No offense, Kevin, but it's frustrating that you sound like a conglomeration of campaign slogans and stereotypes. The idea that the Republican party wants to do away with food stamps and unemployment benefits is just bizarre. No one is suggesting that, let alone campaigning on it.
No offense taken, but I think you're clearly off in la la land if you continue to believe your brand of "Republican" has any meaningful sway in the modern Republican party, where
the GOP has essentially squeezed out all the moderates.
The fact is we're seeing a hostile emergence in this anti-government rhetoric which slams government programs as evil "entitlements", and Romney has played right into that, bringing in all the Right Wing extremists you seem to think have no real say in today's GOP. He chose a running mate who is a Tea Party favorite. One who is an Ayn Rand disciple. Ever since Obama was elected I've heard nothing from the Right except how lazy Americans are for using these programs, how they are at the core of our society's deterioration, how living on the dole is destructive to the soul, how these programs encourage less work, how these programs have caused the debt to skyrocket, how these entitlements are unconstitutional and never should have been created to begin with, how it is the Socialistic part of our government that needs to be weeded out so we can become the America envisioned by the Founding Fathers, etc etc etc. Are you really blind to all of this? This hostile rhetoric has been coming from your side for years now.
In the last four years I've heard not a single Republican say anything good about these programs. It is one of the reasons so many anti-Government extremists like Droopy and the Ayn Rand fans, are desperately trying to elect Romney/Ryan. They are candid when they say they want to starve government of funding so it cannot spend on these programs. That it should stay out of business, that it shouldn't even be providing public education because it wasn't in the constitution, etc etc. Their overall theme is to privatize everything except a handful of things the Constitution says the government has a duty to control. That is the general gist of the traditional doctrine of deregulation in the Republican party. This goes all the way back to Reagan and Bush, who admitted they were in the business of deregulation because "government is the problem."
Of course Romney won't be honest about his intentions because that would be political suicide. He has been lying and hiding details about his plan and his tax returns for a reason. He's been getting away with it for the most part too. His remarks during the debate were some of the most evil things I think I've heard anyone say as a politician, especially given his 47% remarks which essentially ridiculous half the nation and judge them as lazy moochers. He says he wants to decrease government spending dramatically while increasing Defense spending. Well, what the hell else is there to cut if not those evil "entitlements"? (And by the way, it is deceptive for them to keep referring to Medicare and Social Security and Unemployment benefits as "entitlements" because it suggests these aren't earned benefits). So if Romney can criticize Obama for overseeing an increased debt based largely on an increased output of earned benefits, then logic dictates that his plan to reduce the debt is going to be along those same lines, by reducing the size of government especially in these areas.
You think you are right simply because Romney hasn't technically come out and said he wants to rid us of Social Security and Medicare and Foodstamps. No,but instead he chooses a running mate who has, which sends the same message to anyone listening. It makes sense too, given his devotion to Ayn Rand philosophy, which says government in all its influences is nothing but a nuisance. These guys are all about the free market, which they believe is the magic solution to everything. Here is a
quick take on the significance of the Ryan ticket:
According to reports, GOP leaders chose Ryan because he is supposedly a “champion of slashing government spending.” The seven-term Wisconsin congressman gives Republicans a “chance to emphasize their core message: government spending must come down to reduce the nation’s annual deficit and long-term debt.” House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said Ryan — who has been given “stunning and unprecedented” power to shape the budget — is “uniquely qualified to address the state of our economy and the fiscal challenges that face our country.” Ryan is known as the GOP’s numbers guy in the House, and he laid out last year what he calls a “Roadmap” to fiscal health. But as the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein notes, “The more they elevate Ryan, the more they elevate Ryan’s Roadmap. And that document is a
timebomb for them.”
PRIVATIZING ENTITLEMENTS: Ryan’s Roadmap puts Americans on the path of privatizing entitlement programs, such as Social Security. The plan boasts about “the creation of personal investment accounts for future retirees” that are “the property of the individual.” (Emphasis in the original document). “Individuals will be able to join the investor class for the first time,” the Roadmap says. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) notes that “the Ryan plan proposes large cuts in Social Security benefits — roughly 16 percent for the average new retiree in 2050 and 28 percent in 2080 from price indexing alone.” It “initially diverts most of these savings to help fund private accounts rather than to restore Social Security solvency.” CBPP also notes that the Roadmap “would eliminate traditional Medicare, most of Medicaid, and all of the Children’s Health Insurance Program” by creating a private voucher system that won’t keep up with the cost of health care. By 2080, under Ryan’s plan, the Medicare program would be reduced by nearly 80 percent below its projected size under current policies. CBPP summed up Ryan’s plan: The Roadmap’s cuts “would be so severe that CBO estimates they would shrink total federal expenditures (other than on interest payments) from roughly 19 percent of GDP in recent years to just 13.8 percent of GDP by 2080. Federal spending has not equaled such a low level of GDP since 1950, when Medicare and Medicaid did not yet exist, Social Security failed to cover many workers, and close to half of the elderly people in the United States lived below the poverty line.”
MIDDLE CLASS TAX INCREASES: Citizens for Tax Justice found that Ryan’s Roadmap would raise taxes on 90 percent of taxpayers and drastically lower them for the richest Americans. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) recently reported that the rates for the middle class would be higher than those for the rich under Ryan’s plan. “Middle-class families earning between $50,000 and $75,000 a year would see their average tax rate jump to 19.1% (from 17.7%) under this plan — an increase of $900 on average,” EPI says, while at the same time, “Millionaires would see their average tax rate drop to 12.8%, less than half of what they would pay relative to current policy.” As EPI’s Andrew Fieldhouse concluded, under the Roadmap, “a long tradition of progressive taxation would be abandoned; millionaires and Wall Street bankers would pay significantly lower tax rates than middle-class workers. … Income inequality would soar.” In another giveaway to the rich, the Roadmap calls for a total repeal of the estate and corporate taxes and would introduce a national sales tax. Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) said this idea “would eat up a much larger percentage of total income for poor and middle-class families than wealthy families” because the former “spend most or all of their income on consumption,” while “high-income families are able to save much more of their income.” Ryan’s plan claims federal tax revenue will be 19 percent of GDP, but the Tax Policy Center found last year that his proposal would only bring in “approximately 16 percent of GDP, which amounts to a $4 trillion revenue shortfall over ten years.”
LESS REVENUE, MORE DEBT: Despite raising taxes on 90 percent of Americans, the federal government will lose $2 trillion in revenues over the next 10 years under Ryan’s plan, according to CTJ. “It’s difficult to design a tax plan that will lose $2 trillion over a decade even while requiring 90 percent of taxpayers to pay more. But Congressman Ryan has met that daunting challenge,” CTJ wrote. Looking at the most optimistic figures, the Roadmap won’t balance the budget until at least 2063 and it won’t reduce federal debt for decades, exceeding 100 percent of GDP before starting to come down. While proposing drastic cuts to entitlement programs, Ryan said he wants to reduce discretionary spending — which includes such expenditures as education, homeland security and other defense spending — but he has no idea what programs to cut. “I can’t tell you the answer to that,” he said earlier this month. However, anticipating the plan’s unpopularity, GOP leadership isn’t publicly embracing Ryan’s plan but at the same time, it appears willing to allow it to go forward. During the midterm election campaign, the GOP dropped Ryan’s Roadmap from its “Pledge to America” scheme and as the conservative National Review noted last week, “praise for the Wisconsin Republican comes easy and often, full-scale endorsement of the roadmap less so.” But while Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said last week that he supports only “elements” of the plan, he said yesterday on NBC’s Meet the Press that “we need to embrace” its direction. And last year, Boehner wouldn’t endorse the Roadmap, but at the same time couldn’t name any specific part he disagreed with. But if Boehner dislikes Ryan’s plan so much, it’s unclear why he made him chairman of the House Budget Committee and gave him new and unprecedented powers to unilaterally set spending limits instead of subjecting those limits to a vote on the House floor. Speaking of Ryan’s new power, Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) said, “Unfortunately, the House GOP is reverting back to the same arrogant governing style they implemented when they last held the majority and turned a surplus into a huge deficit.”
So this is the guy Romney wants by his side helping him slash spending. I don't see how any reasonable person can sit there and tell me, given the documented record of this man, that the ultimate goal isn't to eliminate these programs. Romney in particular has expressed a fundamental resentment for people who rely on government programs.
Where we differ with liberals and Democrats is in the best way to help the poor and the unemployed. Government programs ought to be designed to help lift people out of poverty and get them to work, but Great Society programs have had the effect of creating a permanent underclass of poor people.
That is absolute bunk, and it is precisely the kinds of thinking I'm referring to. This is certainly what was going on in Romney's head when he made that idiotic remark about the 47%. These legends of people living lavish lifestyles while on welfare and foodstamps are myths created by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. There may be a few exceptions to the rule, but nowhere near the severity that you folks are making it out to be in order to justify drastic overhauls of these programs. Again. all you have to do is look at the huge budget and then look at what portion of that involves unearned benefits in our safety net. This is like me telling my wife I'm going to slash our $300 water bill by pissing outside from now on (saving our budget roughly 10 cents per flush!). In the meantime, I'll continue to water the lawn religiously all week and take long showers day and night. It just doesn't make any sense what these guys are saying.
I've known a few people who have been on these programs and there is nothing flattering about them. Food stamps for a family of four is usually just a couple hundred bucks a month and people are embarrassed using them. Now why in the hell would anyone be satisfied with that kind of life for themselves and their children? You guys make it sound like people love this system and therefore choose not to seek out further employment, but there is really no evidence for this. It is just a baseless exercise in judging people you've never met. This is why your side has to flat out lie about things such as Obama's attempt to remove the work requirement from welfare. This is designed to rile up the bigoted and heartless, like many folks on my Facebook who do nothing all day except post about how Mexicans and Democrats are living off of their hard earned taxes. Why do they think this way? Because of the lies they're constantly hearing from FOX, Rush, Hannity, and now Romney himself. This is all an orchestrated campaign funded by the wealthy and corporations who want the American people to feel guilty and they tried to divide and conquer, getting Americans to hate one another by getting them to judge each other first. First you judge them based on some BS you hear in the Right Wing media, and then you hate them, and call them unAmerican, and eventually turn into a Droopy.
That is unacceptable, We have a responsibility as a nation to take care of the needy, but programs must be designed and implemented intelligently and efficiently.
And the ultimate goal on your side is to eliminate them. Why can't you admit this? Romney/Ryan won't come out and say this, because they continue to lie and deceive with grins on their faces when it suits their purposes. But they'll make it so damned difficult for someone to qualify for benefits, as to make the entire safety net useless. Your own comments suggest this is the way to go since, in your view, the system is turning people into a bunch of moochers just like Romney described half the country.
This is something they feel passionately about, obviously. And it makes no sense given the fact that foodstamps represent less than .5 % of our overall budget. Social Security and Medicare represent a large chunk but that is already paid for through payroll taxes so for them to keep talking about how cutting these programs will somehow reduce our debt, is just another example of their lies. When you take out all the "entitlements" that aren't paid for, such as welfare and food stamps, then you're really talking about a small fraction of the overall budget. But they have to throw in SS and Medicare in there because they've successfully labeled it an "entitlement" and the benefits paid out each year is roughly a trillion dollars. So they have to include those in their anti-entitlement rants for effect.
But given that unearned benefits represent such a small portion of the budget, then why focus on this stuff at all? They do this because they have to target something since they've already made the "debt" their platform. So they have to talk about spending cuts, but they'll be damned if they're going to cut anything that makes sense, such as defense spending, which is greater than the next four countries combined! They're counting on lobbying from defense contractors, so they can't bite the hand that feeds them.
It's that approach to welfare that gets us labeled heartless bastards. I can handle the label, as long as we are actually doing something positive to improve the lives of our people.
But you're not. You're party is moving into the realm of the heartless bastards and it is a well deserved title. You guys chose Ryan, so now you have to live with the consequences and stop pretending you're the same Republican party of the 1970's-1980's. You're nothing like that party anymore.
You've sold your souls to corporate whores like Romney/Ryan who are working very hard in the interests of the wealthy, and we all know where the wealthy stand in the eyes of scripture. They don't give a flying damn about the working class. Yes yes, I know. Romney didn't really mean what he said about 47% of the nation, right? Keep telling yourself that. It was all just a ruse for his billionaire fan club. What he REALLY means is what he says in front of the TV cameras, right?