You are claiming they are no different on abortion? If you are correct, then my third sentence contradicts the first. Also, the republicans are different on international trade and right to work. But as far as government spending and welfare, they both support big government.Your third sentence contradicts your first sentence.
They are completely different on Obamacare, and the idea of big govt. single payer healthcare provided by the federal govt. I’m not sure why you are unable to accept this - other than it points out the flaw in your mantra that there is no difference between the two parties.You are claiming they are no different on abortion? If you are correct, then my third sentence contradicts the first. Also, the republicans are different on international trade and right to work. But as far as government spending and welfare, they both support big government.
How is WalMart controlled by the present day “socialists”. The US does not have laissez faire capitalism, but it is not a socialist country where WalMArt, Ford, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Apple, General Electric, Costco, HP, Bank of America, IBM, Best Buy, Delta Air, DuPont are nationalized.Perhaps the modern day socialists ( I prefer the term secular leftists) are fine with technically not owning the big industries - as long as they can control them.
It isn’t. I never said the socialists had completely achieved their goals. I did say that they have made huge progress achieving their cultural Marxism goals - a point which you have not addressed.How is WalMart controlled by the present day “socialists”. The US does not have laissez faire capitalism, but it is not a socialist country where WalMArt, Ford, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Apple, General Electric, Costco, HP, Bank of America, IBM, Best Buy, Delta Air, DuPont are nationalized.
I don’t consider them to be socialists if they do not want to nationalize major business enterprises.It isn’t. I never said the socialists had completely achieved their goals. I did say that they have made huge progress achieving their cultural Marxism goals - a point which you have not addressed.
Ishii
Once again, I never claimed they were exactly the same. However, nobody can say that the republican party is the party of small government. They are the party of big government. Now their version of big government looks different than the democrats version of big government. They both support big spending and they both support the welfare state.They are completely different on Obamacare, and the idea of big govt. single payer healthcare provided by the federal govt. I’m not sure why you are unable to accept this - other than it points out the flaw in your mantra that there is no difference between the two parties.
Ishii
I think many Republicans want to be the effective party of small government, but they run into the entrenched nature of the reality of entitlements and big government such that their efforts to reduce the size of govt. largely fail. Again, the political reality makes it very difficult. I think the tea party has had a good influence on the GOP in this area. It is overly simplistic to say that the two parties are the same when it comes to big government and spending. They are not the same at all.Once again, I never claimed they were exactly the same. However, nobody can say that the republican party is the party of small government. They are the party of big government. Now their version of big government looks different than the democrats version of big government. They both support big spending and they both support the welfare state.
A worker who contributes to social security and Medicare through the payroll tax during his or her entire working life is not receiving welfare. It is a return of his or her own money. Social security is funded entirely by the payroll tax, and the federal government is prevented by law from contributing budgetary funds to social security.I am not denying that it would be politically difficult to do that. But if republicans support socialist programs like social security and medicare and they give no indication of being anything other than socialists, how are we going to determine that they are not socialists?
Actually it is not a return of their own money, their own money was spent years ago. Just like the income tax I paid in 1990 is long gone. Sure, I can go receive food stamps and rationalize it as the return of my own money. However, the way social security is set up is as a welfare program. We take from those who work and give to those who don’t work. It is not a pension because you have no legal right to the money outside of what the government decides you should have. No different from food stamps in that regard.A worker who contributes to social security and Medicare through the payroll tax during his or her entire working life is not receiving welfare. It is a return of his or her own money.
Social security is funded entirely by the payroll tax, and the federal government is prevented by law from contributing budgetary funds to social security.
Where things are really going to get ugly is when somebody decides they need to raise taxes to keep the system going. The problem is we have the takers and the makers in our society. Social Security recipients are the takers, not the makers. Those who actually work are not going to stand by while the takers try to rob them.However, the federal government has for decades borrowed trillions of dollars in surplus social security funds to balance the federal budget and has issued non-negotiable treasury bonds to the social security trust funds as collateral for this massive borrowing. Ever repaying these trillions to the SS trust funds is what the fuss is about, and there are those in Congress who would prefer not to do it. It doesn’t require Rocket Science to figure out who they might be.
That is at best a pretty thin argument. It’s like saying the money a person puts into a savings account, annuity or IRA and later withdraws isn’t the person’s money because the bank loaned out that money years ago. But in this instance, even that would not be factually correct because SS payments are made from the payroll-tax funded SS Trust Funds. It is only the annual excess SS funds that the federal government has borrowed and spent–though I couldn’t agree that its having spent these borrowed funds relieves it from the obligation to repay the debt.Actually it is not a return of their own money, their own money was spent years ago. Just like the income tax I paid in 1990 is long gone. Sure, I can go receive food stamps and rationalize it as the return of my own money. However, the way social security is set up is as a welfare program. We take from those who work and give to those who don’t work. It is not a pension because you have no legal right to the money outside of what the government decides you should have. No different from food stamps in that regard.
Where things are really going to get ugly is when somebody decides they need to raise taxes to keep the system going. The problem is we have the takers and the makers in our society. Social Security recipients are the takers, not the makers. Those who actually work are not going to stand by while the takers try to rob them.
Jesus didn’t teach about collective bargaining or the right to form a union - yet the Popes have since Rerum novarum.The Catholic Church does not teach climate change theory. It is not a part of the traditional teaching on faith and morals. It does does not come from apostolic tradition. And the Church does not consist only of the pope and clergy of today,but all faithful Catholics throughout history. So the belief of the pope and some bishops in climate change theory,or any other illogical theory,has no binding authority.
The Church does not teach that capital punishment is immoral. The death penalty for serious crimes is compatible with natural justice.
I’m not sure how many people are on Obamacare, but I know we are NOT – we get insurance from our workplace, and now that we’re retiring, from Medicare (as primary) & workplace health coverage (as secondary). From what I understand Obamacare is only for the uninsured and underinsured, and it is a shame that we have not been covering their backs all along. I would have been willing to pay more taxes to know that my all my brethren were covered.They are completely different on Obamacare, and the idea of big govt. single payer healthcare provided by the federal govt. I’m not sure why you are unable to accept this - other than it points out the flaw in your mantra that there is no difference between the two parties.
Ishii
Actually the federal government cannot default on social security. It can decide to eliminate benefits tomorrow and the recipients would have no legal recourse.That is at best a pretty thin argument. It’s like saying the money a person puts into a savings account, annuity or IRA and later withdraws isn’t the person’s money because the bank loaned out that money years ago. But in this instance, even that would not be factually correct because SS payments are made from the payroll-tax funded SS Trust Funds. It is only the annual excess SS funds that the federal government has borrowed and spent–though I couldn’t agree that its having spent these borrowed funds relieves it from the obligation to repay the debt.
Actually, the government’s failure to redeem any portion of the more than $3 trillion in treasury bonds held by the SS Trust Funds would constitute a default by the U.S. Government. But simply restoring the payroll tax to the level it was prior to the tax cut would itself keep SS solvent. The tax was only cut because there was an annual excess in SS funding.
They simply favor a different “flavor” of socialism. Instead of favoring communism, they favor more of the fascist flavor where companies are privately owned, but heavily regulated and controlled by govt. It’s still socialism.I don’t consider them to be socialists if they do not want to nationalize major business enterprises.
You’ve spent many, many hours on these boards blurring the lines to hide any differences between the two parties. It’s especially ironic coming from you, a person who specializes in focusing on trivialities for argumentation sake.Once again, I never claimed they were exactly the same. However, nobody can say that the republican party is the party of small government. They are the party of big government. Now their version of big government looks different than the democrats version of big government. They both support big spending and they both support the welfare state.
It seems as if you are completely unaware that Medicaid existed prior to Obamacare.I’m not sure how many people are on Obamacare, but I know we are NOT – we get insurance from our workplace, and now that we’re retiring, from Medicare (as primary) & workplace health coverage (as secondary). From what I understand Obamacare is only for the uninsured and underinsured, and it is a shame that we have not been covering their backs all along. I would have been willing to pay more taxes to know that my all my brethren were covered.
Actually France isn’t paying for it (or at least doesn’t want to pay for it). Read up a little on the troubles France is having and the forced austerity measures they have taken and will be forced to take. Their socialist utopia is collapsing from its own weight.In France OTOH, our niece is fully covered by the gov and when she had a difficult pregnancy & childbirth complications they even paid for her off-time from work for 6 months & all her medical expenses. And when she went back to work, free professional childcare and not “the baby-sitter from hell.” It not “free,” of course. They pay high taxes, but, as they say, you get what you pay for.
It will certainly default if it fails to redeem treasury bonds held by the Social Security Trust Funds. Should it decide to eliminate SS benefits tomorrow, there is the legal Constitutional recourse of the next election.Actually the federal government cannot default on social security. It can decide to eliminate benefits tomorrow and the recipients would have no legal recourse.
Of course, but that is same recourse that all other welfare recipients have.It will certainly default if it fails to redeem treasury bonds held by the Social Security Trust Funds. Should it decide to eliminate SS benefits tomorrow, there is the legal Constitutional recourse of the next election.
It’s human nature to abuse whatever we see as free stuff, just like how people overeat at buffets. For this reason I’m a firm believer in co-pays for healthcare and other benefits.It seems as if you are completely unaware that Medicaid existed prior to Obamacare.
Actually France isn’t paying for it (or at least doesn’t want to pay for it). Read up a little on the troubles France is having and the forced austerity measures they have taken and will be forced to take. Their socialist utopia is collapsing from its own weight.
Well, I began working when I was sixteen and paid into the SS system for half a century. I am now retired, receive SS benefits and don’t understand how this could properly be construed as “welfare”.Of course, but that is same recourse that all other welfare recipients have.