If Republicans had gotten everything they wanted for the last seventy-five years or so...

craftsy21

craftsy21

6,597
10
Joined
Jan 13, 2001
the United States of America would have no Social Security, no Medicare, no Aid to Dependent Children, no civil rights, no environmental protections, no privacy rights to make contraception legal. There would be no business taxes, either, which could mean an even more vigorous business sector but also lots of gated communities and private security guards and - who knows? - maybe death squads to put down the inevitable insurrections. And there would certainly be no "death taxes," so we'd be burdened with an ever larger cohort of inbred aristocrats. And our daughters and sisters would be flocking to the nation's emergency rooms, hemorrhaging from illegal abortions. And we might still be at war in Vietnam.
On the other hand, consider what the Republicans gave Americans during their last eight years in power: They were asleep at the switch when Osama bin Laden attacked, overreacted by invading a country that had not attacked us (at the cost of about $1 trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives), saddled the country with $43 billion a year in unfunded Medicare mandates and another $1.7 trillion in unfunded tax cuts for the rich ($2.5 trillion according to a new study by Citizens for Tax Justice [PDF]) - then followed their market fundamentalist ideology right over the economic cliff and sent the whole planet spinning into recession.

And now they're upset about how Obama is running the country? What gives them the right to criticize, exactly?

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/angry-republicans-091509?src=rss#ixzz0RDoLXhON


laugh.gif


An article I enjoyed - sorry if a repost. http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/angry-republicans-091509?src=rss
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by WaveyJonesLocker

A two-party system isn't truly democracy.
Click to expand...


agreed - this post isn't meant to imply that Democrats are angels either... if you read any of my posts around here you will see that I hate both parties,maybe with a slight hatred for the right a bit moreso than the left.. but i've come to believe they're just all the same in the end, and politiciansare all filthy stinking liars.
 
Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Originally Posted by WaveyJonesLocker

A two-party system isn't truly democracy.
Click to expand...


agreed - this post isn't meant to imply that Democrats are angels either... if you read any of my posts around here you will see that I hate both parties, maybe with a slight hatred for the right a bit moreso than the left.. but i've come to believe they're just all the same in the end, and politicians are all filthy stinking liars.
Click to expand...

True, my opinions are exactly the same. I just meant that as a general statement.
 
the United States of America would have no Social Security, no Medicare, no Aid to Dependent Children, no civil rights, no environmental protections,


Oh word?
On the other hand, consider what the Republicans gave Americans during their last eight years in power: They were asleep at the switch when Osama bin Laden attacked, overreacted by invading a country that had not attacked us
That was all Republican doing, was it?
A two-party system isn't truly democracy.
Multi-party systems have considerable problems as well.
agreed - this post isn't meant to imply that Democrats are angels either... if you read any of my posts around here you will see that I hate both parties, maybe with a slight hatred for the right a bit moreso than the left.. but i've come to believe they're just all the same in the end, and politicians are all filthy stinking liars.
And that we can agree on.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by SaltineWarrior

How'd social security work out?

smh.gif
Horrible article. The media is getting worse with these biases.
Click to expand...

Hey genius - social security could've been fixed if Bush and company didn't just ignore it his entire time in office, despite the fact that everyone inthose elections swore they had a solution for it.

And this is an editorial - it's supposed to present a point of view, not a straight up news presentation with no bias. No wonder you didn't like thearticle
laugh.gif
 
Craftsy21 wrote:
SaltineWarrior wrote:
How'd social security work out?

smh.gif
Horrible article. The media is getting worse with these biases.

Hey genius - social security could've been fixed if Bush and company didn't just ignore it his entire time in office, despite the fact that everyone in those elections swore they had a solution for it.

And this is an editorial - it's supposed to present a point of view, not a straight up news presentation with no bias. No wonder you didn't like the article
laugh.gif




To be fair, Democrats used a lot of mistruths and hyperbole when Bush tried to make even the smallest changes to Social Security in 2005. People have shortmemories but as I recall, they more or less said that instead of pulling the plug on grandma, as the GOP says about healthcare reform now, the Dems said thatgrandma would be thrown out on the street. And to be honest, Republicans are not totally lying when they talk about pulling the plug while the Dems werecompletely lying in 2005 when Bush tried to make very modest reforms to a broken entitlement system.


As far as this editorial is concerned, I am a libertarian so there are instances when Republicans do not get their way that I am happy. I would say that someof those forms of progress like social security are insolvent and are not something about which one should boast. More importantly, you have to realize thatsocial security crowds out what could be perhaps more efficient social insurance. Before social security, workers often times organized themselves intofraternal lodges and one of their primary functions was to compensate families of killed or disabled workers. In today's economy, which is much richer andproductive, with work places that are much safer, private life insurance would be much cheaper, robust, stable and generous than it is today and the reason isbecause those taxes taken in social security could be placed in life long annuities and insurance funds.

There are some desirable aspects to tax payer financed, universal social benefits but there are costs and it is just just tax dollars. There is the cost ofcrowding out philanthropy and private efforts to insure one's self and that crowding out should be taken into account when lauding New Deal and GreatSociety programs.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I don't know what would be better. But you look at a country like Italy with all its parties and can't help but wonder if multi-party is not the way togo.
 
Originally Posted by Friendliest Ghost

On the other hand, consider what the Republicans gave Americans during their last eight years in power: They were asleep at the switch when Osama bin Laden attacked, overreacted by invading a country that had not attacked us
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That was all Republican doing, was it?

Oh, the Vulcans weren't Republicans?
 
Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Originally Posted by WaveyJonesLocker

A two-party system isn't truly democracy.
Click to expand...


agreed - this post isn't meant to imply that Democrats are angels either... if you read any of my posts around here you will see that I hate both parties, maybe with a slight hatred for the right a bit moreso than the left.. but i've come to believe they're just all the same in the end, and politicians are all filthy stinking liars.
Click to expand...


thats whats missing from that article, yet somehow gets leaved out. funny how these things work out
 
To be fair, Democrats used a lot of mistruths and hyperbole when Bush tried to make even the smallest changes to Social Security in 2005. People have short memories but as I recall, they more or less said that instead of pulling the plug on grandma, as the GOP says about healthcare reform now, the Dems said that grandma would be thrown out on the street. And to be honest, Republicans are not totally lying when they talk about pulling the plug while the Dems were completely lying in 2005 when Bush tried to make very modest reforms to a broken entitlement system.
You're not really buying into the death panel talk are you Rex? Say it ain't so...

I know there's plenty of sources out there on both sides of whether or not this would happen, but I think you'd have to be crazy to think such an itemcould get passed through. And trust that old people I've talked to (relatives) are much more scared of this death panel talk than they were "gettingthrown out in the streets" for a lack of social security. Half of that is probably because the latter wouldn't affect the current old-age people,while the former certainly would if somehow true.

Still - I think you're drinking the kool-aid a bit on that one. In no way have I seen such a piece of language from that bill yet that clearly statesdeath panels would exist in any form... certainly not in the grim way it's being painted by the right-wingers. Besides, when have the libs ever been sooutwardly gruesome and blood-hungry? That's a GOP type of proposition if I ever heard one.
Click to expand...
 
I'll let Rex speak for himself, but he's not implying death panels in any shape or form or at least as the media explains it. You have to be foolish tobelieve that under a government run program that terminal patients would live nearly as long as in the status quo. It doesn't have to be in the bill tohappen, as time passes there will be structural changes and guidelines. Most likely end of life guidelines (I don't think it would be too far fetched toassume it would be similar to how Britain allows certain premature babies to die).

And liberals are just as gruesome, if it were up to some you could get abortions at 7-11s
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted by Craftsy21


To be fair, Democrats used a lot of mistruths and hyperbole when Bush tried to make even the smallest changes to Social Security in 2005. People have short memories but as I recall, they more or less said that instead of pulling the plug on grandma, as the GOP says about healthcare reform now, the Dems said that grandma would be thrown out on the street. And to be honest, Republicans are not totally lying when they talk about pulling the plug while the Dems were completely lying in 2005 when Bush tried to make very modest reforms to a broken entitlement system.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You're not really buying into the death panel talk are you Rex? Say it ain't so...

I know there's plenty of sources out there on both sides of whether or not this would happen, but I think you'd have to be crazy to think such an item could get passed through. And trust that old people I've talked to (relatives) are much more scared of this death panel talk than they were "getting thrown out in the streets" for a lack of social security. Half of that is probably because the latter wouldn't affect the current old-age people, while the former certainly would if somehow true.

Still - I think you're drinking the kool-aid a bit on that one. In no way have I seen such a piece of language from that bill yet that clearly states death panels would exist in any form... certainly not in the grim way it's being painted by the right-wingers. Besides, when have the libs ever been so outwardly gruesome and blood-hungry? That's a GOP type of proposition if I ever heard one.

I think Rex is referring to the economic inevitability of rationing of care if there is a public option.
 
This country has two parties, one for the rich people (democrats), and than one for Lunatics who believe the Earth if flat (Republicans).
 
I thought the whole pulling the plug idea was about death panels? I guess the rationing concept could be seen as a possible connection to that statement also,but that's another thing that's been flat out denied by supporters of this bill.

There's always the chance that they're just flat out lying about it being in the bill - but I think it's mostly just a loose interpretation by theopposition. I guess if you're so worried about it you can just spend your big bucks on a private insurer, who is likely to use the same tactics if youcan't pull the money out of your !+# from somewhere
laugh.gif


Ironic you bring up the abortion topic though - funny how conservatives want the government out of their health, yet they're fine with pushing the samegovernment to make abortions illegal.
laugh.gif


the hypocrisy knows no bounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom