Posted on 03/24/2016 6:46:24 AM PDT by Hojczyk
Hillary Clinton’s Brussels response was basically boilerplate, calling for solidarity with Europe and playing chess with Trump to paint him as a greenhorn and hothead.
Bernie Sanders (whom I support and contribute to) had little to say, beyond conveying condolences to the Belgian people, because foreign affairs have unfortunately remained a sideline for him. Neither Sanders nor Martin O’Malley ever went after Hillary’s disastrous record as Secretary of State with the tenacity that they should have—a failure of strategy that has proved costly in the long run.
Trump may be raw, crude and uninformed, but he’s also smart, intuitive and a quick study who will presumably get up to passable speed as he assembles a brain trust over the coming months. Whether Trump can temper his shoot-from-the-hip impetuosity is another matter. There is a huge gap between the teeth-gnashing fulminations of the anti-Trump mainstream media and the perfectly reasonable Trump supporters whom I hear calling into radio talk shows.
The machinations of the old-guard GOP establishment to thwart Trump voters and subvert the primary process are an absolute disgrace. But it’s business as usual for tone-deaf party leaders who, barely more than a day after the discovery of Antonin Scalia’s corpse last month, stupidly proclaimed there would be no hearings for an Obama nominee to the Supreme Court.
Republicans need to wake up and realize that Trump’s triumph is not due to some drunken delusion by a benighted rabble but is a direct result of the proven weakness of their other candidates. Ted Cruz, the last one still standing, is bombastic, sanctimonious and coldly sharkish behind that forced smile.
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
you mean he is “too” smart, right?
“I have a better idea: rather than cutting into a system that working people have paid into for generations, how about we STOP DEAD all welfare programs that facilitate underclass women having lots of babies they cannot afford to feed, and who will most likely grow up to expand the underclass further?
When no underclass or illegal immigrant is getting government funding, THEN let’s talk about SS.”
We need to cut all at once. Cutting just one place will not work. Federal welfare is a tiny portion of the budget. It is mostly the states that cover welfare.
We have allowed ourselves to be boxed into this corner.
Trump has some good ideas to cut areas. I think he could get alot done.
Yes, what’s with the John Wayne delivery?
“So you’re a Marxist, then. Steal from me who earned it and then GIVE it to others who didn’t earn it. So my money gets stolen TWICE from me at gunpoint. Once when they steal it from my paycheck, with promises to give a little bit back to me right before I die, and then they break that promise and say, “Sorry, we’re gonna give your money to other people who didn’t work hard like you did. Sorry.”
The Government has already “given away” all the money you put in, and more.
Your solution is to require that more money be stolen from other people to pay you, while the country is bankrupted and destroyed.
All of spending has to be reduced, not just Social Security. If we cut way back on regulations and taxes, we may get enough growth to be able to keep paying current levels of Social Security.
There is no Social Security “trust fund” it has all been stolen and spent long ago.
Was it stolen? Yes. We can ignore the problem and have the Country be destroyed, or we can solve the problem.
I paid in as long as you did. My money was stolen as well.
Saying that government spending must be reduced, for everyone but me, does not work.
“The system is broke, but WE didn’t break it. The politicians did.”
There is truth in what you say, but democracies fail because politicians buy votes to get elected. The people who vote for more and more by going deeper and deeper into debt are partly responsible.
Yes, they are lied to. That means the people are victims of the fraud.
But to say “We are the victim, so we demand more victims so that we can keep getting *our* goodies”, only exacerbates the problem. It does not solve it. Either Social Security spending will be slowed in an orderly way, through gradual reductions in projected increases, or the system goes bust and benefits are reduced through massive inflation or they disappear with a change in Government, or a repudiation of debt.
The current system is unsustainable.
“greedy social security recipients”
How old are you?
FYI social security regulations stipulate that if you continue to work, you can have only $15,000 of annual income in addition to your SS. For every $2 over $15k in annual earned income (including withdrawals from savings or investments) you forfeit $1 of your social security check. So the more you earn, the more you lose, until it’s gone.
For the vast majority of Americans whose SS checks are under $20k anyway, continuing to work means maybe they can shoot for $35k.
And they’re still required to continue paying income taxes—around $5k— on that $35k. Factor in property taxes, etc, which can eat up thousands more, and most seniors are living on less than $20-25k, even if they continue working after retirement.
For the “greedy” who do not wish to curtail their lifestyles and choose to live on their own savings and investment withdrawals far beyond $15k annually, they’d end up forfeiting the SS anyway.
The problem with your reasoning is in the first sentence. Recipients are getting back what they paid in. The solution is to privatize the system and make it optional. That way, you don’t pay in you get nothing back. The problem there is the low wage earners will complain the govt is in incompassionate. What you are looking for is redistribution of wealth.
“The problem there is the low wage earners will complain the govt is in incompassionate. What you are looking for is redistribution of wealth.”
Yes,that is the best sollution. I hope we can get there. When it was even suggested as a possibility, the screams against it were deafening.
Yo Doc!! She forgot Nurse Rachet.
In a Heritage Foundation report, as of 2011:
The means-tested welfare system consists of 69 federal programs providing cash, food, housing, medical care, social services, training, and targeted education aid to poor and low-income Americans. Means-tested welfare programs differ from general government programs in that they provide aid exclusively to persons (or communities) with low incomes.$940 BILLION is hardly a "tiny portion" of the budget. Let's cut the programs that propagate the underclass FIRST, and see how things are.In FY 2011, federal spending on means-tested welfare, plus state contributions to federal programs, will reach $940 billion per year. The federal share will come to around $695 billion, or 74 percent, while state spending will be around $250 billion, or 26 percent.
Combined federal and state means-tested welfare is now the second-largest category of overall government spending in the nation. It is exceeded only by the combined cost of Social Security and Medicare. Welfare spending is greater than the cost of public education and is greater than spending on national defense.
But even that is fought by greedy Senior Social Security recipients, . . .
Yeah, that $550 a month those old folks get really allows a posh lifestyle.
. . . who, as a class, are much better off financially than the average American."
You must know a different group of SS recipients.
Lol...Ted Cruz has zero chance of winning New York, either in the primary or the general.
Winning Ohio presumes that Trump & Kasich voters would stick around and vote for Cruz over Clinton. The data suggests otherwise.
Probably because we busted our butts over our working careers, both forcibly funding it as well as saving for our retirement.
Now you want to cut the benefits we earned as a “reward” for planning ahead.
Thanks, you bloody liberal!
I love how Mooch is crouching so she isn’t taller than her Latin dance partner.
Obama is flat footed and looks uncomfortable touching a woman.
Thanks for the article. It is well done. Federal welfare has grown enormously in the last decade. You are correct, except the Federal share is 695 billion, not 940 billion.
But that is a very large amount.
It is about equivalent to the Social Security spending, so you have proven your point.
This coming from a liberal, feminist, democrat, lesbian, progressive is unique.
I’m enjoying this election season.
5.56mm
Paglia’s been a darling of conservatives for a long time, because she’s one of the few DINOs left.
Average Social Security benefit for a retired worker is $1,341. Very few get as low as $550 a month.
And, very few live only on Social Security.
Social Security makes up 38% of the income for recipients.
https://smartasset.com/retirement/average-retirement-income
So the average income of a Social Security recipient is about $35,000 a year. Not a life of luxury, but they should have their home paid for by then.
Thank you for your kind response. My viewpoint was, that it doesn't matter to me what percentage is federal state, or local -- it's all still coming out of my aggregate tax bill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.