In other words, you do not like what I wrote, but you cannot refute it.

 

So, first we have to understand that DL is stuck in the past, hence the Ronald Reagan thingy. Reagan wasn't about much except ending the cold war and keeping government on a leash.
He succeeded.
The cracks about poor white uneducated white people crackers is supposed to denegrate deplorables. It makes so many gross assumptions one hardly knows where to begin.

Social security is NOT an entitlement. It is a contract forced on Americans by government. Medicare is health insurance forced on us as well. All Americans, rich, poor, liberal, conservative, are funneled into these two programs.

Despicables love them because these programs reflect everything despicables like about a big, inefficient, wasteful, controling government.

 

That is the kind of response I expected from you.

 

POLLING MATTERS
JUNE 18, 2019
Social Security and American Public Opinion

Pew Research Center, for example, recently reported that "74 percent of Americans say Social Security benefits should not be reduced in any way," and previous Pew research found that only 6% favored cutting government spending on Social Security. A Marist/NPR/PBS poll last year found that six in 10 Americans would prefer to reverse the 2017 tax bill rather than cut entitlement programs like Social Security if necessary to reduce the deficit. Gallup polling historically has found that Americans would rather raise Social Security taxes than reduce benefits. A 2014 survey (PDF download) conducted for the National Academy of Social Insurance found "77% of respondents … agree it is critical to preserve Social Security benefits for future generations, even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by working Americans."

-----------

About 7 in 10 Voters Favor a Public Health Insurance Option.

By Gaby Galvin
March 24, 2021 at 6:00 am ET

• 55% of voters support Medicare for All, while 32%, including 62% of Republicans, oppose the single-payer plan.
  
  
• 68% of voters support a public health insurance option, including 80% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans.
  
  
• Overall support for Medicare for All has remained flat since 2020, but support for the public option rose 5 percentage points.
  

 

The real enemy of Social Security is dementiajoe and the Democrat party crime syndicate....


Joe Biden Previously Introduced Legislation to Sunset all Federal Programs — Including Social Security


AP Photo/Henry Griffin)
JACOB BLISS10 Feb 2023Washington, DC

President Joe Biden, during his time as a United States senator, introduced legislation to sunset all federal programs — including Social Security, which is the same thing he accused some Republicans of doing during the State of the Union address this week.

As a U.S. senator from Delaware in 1975, Biden introduced legislation that would sunset all federal programs, including Social Security and Medicare, every four years to require each program to be examined by the federal government.

Then-Sen. Biden said on the Senate floor in July 1975 when he was arguing for the legislation:

This bill limits to four years the length of any spending authorization for a program. It requires that each committee make a detailed study of the program before renewing it for another four-year period. The purpose is to assure a uniform scrutiny of all programs on a regular basis.

He said during another part of his speech in 1975:

One thing that we must do is to begin reviewing existing programs to determine whether they are still effective and whether they are worth the money that we are putting in them. We have all observed… that once a federal program gets started, it is very difficult to stop it, or even change its emphasis, regardless of its performance.

However, 1975 was not the only time Biden tried to push this type of proposal.

In 1984, Biden, along with two other senators, co-authored a proposal that included a one-year freeze of all federal spending, including Social Security and defense.

Biden said in a speech on the Senate floor in April 1984:

So, when those of my friends in the Democratic and Republican Party say to me, ‘How do you expect me to vote for your proposal? Does it not freeze Social Security COLA’s for 1 year? Are we not saying there will be no cost-of-living increases for one year?’ The answer to that is ‘Yes,” that is what I am saying.

“The only way that Congress will ever be able to come to grips with deficits is by dealing with all federal programs as a package,” Biden added in April 1984. “This can happen when the beneficiaries of each program see that all others are being treated similarly.”

Then, Biden, on the Senate floor in 1995, doubled down on his previous proposals by admitting he tried to cut Social Security multiple times before.

“When I argued we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well,” Biden proclaimed. “I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government.”

“And I not only tried it once. I tried it twice — I tried it a third time. And I tried it a fourth time,” Biden continued, waving his arms on the floor of the Senate.”

https://twitter.com/WadeMiller_USMC...l-federal-programs-including-social-security/

This all comes as now-President Biden accused Republicans during the State of the Union address this past week that they want to cut social security.

“Some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset every five years,” Biden claimed on Tuesday, directing his gaze to the Republican side of the House chamber. “So tonight, let’s all agree to stand up for seniors. Stand up and show them we will not cut Social Security. We will not cut Medicare.”

Following Biden’s State of the Union address, Breitbart News’s Nick Gilbertson fact-checked Biden’s claim, finding it “mostly false.”

“While some Republicans have advocated for social security cuts, Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has said Republicans in the House, where initials cuts to the debt ceiling will be debated, will not cut social security or Medicare and vehemently shook his head in disagreement when Biden made the claim Tuesday,” Gilbertson wrote.

 

Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

So, lets see if I have this figured out correctly.... the moron Senator, now our present-less President, as is normally the case with most Democrypts, was against it before he was for it, receives it, but doesn't need it, he's worth under 100 million so not to pay taxes on it, and will probably do it because he'll forget it,
Got it????

 

Privatization always follows purposely under funding the said government agency.
Make it look like a loser bet that only the private sector can deal with. Make it look like rescue.
A profit is then made by big business at the taxpayer loss.

 

Republican politicians like to raise the national debt because a rising national debt makes it difficult for the Democrat Party to fund programs to help its natural constituency in the lower half of the income distribution.

The G.O.P benefits when working class whites think, "The Democrats have never done anything to help me. At least the Republicans won't take my guns."

 

Haven't seen much indication that the despicables are hamstrung by the debt.
Not obamas, not trumps, not bidens.

 

Republican damage control is always entertaining.

This was a dumpster full of cardboard and lighter fluid, waiting for someone to toss a match. Joe Biden doesn't smoke, but he carries matches. It's almost as if he knew there would be someone in the audience who would yell "Liar!" when he brought up social security.

Republicans that don't toe the MAGA line and keep their mouths shut are labeled RINOs. Now there's an extreme on the other side, TRFPC, too Republican for public consumption. These are the ones who talk about their true agenda in public.

It's okay to call Social Security a Ponzi scheme at a $15000/ plate fundraising, but don't even think of repeating it before a camera.

This is a case of a kid caught climbing up to reach the cookie jar. Now he claims he not only wasn't trying to get a cookie, he doesn't even like cookies, and he'll never eat another cookie in his life.

Nobody believes a word of it, but still funny.

 

David Stockman was the Director of the Management and Budget under President Reagan from 1981 to 1985. In his book The Triumph of Politics, Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, he admitted that Reagan's economic policy was essentially fraudulent. It never was possible to cut taxes, raise military spending, and balance the budget without eliminating farm and business subsidies, and making deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

He wrote that Reagan did not make those cuts because he knew that most Republican voters favored those programs.

 

Distant Lover forgets that Reagan's mission was not to radically change economic policy in America. It was to end the cold war. Stockman also wrote:

"Reagan was a consensus politician, not an ideologue. He had no business trying to make a revolution because it wasn't in his bones." The Reagan revolution, Stockman says, "was not Ronald Reagan's agenda in the first place. It was mine, and that of a small cadre of supply-side intellectuals." His "supply-side" reference is to an economic theory, at first embraced and then abandoned by Stockman, that tax reductions will unleash productive forces of such magnitude that they will produce higher government revenues with lower tax rates. In Stockman's terms, the Reagan revolution also meant "a frontal assault on the American welfare state" that would have required politically unacceptable reductions in Social Security and other welfare programs and "complete elimination of subsidies to farmers and businesses."

Speaking of these policies, Stockman writes, "Ronald Reagan proved too kind, gentle and sentimental for that. He always went for hard-luck stories. He sees the plight of real people before anything else. Despite his right-wing image, his ideology and philosophy always take a back seat when he learns that some individual human being might be hurt."

​

Reagan said many very quotable things, but perhaps the most memorable was that his first duty as president was to protect the security of the United States. If he failed at that he said, not much else would matter. Reagan indeed drove up the debt by increasing military spending by 35% and initiating what everyone called "Star wars". His initiative broke the Russian economy and led to the breakup of the Soviet Union. His efforts unquestionably saved many lives, may have avoided World War III, and brought a decade of peace and prosperity to the world.

 

During Reagan's presidency the top tax rate declined from 70% in 1980 to 28% in 1988.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

In 1980, which was the last full year President Carter was in office, military spending was $143.69 billion, or 5.1% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

In 1988, which was the last full year President Reagan was president, military spending grew to $309.66 billion, or 6.0% of GDP.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget

There was no need to raise military spending. The United States was at peace. Republicans raise military spending because military contractors are major GOP contributors, and because the military is the Republican jobs program.

Because of tax cuts for the rich, and more than doubling the military budget, the national debt increased from $908 billion in 1980 to $2,602 billion in 1980. The national debt as a percentage of GDP rose from 32% in 1980 to 50% in 1988.

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

David Stockman ended The Triumph of Politics by writing:

"[W]e're spending 24 percent of GNP, compared to raising only 19 percent of GNP in taxes. They are also the reasons why the White House and the Republican Party should not have told the American electorate in 1984 that we don't have to raise taxes. It wasn't true."

What happened to the Republican concern for balanced budgets?

​

 

shootersa is likely to say that the more than doubling of the military budget led to the fall of the Soviet Union. The Burkean in me dislikes abrupt political changes in any direction.

The fall of the Soviet Union led to the change from the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev, who was a decent and safe leader, to rises in crime and declines in the economy, which in turn led to the leadership of Vladimir Putin, who is a dangerous mad man.

The Soviet government already had the institutions of a representative democracy. All it needed was to allow open political debate and regular contested elections. These do not exist under Putin.

 

When friends asked me what I thought of the "Clinton tax hikes", I told them, "If it costs me less than the Reagan tax cuts, I'll be happy." The Reagan tax cut also cut out the many tax deductions which had been carefully crafted for middle class tax payers. All of that was now gone. Few remember that 50% of health care insurance premiums were once deductible. The "unreimbursed business expense" which allowed a partial deduction for such things as steel toed boot and other PPE was gutted. The result was, my taxes were raised.

My Bush voting friends didn't know about any of that because they had been filing 1040EZ all their working lives.

Back on topic: There are politicians who want to cut social security and they all ran for office on the Republican ticket. It's too late to pretend it didn't happen. Joe Biden shined a flashlight into the corner of the GOP and now we're watching the cockroaches scatter. As usual, the rest of the GOP denies knowledge of cockroaches, while sweeping cake crumbs under the fridge.

 

Sunsetting all federal programs is cutting social security?

 

Could you repeat that in a squeaky Tucker Carlson voice?
Are you going to claim Social Security is not a Federal program?

Not that you ever claim anything.

 

And you haven't answered the question.

A procedure of making all programs subject to a reaffirmation every 5 years scares despicables because it would potentially mean that government could actually shrink.

Highly unlikely, almost impossible, but the possibility is there and that triggers big government advocates.

Plus, with a bit of spin and squinting of logic they can manage to say, with a straight face, that deplorables want to cut/get rid of Social Security.

And then take on the role of defender of the little people, eh?

 

Nice try. Not actually nice. Sort of sad attempt. Sunset is an attempt to cut/get rid of social security/medicare.

Nobody is fooled by this bullshit. Social Security isn't going to suddenly vanish, leaving all those old people out in the cold. The Sunsetters want to privatize it. With a stroke of a pen, SS becomes a profit center for Wall Street. This is a better deal than student loans or subprime mortgages. Or, as they say on the street, "I got your Ponzi scheme hanging right here."

I bet you haven't thought of that.