Texas Republican 2006 Party Platform/National Party Platform?

[CTF]

Found this on youtube, something for everyone's consideration.

Because it has been made public, the conservatives are convinced that it's made up and they're calling it, "Typical Liberal Hate."

You decide:



Here's the actual link to the 2006 Republican Party of Texas Platform.

[General_Alfie]

I love how this clip just lays out the facts as they are, as verified by the official Texas Republican't platform.

I also get a kick out of the "cockroach effect" that hits these religious and political perverts on the right: they feel perfectly normal and comfortable writing this crap and scheming with their verminous cohorts when no one from the outside is observing, but once a ray of sunlight hits their hive, they go into full fucking back-peddling retreat. Cowardly? Craven? Dishonest? Yewbetcha and Dontchaknow! That's the very essence of modern wingnuttery.

Of course, I could well be very wrong, but I think the gig is just about up for these fakers and kooks, I really do -- the beginning of the end was when they ghoulishly crawled into Mrs. Schiavo's death bed, and the first nail in their coffin was Bush's blunders in New Orleans. There will come a time when Republicans would sooner sidle-up to a sicko like former Congresswoman Foley than with the Taliban religious nuts, and that day is coming.

Thanks for posting this, centex, and best of luck as the election approaches!

[CTF]

I love how this clip just lays out the facts as they are, as verified by the official Texas Republican't platform.

I also get a kick out of the "cockroach effect" that hits these religious and political perverts on the right: they feel perfectly normal and comfortable writing this crap and scheming with their verminous cohorts when no one from the outside is observing, but once a ray of sunlight hits their hive, they go into full fucking back-peddling retreat. Cowardly? Craven? Dishonest? Yewbetcha and Dontchaknow! That's the very essence of modern wingnuttery.

Of course, I could well be very wrong, but I think the gig is just about up for these fakers and kooks, I really do -- the beginning of the end was when they ghoulishly crawled into Mrs. Schiavo's death bed, and the first nail in their coffin was Bush's blunders in New Orleans. There will come a time when Republicans would sooner sidle-up to a sicko like former Congresswoman Foley than with the Taliban religious nuts, and that day is coming.

Thanks for posting this, centex, and best of luck as the election approaches!

Thank you.

It's clear to me that not only can't I understand why anyone who's gay could support the current Republican party, I can't understand why Texans, or Americans can continue to support the Republican Party.

I cannot think of any other group within this country that is as Un-American as that put forth by the 2006 Republican Party Platform. Outside of this country the Taliban comes to mind.

[epicAdam]

I consider myself to be pretty liberal, but I do agree with a few things mentioned in the clip.

The tax system is too much of a burden... no other country, even the Social-Democratic states of Europe do not have a system which requires its citizens to fill out hours of paperwork for the privilege of paying the government.

I also think that several departments of the Federal government are superfluous. Like, I'm not exactly sure what the department of education does... or the department of energy. As for education, i'd much rather have Federal taxes decrease and state taxes increase in order to pay for better-quality local education.

Other than simplifying the tax code and streamlining some of the more mundane functions of government, my agreement with the Republican Party platform ends there.

[Toriko]

The tax system is too much of a burden... no other country, even the Social-Democratic states of Europe do not have a system which requires its citizens to fill out hours of paperwork for the privilege of paying the government.

Although, it is more like you fill out hours of paperwork (or more precisly pay someone else to do it for you, or for software so you can do it yourself) so that you can beg for money that the government took from you in excess of any obligation by law, paid back without interest.

The federal tax code should be so simple that to file your return would require no longer than a one page, front only, sheet for everyone with, at the most, a 4 page accompanying book to explain to any idiot how to do his taxes for himself. Honestly, it should be done on a postcard.

[seapuppy]

I consider myself to be pretty liberal, but I do agree with a few things mentioned in the clip.

The tax system is too much of a burden... no other country, even the Social-Democratic states of Europe do not have a system which requires its citizens to fill out hours of paperwork for the privilege of paying the government.

I also think that several departments of the Federal government are superfluous. Like, I'm not exactly sure what the department of education does... or the department of energy. As for education, i'd much rather have Federal taxes decrease and state taxes increase in order to pay for better-quality local education.

Other than simplifying the tax code and streamlining some of the more mundane functions of government, my agreement with the Republican Party platform ends there.

Somewhat the same reaction here,

I thought with the lead-in that it was going to be about nuking Iran or something. Granted, some nutso stuff in there, (U.N. drop-out, Chrisitan Nation?), but, move to a VAT tax, like those right wing Texas....Europeans. End the idiocy of government regulations that often stifle progress and economic expansion., i.e., forcing working-class men and women to pay taxes to support the swank entertainment of the upper classes. Thats EXCATLY what happens to much NEA funds in my city. Or end the Department of Education, which since it's inception, and boot-licking of teachers unions, has presided over the gutting and decline of the worlds greatest experiment in public education and reduced American high school students to the butt of European and late night talk show jokes on education. Move from the ponzi scheme of Social Security, which WILL fail, (unless basic math is declared null and void, again, the D. of Ed. and teachers unions just may...), in my lifetime, and move to the sane IRA type programs of investment being adopted by other countries. Secure our borders for REAL, not just rethorically, with an ACTUAL security fence, which, by the way, has proven to be successful beyond all critisism of it, in California. Allow wages to float with the law of supply and demand, which again, has proven to be so economically successful in the former Soviet Empire. (It actually RAISES more wages, than lowers, by allowing providers of payroll to reward hard work, not just 'breathing' on the clock.) Again, right wing countries in radical...Scandinavia...are working those schemes in an effort to CUT unemployment.

And their suggestions for the role of government at the end of the clip....

Secure a living wage? Where in the heck in the Constitution is that my governments responibility? Their view that is touted is government as chief "Nanny". No thanks. Securing "peace" in the world? I assume by leaving Iraq to the terrorrist? By endorsing some other neo-isolationist policy becoming in vougue with both Parties in the light of our Iraqi fortunes? Maybe the U.N., that Texas Repubs. are not fond of can take over America's security interest, oil for food and all...FLUFFY TAKES OVER....Oh, I can't wait...

[John Wesley]

"Log Cabin" Republicans must be insane or are in need of punishment of some sort. In the 2004 the Republican National Convention specifically EXCLUDED them from even attending the convention. So if the Republican Party is that homophobic and stupidly rigid, nothing those sexual and religious nitwits could or would ever come up with would surprise me. The American people I think are finally starting to wake up as to who and what conservative Republicanism is all about. But the final blow to the Republican bandwagon just might be their complete and utter incompetent inability to do anything meaningful for the American people. John Wesley

[seapuppy]

"Log Cabin" Republicans must be insane or are in need of punishment of some sort. In the 2004 the Republican National Convention specifically EXCLUDED them from even attending the convention. So if the Republican Party is that homophobic and stupidly rigid, nothing those sexual and religious nitwits could or would ever come up with would surprise me. The American people I think are finally starting to wake up as to who and what conservative Republicanism is all about. But the final blow to the Republican bandwagon just might be their complete and utter incompetent inability to do anything meaningful for the American people. John Wesley

Not sure where you got your information, but it is incredibly wrong. I am neither Log Cabin, nor Republican, but a simple Google search will yeild many articles covering the very active participation of Log Cabin on the floor of the Republican National Convention in 2004. They have never been exluded from participation. They just don't get their way very often.

http://members.aol.com/wockner/gop2004.html

Most of these stories wind up being apocryphal....

[General_Alfie]

Somewhat the same reaction here,

I thought with the lead-in that it was going to be about nuking Iran or something.

I take it you didn't bother reading the platform, and I say that because the platform makes manifestly clear just how radical, extreme, and crazy the Texas GROP really is.

Now, perhaps the reason you don't see the extreme and inane notions because you agree with them -- I can't say if that's the case, but how could you possibly miss some of the stranger, more "Talibanesque" fatwas these freaks want to issue, fatwas like:

o commingling government with religion
o contaminating the judicial system by appointing social misfits as judges

o outlawing no-fault divorce
o recognizing as a human being, with full rights, a fetus more than 20 weeks old.

o banning contraceptives like "the morning after pill"
o demands that the US Congress state that America is a so-called "Christian nation."

o abolishment of US laws that prohibit churches from engaging in politics
o outlawing sodomy, outlawing even domestic partnership benefits, to gays.

o removal from all US legal code any protections based on sexual orientation, including the right to emergency medical treatment, mandatory reporting of HIV status to the government, criminalization of gay marriage, prohibition of discussing homosexuality in any sex education classes.

That's just the highlights of the GOP platform, a platform surely written by some sick, degenerate head cases with way too much time on their hands and too much evil in their hearts. And while you may agree with their agenda, or at least find nothing harmful in it, it is clear most Americans do not want to turn our nation over to these social lepers, and most Americans rejected this lunacy years ago.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You seem to have a fondness for economics, which is good; sadly, your knowledge of economics isn't very broad, or deep, and your analysis reeks of right wing talking points that were long ago discredited by those "in the know."

You wrote:

Move from the ponzi scheme of Social Security, which WILL fail, (unless basic math is declared null and void, again, the D. of Ed. and teachers unions just may...), in my lifetime, and move to the sane IRA type programs of investment being adopted by other countries.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme? That right? How's that? You see, a Ponzi scheme is defined as "an investment swindle in which high profits are promised from fictitious sources and early investors are paid off with funds raised from later ones."

So. Can you please prove that Social Security promises "high profits," or high payoffs from low investments? Can you show how the Social Security program "fixes" the true numbers, thus deceiving investors? Can you give examples of the government faking the actual income stream to the program? Can you show that the trustees of Social Security have in any way faked the cash flow trajectory of the program?

You see, unlike a Ponzi scheme, government receipts (taxes) and payouts (entitlements) can be calculated quite accurately -- we know, for example, that Social Security is solvent for seventy-five years, or to at least the year 2081, and we know this because there are legal requirements and safeguards in place.

So, as I said, can you prove your claim? Didn't think so.

[Rand]

be scared, be very scared

be motivated, be very motivated

vote - vote - vote

[General_Alfie]

Deportation, Rand, deportation is the wave of the future.

[CTF]

In comparison, here's a link to the 2006 Texas Democratic Party Platform, which as a precinct chair/delegate I helped to create!

2006 Texas Democratic Pary Platform

For examply here's the party's position on Social Security:

Social Security



Texas Democrats believe we must keep the promise of Social Security strong and certain for those who have worked and contributed to the system most of their lives. Social Security should continue to be the foundation of income security for working Americans. We believe all Americans should have access to the Social Security system, including public employees. Private savings accounts and other pension programs should be additions to the guaranteed Social Security benefit, not a substitute for any portion of it.
We oppose privatization of the Social Security program and consider the use of taxpayer dollars as capital to invest in the stock market as a threat to the income security of working Americans. Texas Democrats believe privatization of social security is fiscally irresponsible. We oppose Republican federal budget plans to spend down and undermine the Social Security Trust Fund, including proposals to carve out private savings accounts, which would drain trillions of dollars from the Social Security system.


Retirement Security
Millions of workers have invested in public or private pensions to secure their retirement income. Texas Democrats support measures to provide strong and effective legal protections to secure the investments of workers in public or private pensions to honor the principle that a lifetime of honest work should be rewarded with adequate retirement income.We believe:

• a participant in a pension or retirement program should have legal protection for the full amount to which they are entitled if such accounts or corporate pensions lose their funding or are dismantled due to financial improprieties, insolvency or reorganization;
• companies filing for bankruptcy or encountering legal problems should have funds automatically frozen or set aside to fund the pension plan in place;
• time limits must be in place to allow the expedient transfer of pensioners’ funds to a new account or directly to the pensioner within the confines of IRS tax regulations;
• measures should be taken to improve corporate governance to enhance confidence of all stakeholders in the private enterprise system; and
• the state should act to ensure the solvency of the Teacher retirement System.

Though not perfect by any stretch, I would say it's a much more appealing Platform than that of the Republican Taliban.

[turtle]

Or end the Department of Education, which since it's inception, and boot-licking of teachers unions, has presided over the gutting and decline of the worlds greatest experiment in public education and reduced American high school students to the butt of European and late night talk show jokes on education.

Remember Howard Jarvis (I hope to spit on his grave before I die) and Proposition 13? The single greatest blow struck against our educational system in its entire history.

The far right wing of our country entered into a silent agreement with the far left wing to dilute our curricula because neither side liked what was being taught, or how it was being taught. It is easy to demonize the teachers' unions, but we have no idea how things might have turned out if they had been given their head instead of being obstructed at every step by reactionary neo-luddites. Our textbooks range from pathetic to absurd, not because of teachers' unions, but because of the local political action of extreme conservatives and the cowardice of textbook writers and publishers.

Move from the ponzi scheme of Social Security, which WILL fail in my lifetime, and move to the sane IRA type programs of investment being adopted by other countries.

Social Security is projected to falter some, not to fail substantially, let alone entirely. This is a problem of management, not of principle.

Secure our borders for REAL, not just rethorically, with an ACTUAL security fence, which, by the way, has proven to be successful beyond all critisism of it, in California.

Well, you are certainly not familiar with the desert, are you? The success in California has been at the expense of those of us further east. Even the best of fences is of little use without people watching it, and if you have the people, you need little more than a marker. (which, BTW, is lacking, too, in much of Arizona and New Mexico.) Oddly, the border patrol is also seriously lacking in understanding of the desert, and the Minutemen are a laughing stock to old desert rats like me.

I took a drive down HWY 9 recently, as I do regularly to pick up prescriptions in Palomas and do a little shopping, marguerita in hand, at La Tienda Rosa. (This time we also had a little picnic at Pancho Villa State Park in Columbus, it was quite a nice time) Minutemen had stationed themselves prominantly along the road, which paralells the border for some 50 miles. One of the vehicles they had out was a rocket launcher, for heaven's sake! And I could have snuck a small army by right under their noses without their even noticing.

So, let's say we get a good security fence built from San Diego to El Paso.

What do we do about the Rio Grande? If we try to fence it off, we cut animal life off from what is often the only source or water in 50 miles or more. There goes all the deer hunting, there go all the deer hunting ranches, in S. Texas.

It may be that rivers can be fenced off in much of the country, I wouldn't know, but I do know that it simply cannot be done on the Rio Grande.

Again, we need feet on the ground, not super fences.

Secure a living wage? Where in the heck in the Constitution is that my governments responibility?

Read your history. Governments have in fact normally considered such things their responsiblity, the differences lie in the ways they have chosen to address the issue.

I assume by leaving Iraq to the terrorrist?

We brought the terrorists to Iraq.

Thankfully, they are only a minor part of the mix. Our problem in Iraq is with the conflicting nationalistic dreams of different factions within that artificial "nation's" borders.

...FLUFFY TAKES OVER....Oh, I can't wait...

"Fluffy" is just about as fair a characterization as "brainless, chest-thumping apes".

And you won't have to wait for long.

-D

[mark1111]

Centex, thanks for this. General and Turtle, I agree with your views. However, what we are taught in school, and what the reality of this country is makes most of us give up on the system. I was really disapointed when the republicans won the election in 2000. I was amazed that they were reelected in 2004. It proves that americans are idiots and deserve what they vote for. Mindless sheep voting for who the church tells them to? A sad time for america.

[General_Alfie]

^ Never give up -- never. That's exactly what the white massa minds want us all to do.

Social Security is projected to falter some, not to fail substantially, let alone entirely. This is a problem of management, not of principle.

Touche, turtle, touche! You see, those who loath everything that is good, pure, wholesome and pro-America really, really hate that our seniors and disabled, thanks to Social Security, don't have to eat canned cat food three times a day -- that's what they'd like to see happen in America. So rather than fine-tune the system, they want to gut it, they want to disassemble all that is left of the New Deal and Great Society , that's a measure of how cruel, evil, and mendacious they are. Not gonna happen (as evinced by the stupid scion's failed sneak attack on Social Security in his first term). The Democratic Party would never fucking permit it, no matter what the political consequence.

[seapuppy]

Yes Alfie, as I said in my origional post, some nutty in there, but YOUR knowlege and other posters on this thread of economics AND history is seriously lacking.

Social Security was, from it's inception, a 'rob Peter to pay Paul' scheme. It will under almost every economist projections, GO BROKE! There is not one single proposal out there for solvency that does not depend on OUTSIDE tax funding in the future, in ever larger amounts to shore it up. Demographics cannot be 'legislated' out of existance.

To say theat the catastrophy of public education in America is not squarely on the backs of the teachers unions and their Democratic Party mob bosses is to live in total fantasy land. The example of Jarvis, (by another poster), is laughable. Jarvis actions ONLY applied to California, and to blame lack of funding per student in America is typycal of the zany Left. America spends more per student than any number of countries that outperform us in every way and anyone who cares to go beyond the rhetoric knows why. Teachers unions and the Democratic Party have stood, both feet planted in the doorway, like that other Democratic Wallace, stopping effective education reform in every area. It would be like me trying to blame Democrats for the war in Iraq. I, contrary to what you may think, would do no such thing. Iraq belongs to George Bush, the Republican Party in total.

I am moderately conservative, but like most Americans, am turned of mainly by the lack of responsibility on both sides.

p.s. to another poster...Most governments may, OUR government is Constitutionaly NOT our nanny and our source for securing a living wage. In America that first responsibility is on the individual person exersising their freedom AND responsibility to be responsible for their own life.

[keikekaze]

Centex, thanks for this. General and Turtle, I agree with your views. However, what we are taught in school, and what the reality of this country is makes most of us give up on the system. I was really disapointed when the republicans won the election in 2000. I was amazed that they were reelected in 2004. It proves that americans are idiots and deserve what they vote for. Mindless sheep voting for who the church tells them to? A sad time for america.

The Democrats won both the 2000 and 2004 elections; Republicans stole both elections through various forms of chicanery in Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004). This is well documented. The conclusion is not that Americans are idiots, who don't know what they're doing in the voting booth, but that they are too passive and sheeplike to care very deeply about their elections' results. In the United States, in stark contrast to many other countries, the voters allow elections to be stolen, and shrug and yawn and flip the TV remote over to the round-the-clock media feeding frenzy over the latest guy who didn't kill JonBenet Ramsey. Americans aren't stupid, but they do allow themselves to be lulled to sleep by the mainstream media.

[Toriko]

Social Security was, from it's inception, a 'rob Peter to pay Paul' scheme. It will under almost every economist projections, GO BROKE! There is not one single proposal out there for solvency that does not depend on OUTSIDE tax funding in the future, in ever larger amounts to shore it up. Demographics cannot be 'legislated' out of existance.

So taking care of America's old will become a fool's errand, that they cannot be afforded, and so what should be done with them?

Most governments may, OUR government is Constitutionaly NOT our nanny and our source for securing a living wage. In America that first responsibility is on the individual person exersising their freedom AND responsibility to be responsible for their own life.

Heh, "..*****rcising their ... responsibility to be responsible..." Regardless, the constitutionality of Social Security was challenged nearly 70 years ago and upheld:

Two Supreme Court rulings affirmed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.
Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548[5] (1937) held, in a 5–4 decision, that, given the exigencies of the Great Depression, "[i]t is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare". The arguments opposed to the Social Security Act (articulated by justices Butler, McReynolds, and Sutherland in their opinions) were that the social security act went beyond the powers that were granted to the federal government in the Constitution. They argued that, by imposing a tax on employers that could be avoided only by contributing to a state unemployment-compensation fund, the federal government was essentially forcing each state to establish an unemployment-compensation fund that would meet its criteria, and that the federal government had no power to enact such a program.
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619., decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program because "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...l_Security_Act

Here's something interesting though. The title asks "Is Social Security Constitutional?" by the mere deception in which it was sold to the public: http://www.lewrockwell.com/attarian/attarian8.html In light of this I now have a newfound respect and interest in the AARP that endeavors to keep Congress from betraying the elderly, which it is empowered, by SCOTUS no less if you follow the second link as it discusses the Nestor case, to do.

[General_Alfie]

Yes Alfie, as I said in my origional post, some nutty in there, but YOUR knowlege and other posters on this thread of economics AND history is seriously lacking.

Social Security was, from it's inception, a 'rob Peter to pay Paul' scheme.

There you go again, changing your song. First you called Social Security a "Ponzi Scheme," a whopper that I corrected you on. Now you're saying that it's a "rob Peter to pay Paul scheme," is that correct -- have I digested your thoughts accurately. Tell me, Milton Friedman, what sort of economic term is that? Let me help you, m'kay?

The mechanism is called a "trust fund," a revolving fund in which each generation of workers contributes; at the end of their working years, these workers gain access to a guaranteed level of income from the fund. The amount needed to fund these costs are surprisingly predictable, which is why the Social Security trust funds will continue to take in MORE than it spends through 2017 or so -- we call that a "surplus" because more trust fund income is coming in than going out. After 2017, even if nothing is done to increase the Social Security taxation rate, the fund will be able to pay 100% of its obligations until at least 2040. The CBO has stated that a Social Security tax increase of 1.89% of SS wages will keep the system in a state of surplus until 2087. This 1.89% is LESS than the effective cost of Bush's expensive and utterly non-stimulative tax cuts for the hyper wealthy.

You claimed that there's "not one single proposal out there for solvency that does not depend on OUTSIDE tax funding in the future, in ever larger amounts to shore it up," and the CBO says you are clearly WRONG, as evinced by the 1.89% increase in the EXISTING Social Security tax schedule.

So, in summary:

• You are wrong: the SS program isn't going bankrupt.
  
• You are wrong: the Social Security program is NOT a "Ponzi scheme."
  
• You are wrong: the Social Security program is not a "rob Peter to pay Paul" scheme, either.
  
• You are wrong: the SS program can be re-energized by a roughly 18% increase in its tax rate, implemented over, say, ten years.

I am moderately conservative, but like most Americans, am turned of mainly by the lack of responsibility on both sides.

Are you a conservative? I do wonder. Conservatives usually are against all manner of deficit and debt, yet you've not said word one about the current Bush deficits, some $2.5 trillion, and rising. How come? But then, in consideration, Bush isn't conservative either, nor is Gingrich, DeLay, Frist, McCain, Giuliani, or most any of the current crop of poseurs and frauds parading as "conservatives" (even as they spend like AWOL Air National Guard pilots). No, these creeps aren't conservative, they are right wing extremist authoritarians. Seems to me you are focused on Social Security not because you are conservative, but because you are against successful, effective, well-regarded government programs -- it's an ideological thing with you guys.

[CTF]

Not sure where you got your information, but it is incredibly wrong. I am neither Log Cabin, nor Republican, but a simple Google search will yeild many articles covering the very active participation of Log Cabin on the floor of the Republican National Convention in 2004. They have never been exluded from participation. They just don't get their way very often.

http://members.aol.com/wockner/gop2004.html

Most of these stories wind up being apocryphal....

With all due respect.

What the fuck are you?

You claimed in your original post to this thread that you don't support everything in the 2006 Republican Party platform, at least as the Texas Republican Party submitted it, then proceeded to defend it.



Then you go of on what I call half-baked claims against Social Security using the same lame ass arguments that I used years ago against it.

If you'll study the history of how SS came about, you'll discover that it was never intended to ba a "retirement program." My quotes not yours.

Somewhere a a decade or so ago, I believe that it was under Bush 41, the capital being paid into the SS fund was "dipped into" for other projects/ear marks.

Now the solvency of SS is being questioned because of what?

WHO GIVES A SHIT? It's now become just one of many "single issues."

It's one of many problems that our country faces, and no one within the Republican Party is dealing with it!

Republicans refuse to fund public education, then when public education goes into the toilet say, "We need vouchers," or we need "accountability" and impose bs like "No Child Left Behind."

We'll impose a tax to pay for public parks (in Texas), then siphon off 78% of that funding into the "general fund" then when it's pointed out that the state parks are in disrepair say, "We need to sell of State lands for oil/gas leases to make our parks more profitable, or close those parks and sell it to private investors. Do you honestly believe that "shit happens" or are you willing to acknowledge that "something is a foot at the Circle K?"

Are you really that NAIVE?

Is your world really THAT BLACK AND WHITE?

See the guy in my avatar? You're that person and you need to pull your head out!

[mark1111]

We'll impose a tax to pay for public parks (in Texas), then siphon off 78% of that funding into the "general fund" then when it's pointed out that the state parks are in disrepair say, "We need to sell of State lands for oil/gas leases to make our parks more profitable, or close those parks and sell it to private investors. Do you honestly believe that "shit happens" or are you willing to acknowledge that "something is a foot at the Circle K?"

Are you fucking kidding me? That is way beyond criminal! Things like this are what make me lose faith in this country.

[JayHawk]

I don't know what to say.

It is clear that the lies and deception truly are the lifeblood of BOTH parties. Falling for this ad mockup is paramount to believing that 20 yo that posted the dirty bomb threat. Everyone went gaga because some jackass figued out where to connect his lunacy to the internet. The truth is when it comes to money or love neither parties and no politicians are in it for the people. I really like how some true Republican platform initiatives that have gained much press in the last 6 years were incorporated with maniacal hate regime type goals. Kind of leading to to plausability of belief. AT least the dems are learning how to add a little outrage to the truth making it somewhat believeable. The repubblicans have been doing it for the last 12 years.

[CTF]

Are you fucking kidding me? That is way beyond criminal! Things like this are what make me lose faith in this country.

I wish that I was. It all started when George W. Bush became Governor of Texas. This is one of many examples that I can site regarding the dismantling of Texas/America by the Republican Party for the express benefit of those with the most money.

PRIVATIZING TEXAS PUBLIC PARKS -- PUBLIC LAND, PRIVATE PROFIT

You cannot lose faith in your country!

Your Country IS NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!

[seapuppy]

So taking care of America's old will become a fool's errand, that they cannot be afforded, and so what should be done with them?

We collectively are of course. Did I ever post the contrary? Is simple critisism of the current system an argument for the abandonment of of that concept. My statement of self-responsibility was a critic of the excesses of the welfare state in general.

Heh, "..*****rcising their ... responsibility to be responsible..." Regardless, the constitutionality of Social Security was challenged nearly 70 years ago and upheld: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...l_Security_Act

Garbled syntax or not, Where did I make an argument that the Social Security System was unconstitutional? Again, you are taking my general observation that our Constituion does not "guarantee" us a living wage or a wage at all. You are taking a general observation and applying it to arguments that I did not make.

[seapuppy]

With all due respect.

What the fuck are you?

A gentleman who shys away from personal comments about someone I am debating, but my experiance is you do not. If you want repect, following with questions like "what the fuck are you?" or "Pull your head out!" is not the way to get it from me.


[centexfarmer=QUOTE]See the guy in my avatar? You're that person and you need to pull your head out![/QUOTE]

[Toriko]

We collectively are of course. Did I ever post the contrary? Is simple critisism of the current system an argument for the abandonment of of that concept. My statement of self-responsibility was a critic of the excesses of the welfare state in general.

When you stated that you questioned its constitutionality and then went on about about how you it will go bankrupt because there will be so damn many of them old folk it makes it seem as if you are more than criticizing and that you would prefer an abandonment. You didn't utter a single clue as to what you prefer---raise taxes now and secure the trust fund? Force Congress to start paying back what they borrowed? Initiate a secondary handout program from the feds? How about a complimentary one from the states or local government? Privatization of SS? Attempting to increase the purchasing power of the dollar now to hold off inflation and prevent the rising of the living wage? Put them all on a big boat and sink it out at sea?

Garbled syntax or not, Where did I make an argument that the Social Security System was unconstitutional? Again, you are taking my general observation that our Constituion does not "guarantee" us a living wage or a wage at all. You are taking a general observation and applying it to arguments that I did not make.

You stated that the Constitution did not permit a nanny state, thus implies that you feel SS is not constitutional. Since we live in a monetary society, and that there is somehow found with the defense of SS that we are guaranteed a standard of living, then to meet that standard money must be used as a result---thus by happenstance a living wage, or living dole if you prefer, is guaranteed.

[seapuppy]

When you stated that you questioned its constitutionality and then went on about about how you it will go bankrupt because there will be so damn many of them old folk it makes it seem as if you are more than criticizing and that you would prefer an abandonment. You didn't utter a single clue as to what you prefer---raise taxes now and secure the trust fund? Force Congress to start paying back what they borrowed? Initiate a secondary handout program from the feds? How about a complimentary one from the states or local government? Privatization of SS? Attempting to increase the purchasing power of the dollar now to hold off inflation and prevent the rising of the living wage? Put them all on a big boat and sink it out at sea?

In exactly which post did I question the Constitutionality of the Social Security System? I have just re-read my post on this thread and did not in any of them. Can you tell me which # post of mine I did?

The rest of your above paragraph is just a hypethetical of what I "might" think based on your assumptions garnered by your incorrect assumption of the first erroneous statement you attribute to me.

You stated that the Constitution did not permit a nanny state, thus implies that you feel SS is not constitutional. Since we live in a monetary society, and that there is somehow found with the defense of SS that we are guaranteed a standard of living, then to meet that standard money must be used as a result---thus by happenstance a living wage, or living dole if you prefer, is guaranteed.

No, I said the Constitution did not "guarentee" income or a "living wage". I said nothing more, nothing less. Again, you keep trying to attribute a statement to me that in, not one single post, I made.

My crititic of Social Security is hardly novel. It is based on projections of the Congressional Budget Office. Social Security was always going to be in a sea of trouble due to simple demographics. It will either...

Be forced to draw increasingly on general tax revenues in the near future OR begin cutting benifits. That will stabilize briefley in about 2080-85, then the inevitable mathmatics of an aging society will take hold. One possible solution is that immigration will make up the shortfall of younger workers, (legal and illegle.), but baring that, nothing much can be done to change 4-1+3.

Most experts know that one way or another Social Security MUST be reformed. One, and only one, of the most logical solutions is mandetory, safe, and long-term investment portfolios being phased in over long-term. It is being tried in many other countries less politically gridlocked than ours with much success.

Even mandetory long-term savings account/Bond packages will provide substancially better retirement income for the elderly.

As to your "...so damn many many old folk.." and "abondonment" comments, I'll just chalk that up to emotion.

[seapuppy]

I just posted on the Sen. Obama thread and came accross this....

Barack Obama on Social Security
Democratic Jr Senator (IL); previously State Senator

$2000 tax credit for Working Families Savings Accounts
Obama today proposed Working Families Savings Accounts to increase retirement security and give families a greater incentive to save. "The best way for our government to help ensure that every American can retire with dignity is to provide incentives for middle-class families to save for the future," said Obama. "My Working Families Savings Accounts plan gives working men and women earning up to $50,000 per year the opportunity to put money in a retirement plan, whether it's an IRA or an employer based 401(k), and have that money matched with a 50 percent tax credit for contributions up to $2,000."
Today, only about half of workers participate in an employer-based pension plan. Participation rates in other savings plans are substantially lower. Only about five percent of people contribute the maximum amount allowed each year to an IRA or 401(k).

Doesn't that right-wing radical care about the old folks at all?

Another obvious right wing nut proposing private investment solutions...

Bill Clinton on Social Security

Proposed a small portion of Trust Fund be in mutual funds
[During the 1990s] the state of our union was stronger than ever, and I outlined a program, a series of initiatives to create a secure retirement for the baby boom generation. I proposed to commit 60 percent of the surplus over the next fifteen years to extend the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund until 2055, a small portion of it to be invested in mutual funds.
Source: My Life, by Bill Clinton, p.842 Jun 21, 2004

[Toriko]

In exactly which post did I question the Constitutionality of the Social Security System?

Great, then you agree that Social Security is constitutional and, since Alfie proved otherwise, that it is also not a ponzi scheme or an act of stealing; it is a legitimate, constitutional, and legal function of government.

...of what I "might" think based on your assumptions garnered by your incorrect assumption...

Heh.

No, I said the Constitution did not "guarentee" income or a "living wage". I said nothing more, nothing less.

Secure a living wage? Where in the heck in the Constitution is that my governments responibility? Their view that is touted is government as chief "Nanny". No thanks.

I then explained your questions and, seeing how Social Security is something done by a nanny state, thus is the link.

My crititic of Social Security is hardly novel. It is based on projections of the Congressional Budget Office. Social Security was always going to be in a sea of trouble due to simple demographics. It will either...

Be forced to draw increasingly on general tax revenues in the near future OR begin cutting benifits. That will stabilize briefley in about 2080-85, then the inevitable mathmatics of an aging society will take hold. One possible solution is that immigration will make up the shortfall of younger workers, (legal and illegle.), but baring that, nothing much can be done to change 4-1+3.

4-1+3=6? What's that supposed to mean?

Regardless, you say one thing about the CBO but ignore the other thing Alfie said about it and its predictions on how Social Security can be stabilized with a simple taxation alteration without throwing it into mutual funds. The one thing I can think is positive about putting the excess of the Trust Fund into mutual funds is that it reinvests into the American economy money that Congress will waste through general spending so it can keep up its slight-of-hand budgeting deception.

[seapuppy]

Great, then you agree that Social Security is constitutional and, since Alfie proved otherwise, that it is also not a ponzi scheme or an act of stealing; it is a legitimate, constitutional, and legal function of government.

Heh.

Yes, I agree that Social Security is Constitutional. Glad to see after many post you finally get that. As to the "ponzie scheme" and "Peter and Paul" argument, I again, have to plead to a total lack of origionallity on this. Most people who are not glued to one extreme or the other in American politics, know that the single biggest misconception, (I won't use 'lie', because I know how much it bothers Alfie and others to suggest that our government might actually...gasp...lie to us.), is that politicians for years, AL Gore comes immidiately to mind, have been telling the American people that Social Security is some sort of 'savings plan', or a 'fund' for supplimental retirement, (remember Mr. Gore's famous "lock box"?). Social Security has never been any such thing. Every dollar of Social Security has been immidiately spent by the Federal Government, or marked for spending, the second it arrives in Washington.

This is the crux of the failure of the scheme. It operates EXACTLY like a pyramid scheme, (God, I can hear Alfie's keyboard chattering now...). It has always been based on an IMMIDIATE expenditure of incoming dollars to retired workers. Like all pyramid schemes, it relys on never running out of suckers. Once that happens, it begins to crumble. That is EXACTLY what is happining to S.S.

My unproofread math formula aside, (LoL..it was suppossed to be 3-1=2 or sumthin...damn that dyslexia.), the system is unsustanable under EVERY demographic model that is realistic for the long term. Every politician has just been ponning it of on the next generation of politicians, hoping nothing terribly bad will happen on their watch.

Most Liberal 'sunny days are still ahead' schemes, rely on immpossible life expectancy rates, combined with the dubious idea that retirees will be willing to pospone their check collection until they are much older than today. Most experts consider that highly unlikely. Even then, it will not last.

Well, the chickens, as they say, are coming home to roost. Social Security has already had to undergo mass infusion of shoring up funds from the General Welfare funds and that will increase dramatically in the near future. Either 'beni's' will have to be cut or mass sources of revenues found. Nothing can be done about this in the immidiate future, but the long term structual integrity of the system can be saved. It becomes more problematic with each passing year of 'no reform'.

That is why such right-wing radicals like Bill Clinton, (who proposed exactly what Bush has on a longer term, smaller increment scale.), or Sen. Obama, (who proposes exactly what one would find in many a conservative think tank.), know that the goal is retirement security for the elderly, NOT saving the government beaurocracy of Social Security in it's unaltered form.

Almost any intelligent person who looks at it knows that the solution is to, whether fast of slow, break from the old model S.S. was based on and move to some sort of system that relies on private investment and savings.

Almost every Northern and Western European country faces the same dilema for the same reason. Unstoppable demographics. Almost all of them are trying private investment savings schemes. Even a passbook account would have given retired workers a better return than Social Security does. Almost any system of pooling health 'beni's' would have provided better health care coverage.

As you pointed out. Investment and savings have an added benifit to the general economy. A system wedded to government taxation is DRAINING on the economy. Gathering taxes from the general fund to 'shore up' Social Security' is a...Here goes Alfies keyboard again...a shell game, which simply masked what current workers are ACTUALLY being taxed to pay for Social Security.

[seapuppy]

Another right-wing organization chimes in...


SOCIAL SECURITY
News Release
Social Security Not Sustainable for the Long Term
( Aquí en Español)
The Social Security Board of Trustees today declared that the Social Security program is not sustainable over the long term. The 2003 Social Security Trustees Report does extend the projected solvency of the trust funds by one year.

In the 2003 Annual Report to Congress, the Trustees announced:

The projected point at which tax revenues will fall below program costs comes in 2018 -- one year later than the estimate in last year’s report;
The projected point at which the trust funds will be exhausted comes in 2042 -- one year later than the estimate in last year’s report;
The projected actuarial deficit of taxable payroll over the 75-year long-range period is 1.92 percent -- larger than the 1.87 percent projected in last year’s report;
The Trust Funds would require another $3.5 trillion in today’s dollars, earning interest at Treasury rates, to pay all scheduled benefits over the next 75 years. This obligation grew $200 billion from last year.
"This report is yet another reminder of what we have known for some time: Social Security's long-term financing problems are very serious, and will not be fixed by wishful thinking alone," said Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security.

"I want to assure those already receiving Social Security benefits – as well as those who are close to retirement – that your benefits are secure. But doing nothing will have serious consequences for our children and grandchildren.

"The release of this report is a good time to remind people how the Social Security program works. Social Security taxes pay the benefits of today's retirees. Money in excess of what is needed to pay today's benefits is invested in special issue, interest-bearing Treasury bonds. This system works well when there is a relatively high ratio of workers to beneficiaries. For instance, in 1965, there were 4 workers for every Social Security recipient.

"But the demographics are changing. People are living longer. The first baby boomers are just five years from retirement and the birth rate is low. Today, there are 3.3 workers paying Social Security payroll taxes for every one person collecting Social Security benefits. That number will drop to 2 to 1 in less than 40 years. At this ratio there will not be enough workers to pay scheduled benefits at current tax rates.

"As stated in the Trustees Report, the sooner we address the problem, the less abrupt the changes will have to be.

"Earlier today, Secretary Snow and I met with the President. We share the President’s strong hope that the national debate about Social Security will lead to a bipartisan solution.

This is from the Social Security Administrations own web-site.