Against my better judgment

D

dems4me

Guest
jazz lady said:
Phew. I thought I smelled something rotten. :dead:


:kiss:


:lol: This is the first post I'd ever done that was antidemocrat :frown: and nothing to show for it... :sniff: :sniff: :bawl: See if I do THAT again... :lol:
 

jazz lady

~*~ Rara Avis ~*~
PREMO Member
dems4me said:
:lol: This is the first post I'd ever done that was antidemocrat :frown: and nothing to show for it... :sniff: :sniff: :bawl: See if I do THAT again... :lol:
No, it wasn't anti-democratic. It was TRUTHFUL. :roflmao:
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
dems4me said:
I thought I'd share this anyways... I found it funny... :lol:

Play the "You wanna No something - just ask a democrat" video

http://www.gop.com/
I think it was Nancy Pelosi in that video who correctly summed up what the Democrats seem to be about - blocking the President and not offering solutions or alternatives.

The reason I registered a Democrat, and despite my conservative voting record, continue to remain registered as one is that, generally, the Democrats have had the best overall new ideas. True, they've had to be morphed and tweaked until they become something practical and useful. But it's generally been my observation that they've traditionally been the party of innovation. If I wanted to hire management where I wanted to stay the course and run things efficiently, I'd hire Republicans. But if I wanted new ideas and pioneer new areas - well, up until a few years ago, I'd have hired Democrats.

But not in the last five or six years, at least. No longer. They don't come up with new ideas.

Social Security is a great example, and I can't believe the Democrats are making *any* gains in this area. I heard someone make this point the other day, and it really made sense - what the hell is wrong with giving someone the OPTION of investing PART of their Social Security 'pension'? Not whether or not the whole thing should be invested, or "privatized" as it has successfully been demonized by its detractors - but why is it bad to give someone the *choice* whether or not to invest it?

The Democrats have responded with - in stark contrast to their doom and gloom forecasts of the 2000 election - that it is 'not a problem' and it can be 'fixed' with higher taxes and a (whispered quietly) ..........reduction in benefits.

The higher taxes option won't work at all - as everyone here knows - what happens with the money over and above the payouts? It gets *spent*. So how the hell will taxing people MORE now prevent a collapse down the line? All it means is Congress will have more to spend *today*. They've never had the willpower to leave the money alone.

Privatization changes all that - it means the money's mine.

Actually, if it were MY idea, I'd phase out Social Security altogether. I'd make some form of retirement planning mandatory for all workers.

The Democrat's plan? A dumb commercial suggesting you have to tear down a whole house to fix a plumbing leak.

There's innovation for ya.
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
SamSpade said:
The higher taxes option won't work at all - as everyone here knows - what happens with the money over and above the payouts? It gets *spent*. So how the hell will taxing people MORE now prevent a collapse down the line? All it means is Congress will have more to spend *today*. They've never had the willpower to leave the money alone.
As I see it, part of the problem with Social Security is that the tax structure is too regressive. Instead of having everyone pay, say, 3 percent of their salary, the top bracket ends at $90,000. If the stated intention of the program is to help prevent retired people in the low- and middle-income brackets from living in poverty, then why have those brackets pay the lions' share of the taxes? I believe the tax strucutre in general is a mess. Corporate breaks on one hand and the Earned Income Tax Credit on the other.
 
Last edited:

Lenny

Lovin' being Texican
SamSpade said:
There's innovation for ya.

You hit it on the head. The Dems have no imagination beyond TAX-AND-SPEND. By SPEND they mean BUY VOTES WITH ENTITLEMENTS.
 
D

dems4me

Guest
Lenny said:
You hit it on the head. The Dems have no imagination beyond TAX-AND-SPEND. By SPEND they mean BUY VOTES WITH ENTITLEMENTS.


:ohwell: We do DO other things too... :ohwell: Are you implying Bush's administration hasn't spent anything in the past 5 years :shrug: Read my lips junior??? :roflmao:


Y'all crack me up... :roflmao:
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
dems4me said:
:ohwell: We do DO other things too... :ohwell: Are you implying Bush's administration hasn't spent anything in the past 5 years :shrug: Read my lips junior??? :roflmao:


Y'all crack me up... :roflmao:
And you're supporting my premise. No alternatives, no solutions. Right out of the gate, something wrong with Bush.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
dems4me said:
:ohwell: We do DO other things too... :ohwell: Are you implying Bush's administration hasn't spent anything in the past 5 years :shrug: Read my lips junior??? :roflmao:


Y'all crack me up... :roflmao:
And you're supporting my premise. No alternatives, no solutions. Right out of the gate, something wrong with Bush.
 
D

dems4me

Guest
SamSpade said:
And you're supporting my premise. No alternatives, no solutions. Right out of the gate, something wrong with Bush.


Not into debate mood today... sorry. :lol:
 
D

dems4me

Guest
SamSpade said:
And you're supporting my premise. No alternatives, no solutions. Right out of the gate, something wrong with Bush.



Not into debate mood today... sorry. :lol:
 
Top