic liberals and classic conservatives want relatively smaller and less intrusive government. Progressives and big government conservatives want larger government and/or more powerful government, just with different aims. Progressives and big government conservatives both want to diminish the individual, the former in favor of a new collective entity and the latter in favor of the traditional collective entity.

 

[fskimospy]

A progressive believes in your "positive liberties", meaning government should see that your basic needs are met so that you may do whatever you wish without worrying about housing, education, health care, food, even such things as broadband access. Government needs to be as large as possible, so that it can provide as many services to the populace as possible. The private sector and capitalism are at best necessary evils which cause wealth imbalances and at worst ultimately unnecessary evils, and as such government needs to heavily regulate these to make sure that the results are equitable. A progressive understands that providing "positive liberties" to some people means reducing liberties to other people; this is acceptable because the progressive's belief is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". With, of course, government as the arbiter of ability and need.

This is substantially incorrect. Progressives do not believe that government needs to be as large as possible to provide as many services as possible. They also do not view the private sector and capitalism as evil, either necessary or unnecessary. Finally, they do not believe in 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'.

All of those aspects are simply factually incorrect.

 

[werepossum]

This is substantially incorrect. Progressives do not believe that government needs to be as large as possible to provide as many services as possible. They also do not view the private sector and capitalism as evil, either necessary or unnecessary. Finally, they do not believe in 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'.

All of those aspects are simply factually incorrect.

You say that, but your actions say otherwise.