The Most Fresh & Cordial Political Thread Ever

[Giantone]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opini...b04df054f860a1

Old but good reading, not much has changed.

Why Do Republicans Hate America?

Why do Republicans hate America? No, really. It’s not a rhetorical question. Since consolidating its power in January 2017, the GOP has systematically set out to dismantle the economic strength of this nation, coddle predators, shield traitors, attack those who are working, and strip protections from the most vulnerable. Are these the actions of a party that loves the nation it has sworn to serve?

Consider the GOP’s attempts over the last year to blow up the U.S. economy and make life harder for its constituents. The Republicans’ first try at demolishing the economy as if it were nothing but an old abandoned building was their reckless attempt to destroy the Affordable Care Act, which housed and protected millions of American citizens. The GOP’s congressional leaders held no hearings, refused to even listen to expert testimony and were utterly unconcerned about the impact that dismantling a key component of the nation’s health care system would have on one-sixth of the American economy.

When the button jammed on that detonator, Republicans tried another, more powerful type of explosive, and this one threatens to be much more successful. In December, they passed a tax bill that adds an estimated $1.5 trillion to the deficit — with no significant investment in infrastructure, education or health care to show for it. And now, as House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) made clear, when the GOP-fueled deficit balloons, they’re coming after the retirement and medical social programs that he has demeaned and mislabeled as “entitlements.” Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, however, are hard-earned benefits funded, in large part, out of our paychecks. They provide much needed support to the elderly, the infirmed and those with disabilities.

For America’s senior population alone, the Republicans’ assault on the safety net is going to be destabilizing and, in many cases, lethal. Currently, 9 out of 10 Americans over 65 receive Social Security. Forty-nine million are on Medicare, estimated to increase to 64 million by 2020. Nearly one-third will require nursing home care, which costs three times the annual income of those over 65. Imagine what an aging America will look like just a few years into the future with no Social Security, no Medicare and no Medicaid.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by Giantone

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opini...b04df054f860a1

.........

For America’s senior population alone, the Republicans’ assault on the safety net is going to be destabilizing and, in many cases, lethal. Currently, 9 out of 10 Americans over 65 receive Social Security. Forty-nine million are on Medicare, estimated to increase to 64 million by 2020. Nearly one-third will require nursing home care, which costs three times the annual income of those over 65. Imagine what an aging America will look like just a few years into the future with no Social Security, no Medicare and no Medicaid.

And yet it was only the Republicans that proposed a plan to fix/ensure long term financial solvency for Social Security (SS). SS will become financially insolvent in about 10 years, this has been known for decades and Paul Ryan and his GOP allies were the only members of Congress to put a proposal on the table to extend that solvency long term (76 years). The Dems have been adamant opponents to plans that would extend SS long term. Since those failures MAGA has captured the GOP and have adapted the Dem plan to oppose any changes or adjustments to SS.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by nonniey

And yet it was only the Republicans that proposed a plan to fix/ensure long term financial solvency for Social Security (SS). SS will become financially insolvent in about 10 years, this has been known for decades and Paul Ryan and his GOP allies were the only members of Congress to put a proposal on the table to extend that solvency long term (76 years). The Dems have been adamant opponents to plans that would extend SS long term. Since those failures MAGA has captured the GOP and have adapted the Dem plan to oppose any changes or adjustments to SS.

LOL, ensure and fix, now tell the truth , they wanted it cut by 50% . Sorry not a fix. Dems have tried but shot down by guess who?

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by Giantone

LOL, ensure and fix, now tell the truth , they wanted it cut by 50% . Sorry not a fix. Dems have tried but shot down by guess who?

Ryan wanted to raise the age of getting the max benefit from 67 to 70 for those under 30 at the time (2011). Wouldn't have effected anyone over 30 (in 2011), and the age for getting the minimum benefit would have still been 62. Not a cut at all for those getting or nearing Social Security and it would have preserved it for those that were younger. Is that the 50% you are talking about?

So in about 10 years we actually will get massive cuts for those already getting it and everyone else.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by Giantone

LOL, ensure and fix, now tell the truth , they wanted it cut by 50% . Sorry not a fix. Dems have tried but shot down by guess who?

Dems haven't even suggested one proposal that would fix SS long term. Not one (unless you consider 5 years long term). Their only suggestion/proposal is to eliminate the cap taken out for SS. And the CBC said that would have only have kept SS solvent for an additional 5 years. Those figures are 12 years old now, pretty sure because of those wasted years it is less than 5 years for the Dem plan by this point. The GOP would have to add 12 years to the grandfathered age which effects the planning of those effected and makes opposition greater.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Dems haven't even suggested one proposal that would fix SS long term. Not one (unless you consider 5 years long term). Their only suggestion/proposal is to eliminate the cap taken out for SS. And the CBC said that would have only have kept SS solvent for an additional 5 years. Those figures are 12 years old now, pretty sure because of those wasted years it is less than 5 years for the Dem plan by this point. The GOP would have to add 12 years to the grandfathered age which effects the planning of those effected and makes opposition greater.

Social Security: Proposal for $2,400 Extra in Checks Expanded and Reintroduced in Congress

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by MTK

Social Security: Proposal for $2,400 Extra in Checks Expanded and Reintroduced in Congress

We were talking about extending the solvency not shortening it. The CBO already scored (in 2011) what eliminating the 160K cap would provide and they stated it would extend SS solvency by as little as 5 years and at most 10 years meaning SS would be insolvent between 2041 and 2046 (Since then projections accelerated the time period for insolvency from 2036 to 2033). Sanders was basically lying through his ass (He was aware of the CBO score made 12 years ago) when he made this claim, of course he will probably be dead by the time it does actually go insolvent in 10-12 years. Heck his proposal would have taken the additional funds needed to extend solvency 5 years for an immediate increase in payments now to recipients. A friggen awful proposal that would have made things worse.

[Giantone]

Rep. Lauren Boebert says she decided it was 'cheaper to have a kid' after seeing the price of one month of birth control: 'Now I have my third son'



Some of the Brightest Republican minds!


https://news.yahoo.com/rep-lauren-bo...182640302.html

The Colorado GOP congresswoman had her first child when she was in high school.

She said it "turned out to be a really great thing," noting that she's since had three children.

Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado made an eyebrow-raising comment on Wednesday: that she first began having children after balking at the price of birth control at a local pharmacy.

"My staff is probably gonna talk to me about this later," Boebert quipped as she began recounting the "fun little story" during a House Oversight Committee hearing on prescription drugs on Wednesday.

Boebert asked witness Kevin Duane, the owner of a pharmacy in Jacksonville, Florida, if he'd seen patients leave their prescribed medicines at his pharmacy due to being unable to pay — before saying that she had done just that.

"I left a prescription at a pharmacy once — I went to get birth control," said Boebert. "I was there at the counter, and went to pay for it, and the price was very, very high."

Boebert said she initially thought the cost may have been for a three to six-month prescription, but was informed that it was just for one month.

"And I said, 'it's cheaper to have a kid,'" Boebert recalled. "And I left it there, and now I have my third son, Kaydon Boebert."


Condoms were under $5 back then.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by nonniey

We were talking about extending the solvency not shortening it. The CBO already scored (in 2011) what eliminating the 160K cap would provide and they stated it would extend SS solvency by as little as 5 years and at most 10 years meaning SS would be insolvent between 2041 and 2046 (Since then projections accelerated the time period for insolvency from 2036 to 2033). Sanders was basically lying through his ass (He was aware of the CBO score made 12 years ago) when he made this claim, of course he will probably be dead by the time it does actually go insolvent in 10-12 years. Heck his proposal would have taken the additional funds needed to extend solvency 5 years for an immediate increase in payments now to recipients. A friggen awful proposal that would have made things worse.

You either raise the cap or you increase payroll taxes. The solutions aren't that hard to see.

Either way nothing is going to happen until it has to. Deadlines spur action. And both sides love to use SS as a political carrot.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Dems haven't even suggested one proposal that would fix SS long term. Not one (unless you consider 5 years long term). Their only suggestion/proposal is to eliminate the cap taken out for SS. And the CBC said that would have only have kept SS solvent for an additional 5 years. Those figures are 12 years old now, pretty sure because of those wasted years it is less than 5 years for the Dem plan by this point. The GOP would have to add 12 years to the grandfathered age which effects the planning of those effected and makes opposition greater.

Good read here , shows you how each party feels about the fixes suggested for SS. Seems the voters have no problem ,it's the politicians that are using it like a football.


https://publicconsultation.org/socia...ity-shortfall/