Social Security and Medicare are . . . ENTITLEMENTS???

You mean like they tried in Arizona?

You mean enforce in the face of what states like California have done?

How have ICE actions been met? Is it Republicans screaming about how unfair it is for ICE to try and enforce immigration laws, or is it members of the New Democratic Party?

It seems every attempt at reform in DC gets bogged down by BS injected into the bill. There is never a clean bill. Always some poison pill gets thrown in for political purposes.

 

So- you assume that Eluthera could have violated the law, refused to pay SS and invested it instead. From jail?

You also assume dependency on the government to live. Why?
My social security gets deposited in a trust account, and I never touch it, it just grows. Don't need it- but I did earn it.
And, because I still have high earned income, I still pay in... and I'm 77.

 

Well one could opt out, but you can still pay taxes and save money and invest. It’s not an either or. If you have no money saved and are living totally on social security then you are dependent. Glad you saved and did the right thing. Hoping to be there too when I’m your age

 

The laws are already in existence...

 

Well drop yer pants and fire off a rocket....Now stop looking down on those less fortunate you upstart..

 

Yes they are. The most recent version having been signed into law by President Clinton.

So why do members of the New Democratic Party refuse to uphold them?

 

I have wondered that since 1977...and yet every politician, no matter their party has not done their job.

 

As I just said, reform, is cuts.
They give corps and 1%ers big tax cuts and then turn around and want to reform/cut the poor and elderly programs.
Unless you have the details of what their reform is.
If the gov't is taking in less revenue, and they are, then the only thing reform means is to cut, not completely however. But reduce/reform.
That IS NOT right. One doesn't reduce revenue, on purpose, and then go cut programs to those that did not get any real tax cut in the 1st place.

 

In many many cases, true.
Except in the scenario I gave you. And millions were being cut from the health insurance market.
Educational yes, but many lack the brain power to grasp the education of finances.
The private insurance market is broken for many people. And the number of people it was broken for was increasing.

At any rate, the ACA in much of it's form is likely here to stay.
R's haven't offered up anything to replace it with. At least something viable.

 

It's not without your consent. You live in a society, there are taxes in every society so that it can be as fluent and organized as a society wants to be. Anarchy and chaos isn't what a majority of the people want. And neither does the gov't. There has to be order in society for it to work.
So, if you live in a society, and it collects taxes, you consent.
You may not consent to 100% of where the money goes, but you consent to having taxes taken from your income and on some of your consumption.

 

Exactly.
And it is disingenuous and in fact a down right intentional untruth to say 1 party is not wanting to enforce the immigration laws of the land. It's both.
Those types are just trolling.

 

I was appalled when Reagan signed amnesty. I practically stopped voting and left the military because of it.

 

You want more paying taxes? Get higher wage jobs that qualify for paying those income taxes.
But, you likely aren't aware, the poor low wage earners do in fact pay taxes. A higher % of their income goes to consumption taxes. So there's a low limit to when an income level will start to pay fed income taxes.
You also may not be aware that 10% of the people have over 90% of the wealth in the country. So they should be paying the bulk of taxes.

 

Those workers were likely needed to keep the economy running along.
The immigrants provide a needed service. And Reagan understood people.

Reagan And Amnesty

Nowadays, conservative commentators like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh often invoke the former president as a champion of the conservative agenda. Sean Hannity of Fox News even has a regular segment called "What Would Reagan Do?"

Simpson, however, sees a different person in the president he called a "dear friend."

Reagan "knew that it was not right for people to be abused," Simpson says. "Anybody who's here illegally is going to be abused in some way, either financially [or] physically. They have no rights."

Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter, agrees. "It was in Ronald Reagan's bones -- it was part of his understanding of America -- that the country was fundamentally open to those who wanted to join us here."

Reagan said as much himself in a televised debate with Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale in 1984.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672

 

If the Democrats were smart, I think they could spread McConnell's attack on entitlements all over the red states and swing the vote substantially.

 

Well, it's nice that you don't believe McConnell.

 

That's why there is such a clamor over "socialist" candidates; they represent real change.

 

That's a might big IF.
But yep, exploit the RW corporate lovers and lovers of the 1% and how they want to take away from the elderly and poor.
But I doubt that will be the message.

I only hope for D gains to neuter gov't. That is the only gov't that works for all right now. Do nothing, because all each party does is inflict damage on the middle class when they have the power.

 

yes I want more people paying taxes. I want higher wages, hence why I think taking people on being productive is a bad idea and should be limited and lower. Yes, I’m aware low income earners, like everyone else pay taxes on consumption, as it should be.

 

the people that are exploding the poor are the Dems that refuse to help them become less dependent on govt or address the real problems with entitlements that are the largest drivers of debt and are unsubstaibale. Reforming these programs isn’t an attack on them, but a way to save them

 

huh?
"hence why I think taking people on being productive is a bad idea and should be limited and lower. "

I have no idea what you're trying to say. "taking people on being productive"??

 

Ok. Nevermind my last post. I see the problem.

 

sorry, should read “taxing” not “taking”

 

Most aren't the helpless babies your hyperbolic rhetoric portrays them as.

Humans gravitate to the path of least resistance, and you offer them that in exchange for votes, creating a society of ambitionless, work avoidant leeches

 

"Less fortunate" implies that success is just an accident. If people who succeed are just lucky, then those who botch the job don't have to face the fact that they are the ones responsible for their own position, because you can't control "luck". Convenient, effective denial and excuse for your own "misfortune".
No matter what you say or claim- what you do determines who you are. Until you accept that, you have no power to change it.