In response to andiejen's comment:
In response to skeeter20's comment:
In response to andiejen's comment:
In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
The President's claim that his new ideas for federal programs wont raise the deficit, has the same credibility as his promise to halve the deficit in his first term...
The liberal media will no doubt ignore the substance of Marco Rubio's speech and obsess over his getting a drink of water...
Rubio buried the headline.
The Republicans just launched a new attack on Social Security.
Marco Rubio's response to the President's State of the Union absolutely buried the headline: Republicans want to make devastating cuts to Social Security benefits. Maybe you missed it because Rubio awkwardly took a sip of water...sorry but he did... and then tried to sell those cuts to the American people as a plan to reduce the deficit and "save" Social Security.
The Republican plan to "save" Social Security? It's just another scheme to push down working families and prop up subsidies for big corporations.
Really? Republicans launched an attack on social security?
You are a fool if you beleive that. You are a bigger fool if you think Obama is doing anythign to "save" social security.
Look, the problem is plain and simple. We are spending over a trillion dollars more than we take in. This wil lcroak everything, not only social security. It is already croaking your savings as the real value of the dollar is slipping.
And I have always been so civil to you. Never attacking you personally nor ever calling you names and here you start by calling me a "fool" and a " bigger fool". Oh well.
First, watch Rubio's speech again. Try and filter out how much he is trying to be the anti-Romney and really listen.
Second, one of the most agressive parts of Obama's speech regarding fiscal matters was pretty easy to understand. He talked about why is deficit reduction so important now that Congress is talking about cuts in Social Security.
Administration officials couldnâÂÂt believe that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) ruled out raising revenue from wealthier taxpayers âÂÂ while floating proposals last week for replacing the $1.2 trillion sequester that would cut benefits for Medicare and Medicaid recipients.
To the White House, it fit too easily into the presidentâÂÂs long-standing critique of Republicans as protectors of the rich and out of touch with the middle class. Obama, his aides, his Cabinet and his allies on the Hill have gone on the attack, pushing this message at every turn.
The section on the sequester was among the most confrontational of his speech, the latest in his administrationâÂÂs effort to sell the public on his approach of cuts and tax increases.
He challenged Republicans in a pointed tone, saying âÂÂwe canâÂÂt ask senior citizens and working families to shoulder the entire burden of deficit reduction while asking nothing more from the wealthiest and most powerful.âÂÂ
Sorry if the fool comment offended. I guess I was just taken with your willingness to buy off on the Obama agenda, which at this point, I find a very irrational thing to do..
I don't need to listen to Rubio's speech again. I'm off the reservation with both Republicans and Democrats. They are both part of the problem.
The solution to the social security insolvency will not be solved by borrowing more money. It is a faulty concept. there is no lock box. money coming into social security goes right back out to current recipients. It is in every sense of the word, a ponzi scheme.
So there is no fixing it, it will fail. It should have never been started in the first place.
As far as the weathly, and Obama's OBSESSION with taking more from the rich. That is nothing more than class warfare. Rich peoople already pay most of the taxes. IT has been shown to be so time and time agan. Yet, somehow, they are not paying their fair share. How about the 50% that don't pay any income tax? By definition they are not paying their fair share, and need to pony up. not everyone is entitled to a cellphone, cable TV, big screen TV's., particularly ahead of paying their fair shae in taxes.
So you want the government to monitor the ability of poor people to buy things... You are up in arms about any laws restriciting access to big gulp sugar drinks, but restricting access to cell phones is just fine. Interesting. An unhealthy drink is protected from the government, but it can go after a key technology that ost people cannot live without. Isn't that class warfare of a different kind?