Of course not. Any attempt or mention of reform is met with demagoguery to the worst degree.
Are you suggesting that the most acute current economic and fiscal problems are to be blamed on policies going back to the Truman administration?
Is there a difference between “reform” and “end”?
Are you suggesting you want to end SS and Medicare?
True. From both sides. Or are you forgetting about death panels?
Those programs are unsustainable as is. Folks are living much longer and health care costs have risen tremendously. So yeah, they were sold to the public on false promises and now they threaten to bankrupt the government if not reformed. I also blame the foreign policy misadventures. I don’t blame Republicans for lowering taxes because that is not their money, they have no right to take it. I blame them for not cutting spending enough to keep pace with the drop in revenues.
Not to politicians from both major parties who try to frighten seniors.
First step is means testing. I am of the opinion that folks can take care of their own retirement. If they can’t there will still be a safety net. I would eventually do away with social security and Medicare as they are now.
No doubt.
How much has SS contributed to the debt?
“Right”? You do understand that taxation is not theft, don’t you?
If you concede that SS and Medicare are entrenched and reform is objected to by both parties, then it doesn’t make much sense to point to those programs as evidence of how the Dems are responsible for the long-term deficit situation today.
The ongoing cost of the program is not something you can hang on their heads any longer, because they are also the only party that has attempted to reduce its costs in the last three decades, and that effort was endlessly propagandized by Palin et al.
Moreover, since everyone now agrees that Medicare was a really good idea, why should it take as much blame as something everyone now agrees was a really bad idea (cutting taxes while going to war in Iraq, say)?
Laffs
Bush 43 was a peacetime president. Just not the entire time.
New Orleans was a great and vibrant city during Bush’s administration. Just not the entire time.
Nixon was law-abiding during the 1972 campaign. Just not the entire time.
If you can look at this graph and say deficit spending trends follow the congressional makeup instead of the presidency, you may be rational in 95% of your life. But not the entire time.
According to Mr. Obama “Not a dime”, and technically he’s *almost *right But if you include unfunded liabilities:
Just because a majority of Americans agree that the government should take money from me for my own good doesn’t mean they are not forcibly taking money from me and have the right to do so.
I seem to remember Bush floating the idea of privatizing social security. Not that he has credibility on budgetary matters. Medicare was a really bad idea, but that’s neither here nor there. The difference between the two is that one is ongoing and getting much worse. The other could have been ended by political action fairly early on.
Not to mention you are awfully quiet about the Reagan years. There was no Iraq war then. Democrats held congress. I guess that doesn’t fit in with your desire to hang the debt on the Iraq war debacle.
Ok, bup. If you want to look at a graph and say the Democratic congress had no say in the Reagan budgets and the Republican congress had no say in the Clinton budgets, lay your head on your pillow, and dream happy thoughts don’t let me stand in your way.
Social security is not a significant source of our increasing deficits. Medicare is. What did Bush to do Medicare? He expanded it.
That’s not fair at all. First, I’m not trying to “hang the debt on the Iraq war debacle.” That a medium-sized chunk, but the main long-term problem is Medicare. Second, my point is about the parties as they now exist, not what they were doing a quarter century ago. And third, if you like we can talk Reagan deficits all you like. Indeed, we can go congressman by congressman and see whether it was conservatives or liberals that supported Reagan’s ballooned deficits.
Once you start talking about events 30 years ago, you need to realize that the political parties have shifted a bit in that time.
You’re cute when you try to be condescending without facts on your side.
The duly elected government doesn’t have the"right" to levy taxes and spend the revenue on programs that benefit society? I’m afraid your concept of “right” is in error.
True.
Democrats haven’t had much power over the last ten years. When they did have it they were no better than the Republicans.
It wasn’t conservatives. It may have been Republicans, but they weren’t conservatives if they were running up deficits like that.
Self-identified conservatives, if you prefer.
Reagan requested budgets with big defense spending and got them passed by all the Republicans plus a few conservative Southern Democrats that still existed.
Reagan eventually did reign in his defense spending, and got that budget through with more Democratic support. Indeed, the Democrat-supported version provided less defense spending than Reagan requested.
So I think the record is pretty clear. And, by the way, that 1993 Budget that got things on a better track for the 90s? That was chiefly Democrats too.
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! Oh my fucking Og that’s funny! Will you be here all week?
What are your opinions on rent and wage labour?
WillFarnaby, what makes you think you have the right to drive on roads, or to be defended by the military? Or, for that matter, what makes you think you have the right to transmit data over the Internet? Did you pay for the construction of the Internet yourself?