MAJORITY THINKS MEDICARE CHANGES ARE UNNECESSARY

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2011 4:26 PM GMT
    "They're not buying it. Most Americans say they don't believe Medicare has to be cut to balance the federal budget, and ditto for Social Security, a new poll shows."

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/23/ap-poll-majority-thinks-medicare-changes-unnecessary/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2011 4:33 PM GMT
    doesn't surprise me. everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too, but it's unrealistic. social security is a ponzi scheme destined to fail.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    May 23, 2011 4:41 PM GMT
    No, there is tons of money for Social Security and Medicare. In fact, Social Security is completely solvent for the next 23 years. And, when it actually does get low, we can deduct an extra DOLLAR from everybody's pay check. And, don't tell me you'd miss ONE dollar.

    Social Security has been the most cost effective, worthwhile program that the United States has ever had.

    And, when you try to take that away from older folks, they tend to vote DEMOCRATIC.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2011 5:25 PM GMT
    Removing the income cap on Social Security/FICA would go a very long way toward extending the solvency of the SS Fund, one would think...

    ...although I would like to see it privatized, or semi-privatized along the lines if the Federal Thrift Savings Plan that is available to federal employees and the military.
  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    May 29, 2011 6:19 PM GMT
    Anthony Weiner "It IS The Proposal Of The Republican Party To Eliminate Medicare!"



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 6:53 PM GMT
    atl2atx85 saiddoesn't surprise me. everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too, but it's unrealistic. social security is a ponzi scheme destined to fail.


    +1. Both programs are total ponzi schemes (basically a chain-letter gifting pyramid program) and would be considered completely illegal and criminal if they existed in the private sector. Both of them are. Ironically, Paul Ryan isn't even attempting to get rid of them, only help them remain solvent.

    Anyone who opposes Paul Ryan's plan is basically supporting the bankruptcy of medicare.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 7:26 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    atl2atx85 saiddoesn't surprise me. everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too, but it's unrealistic. social security is a ponzi scheme destined to fail.


    +1. Both programs are total ponzi schemes (basically a chain-letter gifting pyramid program) and would be considered completely illegal and criminal if they existed in the private sector. Both of them are. Ironically, Paul Ryan isn't even attempting to get rid of them, only help them remain solvent.

    Anyone who opposes Paul Ryan's plan is basically supporting the bankruptcy of medicare.


    This whole idea that either program is a Ponzi scheme is just silly. Yes, taxes paid today are what pays for benefits today. But, unless you assume that we will end the payroll taxes that pay for them, there's no problem.

    And Ryan isn't trying to "save" anything. He, like many Republicans before him, wants to eliminate all of our major social programs, or put them in the hands of private companies so someone can profit off our tax dollars.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 7:41 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    atl2atx85 saiddoesn't surprise me. everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too, but it's unrealistic. social security is a ponzi scheme destined to fail.


    +1. Both programs are total ponzi schemes (basically a chain-letter gifting pyramid program) and would be considered completely illegal and criminal if they existed in the private sector. Both of them are. Ironically, Paul Ryan isn't even attempting to get rid of them, only help them remain solvent.

    Anyone who opposes Paul Ryan's plan is basically supporting the bankruptcy of medicare.


    This whole idea that either program is a Ponzi scheme is just silly. Yes, taxes paid today are what pays for benefits today. But, unless you assume that we will end the payroll taxes that pay for them, there's no problem.

    And Ryan isn't trying to "save" anything. He, like many Republicans before him, wants to eliminate all of our major social programs, or put them in the hands of private companies so someone can profit off our tax dollars.


    It assumes that there will always be enough money coming in to support the following generation and that obviously is not reality. So yes, it is a ponzi scheme. Both of them are. To deny this is just plain dishonest.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 7:59 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    atl2atx85 saiddoesn't surprise me. everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too, but it's unrealistic. social security is a ponzi scheme destined to fail.


    +1. Both programs are total ponzi schemes (basically a chain-letter gifting pyramid program) and would be considered completely illegal and criminal if they existed in the private sector. Both of them are. Ironically, Paul Ryan isn't even attempting to get rid of them, only help them remain solvent.

    Anyone who opposes Paul Ryan's plan is basically supporting the bankruptcy of medicare.


    This whole idea that either program is a Ponzi scheme is just silly. Yes, taxes paid today are what pays for benefits today. But, unless you assume that we will end the payroll taxes that pay for them, there's no problem.

    And Ryan isn't trying to "save" anything. He, like many Republicans before him, wants to eliminate all of our major social programs, or put them in the hands of private companies so someone can profit off our tax dollars.


    It assumes that there will always be enough money coming in to support the following generation and that obviously is not reality. So yes, it is a ponzi scheme. Both of them are. To deny this is just plain dishonest.


    No. A ponzi scheme is an investment fraud, where the investors are being lied to by the con man into believing they are being paid out of the return on their investments when instead they are being of the money being defrauded from current "investors." There is no fraud in how Medicare is being set up or paid for. The desire to link the two is from those who wish to discredit the program itself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 8:11 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    atl2atx85 saiddoesn't surprise me. everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too, but it's unrealistic. social security is a ponzi scheme destined to fail.


    +1. Both programs are total ponzi schemes (basically a chain-letter gifting pyramid program) and would be considered completely illegal and criminal if they existed in the private sector. Both of them are. Ironically, Paul Ryan isn't even attempting to get rid of them, only help them remain solvent.

    Anyone who opposes Paul Ryan's plan is basically supporting the bankruptcy of medicare.


    This whole idea that either program is a Ponzi scheme is just silly. Yes, taxes paid today are what pays for benefits today. But, unless you assume that we will end the payroll taxes that pay for them, there's no problem.

    And Ryan isn't trying to "save" anything. He, like many Republicans before him, wants to eliminate all of our major social programs, or put them in the hands of private companies so someone can profit off our tax dollars.


    It assumes that there will always be enough money coming in to support the following generation and that obviously is not reality. So yes, it is a ponzi scheme. Both of them are. To deny this is just plain dishonest.


    No. A ponzi scheme is an investment fraud, where the investors are being lied to by the con man into believing they are being paid out of the return on their investments when instead they are being of the money being defrauded from current "investors." There is no fraud in how Medicare is being set up or paid for. The desire to link the two is from those who wish to discredit the program itself.


    The ponzi scheme also assumes that it will continue forever to keep paying the next people, which is what medicare and social security do. If it had been set up correctly to begin with the money set aside would simply go to the people who set it aside during the course of their lifetime. The way it is set up now there is an assumption that each generation will be able to sustain the previous and so on.

    So yes, if it turns out that there is not enough to pay the people whose money was used to pay the last generation, that is the government defrauding them and misleading them.

    How you can't see this is beyond me.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 8:23 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    atl2atx85 saiddoesn't surprise me. everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too, but it's unrealistic. social security is a ponzi scheme destined to fail.


    +1. Both programs are total ponzi schemes (basically a chain-letter gifting pyramid program) and would be considered completely illegal and criminal if they existed in the private sector. Both of them are. Ironically, Paul Ryan isn't even attempting to get rid of them, only help them remain solvent.

    Anyone who opposes Paul Ryan's plan is basically supporting the bankruptcy of medicare.


    This whole idea that either program is a Ponzi scheme is just silly. Yes, taxes paid today are what pays for benefits today. But, unless you assume that we will end the payroll taxes that pay for them, there's no problem.

    And Ryan isn't trying to "save" anything. He, like many Republicans before him, wants to eliminate all of our major social programs, or put them in the hands of private companies so someone can profit off our tax dollars.


    It assumes that there will always be enough money coming in to support the following generation and that obviously is not reality. So yes, it is a ponzi scheme. Both of them are. To deny this is just plain dishonest.


    No. A ponzi scheme is an investment fraud, where the investors are being lied to by the con man into believing they are being paid out of the return on their investments when instead they are being of the money being defrauded from current "investors." There is no fraud in how Medicare is being set up or paid for. The desire to link the two is from those who wish to discredit the program itself.


    you're drawing a distinction merely because one is legally-sanctioned. nonetheless, the outcome of both schemes probably wouldn't be too dissimilar, so the analogy holds.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 8:30 PM GMT
    I hope the Repubs continue to tell the truth about the fact they want to destroy Medicare and Social Security.
    Most Americans strongly disagree - and should be informed about the fact that a vote for a Repubs is a vote to destroy Medicare and Social Security.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 8:40 PM GMT
    rickrick91 saidI hope the Repubs continue to tell the truth about the fact they want to destroy Medicare and Social Security.
    Most Americans strongly disagree - and should be informed about the fact that a vote for a Repubs is a vote to destroy Medicare and Social Security.


    They're not even trying to destroy it, but it should be destroyed. Anyone who opposes Paul Ryan's plan is in favor of medicare going bankrupt, including you. Democrats have no plan, and the party which takes the responsible side will of course take the heat.

    The democrats are the mother who tells her children that they can charge as much as they want on her credit card, but in the end they will all be out on the street. The republicans in this case are the mother who tells her children that they must live within their means and that means not buying whatever they want. Can you guess which children are more happy with their mother? Obviously, the one who appears to love them more but actually is proving by her actions that she doesn't because if she did she would have their long-term interest in mind and that means not letting them have whatever they want.

    How does it feel to be on the side of the irresponsible mother? I suppose lovely!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 8:56 PM GMT
    Do you actually understand what a Ponzi scheme actually is, mocktwinkie?

    Or is this another area, like the second law of thermodynamics, which you think you understand but you actually don't?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 8:57 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said Anyone who opposes Paul Ryan's plan is in favor of medicare going bankrupt, including you.


    I love this false dichotomy!

    Don't ya love people who never took a class in logic?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 9:09 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    mocktwinkie said Anyone who opposes Paul Ryan's plan is in favor of medicare going bankrupt, including you.


    I love this false dichotomy!

    Don't ya love people who never took a class in logic?


    Then what's your plan? Offer one! What's the democratic plan?

    THERE IS NONE!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 9:11 PM GMT
    TigerTim saidDo you actually understand what a Ponzi scheme actually is, mocktwinkie?

    Or is this another area, like the second law of thermodynamics, which you think you understand but you actually don't?



    We probably shouldn't revisit your more embarrassing moments like with the thermodynamics thing, but rather than asking me if I understand a ponzi scheme why don't you attempt to draw a distinction between how a ponzi scheme works and how medicare and social security function?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 9:12 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 saidI hope the Repubs continue to tell the truth about the fact they want to destroy Medicare and Social Security.
    Most Americans strongly disagree - and should be informed about the fact that a vote for a Repubs is a vote to destroy Medicare and Social Security.


    They're not even trying to destroy it, but it should be destroyed. Anyone who opposes Paul Ryan's plan is in favor of medicare going bankrupt, including you. Democrats have no plan, and the party which takes the responsible side will of course take the heat.

    The democrats are the mother who tells her children that they can charge as much as they want on her credit card, but in the end they will all be out on the street. The republicans in this case are the mother who tells her children that they must live within their means and that means not buying whatever they want. Can you guess which children are more happy with their mother? Obviously, the one who appears to love them more but actually is proving by her actions that she doesn't because if she did she would have their long-term interest in mind and that means not letting them have whatever they want.

    How does it feel to be on the side of the irresponsible mother? I suppose lovely!




    LOL!
    There you go again!
    You Repubs just love to try to rewrite history!

    Reagan more than tripled the National Debt.
    Dubya doubled the National Debt.
    Those are a couple of really "responsible" Republican "mothers"!

    The Repubs are the fiscally "responsible" party????!!!!!
    In a pig's eye.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 9:13 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    TigerTim saidDo you actually understand what a Ponzi scheme actually is, mocktwinkie?

    Or is this another area, like the second law of thermodynamics, which you think you understand but you actually don't?



    We probably shouldn't revisit your more embarrassing moments like with the thermodynamics thing, but rather than asking me if I understand a ponzi scheme why don't you attempt to draw a distinction between how a ponzi scheme works and how medicare and social security function?


    Embarrassing for me? That you don't understand the second law of thermodynamics and attempted to argue with A PHYSICS PROFESSOR WITH A PHD about it?

    It's so depressing that you don't get exactly how stupid you actually are!

    Again: explain what a Ponzi scheme is and maybe we'll believe you know what you're talking about?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 9:14 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 saidI hope the Repubs continue to tell the truth about the fact they want to destroy Medicare and Social Security.
    Most Americans strongly disagree - and should be informed about the fact that a vote for a Repubs is a vote to destroy Medicare and Social Security.


    They're not even trying to destroy it, but it should be destroyed. Anyone who opposes Paul Ryan's plan is in favor of medicare going bankrupt, including you. Democrats have no plan, and the party which takes the responsible side will of course take the heat.

    The democrats are the mother who tells her children that they can charge as much as they want on her credit card, but in the end they will all be out on the street. The republicans in this case are the mother who tells her children that they must live within their means and that means not buying whatever they want. Can you guess which children are more happy with their mother? Obviously, the one who appears to love them more but actually is proving by her actions that she doesn't because if she did she would have their long-term interest in mind and that means not letting them have whatever they want.

    How does it feel to be on the side of the irresponsible mother? I suppose lovely!




    LOL!
    There you go again!
    You Repubs just love to try to rewrite history!

    Reagan more than tripled the National Debt.
    Dubya doubled the National Debt.
    Those are a couple of really "responsible" Republican "mothers"!

    The Repubs are the fiscally "responsible" party????!!!!!
    In a pig's eye.


    Nice try, but we're talking about medicare and social security at the moment. What is the democratic plan to make medicare solvent? Pointing out the perceived fiscal responsibilities of others is not going to render the democratic position (and the majority of selfish greedy Americans who don't care if the whole thing implodes as long as they get what they think they are entitled to) any more fiscally responsible on this issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 9:21 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 saidI hope the Repubs continue to tell the truth about the fact they want to destroy Medicare and Social Security.
    Most Americans strongly disagree - and should be informed about the fact that a vote for a Repubs is a vote to destroy Medicare and Social Security.


    They're not even trying to destroy it, but it should be destroyed. Anyone who opposes Paul Ryan's plan is in favor of medicare going bankrupt, including you. Democrats have no plan, and the party which takes the responsible side will of course take the heat.

    The democrats are the mother who tells her children that they can charge as much as they want on her credit card, but in the end they will all be out on the street. The republicans in this case are the mother who tells her children that they must live within their means and that means not buying whatever they want. Can you guess which children are more happy with their mother? Obviously, the one who appears to love them more but actually is proving by her actions that she doesn't because if she did she would have their long-term interest in mind and that means not letting them have whatever they want.

    How does it feel to be on the side of the irresponsible mother? I suppose lovely!




    LOL!
    There you go again!
    You Repubs just love to try to rewrite history!

    Reagan more than tripled the National Debt.
    Dubya doubled the National Debt.
    Those are a couple of really "responsible" Republican "mothers"!

    The Repubs are the fiscally "responsible" party????!!!!!
    In a pig's eye.


    Nice try, but we're talking about medicare and social security at the moment. What is the democratic plan to make it solvent? Pointing out the perceived fiscal responsibilities of others is not going to render the democratic position (and the majority of selfish greedy americans) any more fiscally responsible on this issue.




    LOL!
    Medicare and Social Security don't need to be "made solvent".
    They'll be solvent for many years.
    The pressing issue we must address today is reducing the National Debt.
    Your Repubs are just trying to use the debt crisis as an excuse to destroy Medicare and Social Security - against the will of the people.
    Destroying Medicare and Social Security is not anything that the American people support - and it would have disasterous consequences.
    What we need to do - and what President Obama and the Dems have proposed - is to reduce the National Debt with a mixture of spending cuts to reduce expenditure, and tax increases on the wealthy and closing tax loopholes to increase revenue.
    THAT is the prescription for debt reduction that the American people support.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 9:23 PM GMT
    TigerTim said...Embarrassing for me? That you don't understand the second law of thermodynamics and attempted to argue with A PHYSICS PROFESSOR WITH A PHD about it?

    It's so depressing that you don't get exactly how stupid you actually are!

    I'll tell you one thing,Tim. Our discussion yesterday clearly showed that the ability to apply logic to concepts in the classroom doesn't necessary follow in non-academic areas. I was describing Obama's decision on what to include in his speech. My point was he erred significantly not anticipating the reactions of others. You were unable to separate that from mid-east issues that I was not discussing. I also discussed this example with a couple of other academic professionals, full professors in science fields. They agreed that their colleagues who can demonstrate brilliance in their technical fields often show fuzzy, illogical thought in other areas. The consensus was that passionate ideological viewpoints can overcome logical training.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 9:25 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    mocktwinkie said
    TigerTim saidDo you actually understand what a Ponzi scheme actually is, mocktwinkie?

    Or is this another area, like the second law of thermodynamics, which you think you understand but you actually don't?



    We probably shouldn't revisit your more embarrassing moments like with the thermodynamics thing, but rather than asking me if I understand a ponzi scheme why don't you attempt to draw a distinction between how a ponzi scheme works and how medicare and social security function?


    Embarrassing for me? That you don't understand the second law of thermodynamics and attempted to argue with A PHYSICS PROFESSOR WITH A PHD about it?

    It's so depressing that you don't get exactly how stupid you actually are!

    Again: explain what a Ponzi scheme is and maybe we'll believe you know what you're talking about?


    Tim, it's a little late for salvaging don't you think? Perhaps it would do you well to go back to the thread where this was buried, ask yourself why you voluntarily made a fool out of yourself and then come back and let's talk about medicare and social security.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 9:27 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    TigerTim said...Embarrassing for me? That you don't understand the second law of thermodynamics and attempted to argue with A PHYSICS PROFESSOR WITH A PHD about it?

    It's so depressing that you don't get exactly how stupid you actually are!

    I'll tell you one thing,Tim. Our discussion yesterday clearly showed that the ability to apply logic to concepts in the classroom doesn't necessary follow in non-academic areas. I was describing Obama's decision on what to include in his speech. My point was he erred significantly not anticipating the reactions of others. You were unable to separate that from mid-east issues that I was not discussing. I also discussed this example with a couple of other academic professionals, full professors in science fields. They agreed that their colleagues who can demonstrate brilliance in their technical fields often show fuzzy, illogical thought in other areas. The consensus was that passionate ideological viewpoints can overcome logical training.


    The bottom line socalfitness is that he was just plain wrong on the 2nd law, and if he has a PHD about it, that merely makes him all the more guilty for brazenly characterizing it incorrectly. I even quoted a relatively heavyweight scientist who directly contradicted Tim's assertion about the 2nd law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 9:29 PM GMT
    Mock and socal are providing an excellent example of the fact-ignoring echo chamber they and their fellow right-wingers live in.
    They ignore the facts and tell themselves and each other that they're right, no matter what.
    Trying to talk some sense into them is a pointless waste of time.
    Their posts should just be discarded and ignored.