Speakeasy forum

General discussion

What is wrong with the Liberals?

by duckman / May 3, 2005 9:45 AM PDT

They currently are opposing means testing to help the lesser class by soaking the upper-class. Isn't his what the Democratic party is all about? Or is it just because it is GW's idea and they are incapable of agreeing with anything? Is there any reason a wealthy, nay super rich, bloated waste of space Kennedy in the Senate should receive any SS payments? Same for the French looking JF'nK. We could come up with several examples of people paying taxes that they receive no direct benefit from. How about people that pay property taxes and do not have any children? Quite frankly, the only solution the Liberals will accept is higher taxes for everyone.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: What is wrong with the Liberals?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: What is wrong with the Liberals?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) President Regan collected SS.
by Jerry562 / May 3, 2005 10:30 AM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) And so what ?
by duckman / May 3, 2005 11:11 AM PDT
Collapse -
The goal of the means-testing is to kill the program, DM.
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / May 3, 2005 1:18 PM PDT

I wouldn't have any problem if the cuts weren't set up to affect almost everyone except the poorest of the poor. The effect will be to turn SS from a retirement security program for everyone, with universal support (as Bush is finding out now, to his dismay) to a welfare program that will have little support from the middle class as they continue to get squeezed by galloping health care and energy costs. And that is Bush's goal -- like Marc Antony, he comes to bury SS, not to priase (or save) it!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Or maybe the middle class ...
by Evie / May 3, 2005 1:26 PM PDT

... will like the PSA's and realize that it is ALREADY a semi-welfare program that squeezes them like just about every other government program. Or is it your contention now that the middle class now isn't smart enough to control their own money. Universal support? Hardly.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Universal, no. But if an election, a landslide margin, Evie.
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / May 5, 2005 10:47 PM PDT

60% plus, last I saw. I'm sure you've seen the polls showing the public disapproves of Bush's handling of the SS issue. And that an almost equally large majority doesn't want to see their own benefits cut to preserve someone elses:
AP Social Security poll.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Well let's see,
by duckman / May 5, 2005 10:41 AM PDT

The "rich" pay more, get less and the "poor" get more? Isn't that the Liberal dream?

Collapse -
The devil's in the details
by Diana Forum moderator / May 5, 2005 10:38 PM PDT
In reply to: Well let's see,

The poor wouldn't get any more, everyone else would just get less. Meanwhile all the money that politicians on both sides that have been robbing the "trust fund" for decades are trying to figure out how to avoid putting the money back.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
The only thing wrong with Liberals is that they have let the
by Ziks511 / May 3, 2005 7:13 PM PDT

Right define them and tell the American electorate what they (liberals) believe so inaccurately but so pervasively that there are few who will now identify as liberals.

Liberal values, Is it going to hurt anyone? Make a mess? Cost somebody else's money that hasn't been duly authorized? Be bad for the participants? Otherwise its OK.

Will the educational or social program help kids who are disadvantaged because of cultural origin, social origin, medical needs, or have learning disabilities?

Then its OK.

Will a social program maintain a floor below which no one in the United States can sink, which will provide adequate safe legal shelter, food and some public transport services as well as access to Libraries Museums and other Public spaces where learning may occur.

Then its OK

Decent Healthcare is not a privilege it is a right, if the private sector of the US cannot cover every man woman and child everywhere in the US at the same prices as paid in all the other industrialized democracies like Europe and Canada, then a Public plan should take over.

Public Health Care is OK.

Calling Kerry a deserter is not OK, but Kerry cannot hide behind some sort of secret deal cut to get him out early.

Calling Bush a deserter is not OK but he can't hide behind unprovable allegations that he was there but nobody saw him or could remember him or that he had a "Get Out of Guard Duty Free Card." All cards and deals should be on the table.

Presidents Congressmen and Senators and Members of the Executive and The Judiciary above a certan point should have to sign disclosure agreements and reveal prior bad acts which might interfere with how they carry out the Public Trust entrusted to them. None of them can benefit financially above and beyond their salaries. All investments into blind trusts, all contact with former business partners and associates severed. No lobbying for 4 years after leaving the Public Service.

Can you live with that?


Collapse -
lets look up north
by kmarchal / May 3, 2005 10:33 PM PDT

a balance must be found (not the left-way or no-way)

Poor still worry about food

And raising taxes is not the answer either

like I posted before from Bill O'Reilly
No fair person could possibly object to Americans being given the option to invest a small part of their Social Security (Bill Clinton said the SAMETHING - I supported it then I support it now) tax in a private fund under federal supervision. There's no threat here. If you want to do it, fine. If you don't, fine. What's the beef?

The left-wing ideologues object simply because they can. There's no logical reason for opposing this. The president went on to say that rich Americans will probably get less Social Security payback in the future and poor Americans more. The left should be real happy about that.

Collapse -
Cost somebody else's money that hasn't been duly authorized?
by Evie / May 5, 2005 7:00 AM PDT

Yeah right! LMAO. Liberals ALWAYS ask that question before they stick their hands into the wallets of the American people.


Collapse -
Who called Kerry a deserter?
by EdH / May 5, 2005 11:16 AM PDT

Lots of people on the left have called Buch a deserter, even though it's complete baloney. I don't recall seeing Kerry slandered in that fashion.


"Decent Healthcare is not a privilege it is a right."
On what basis is it a RIGHT? You may wish it to be so, but it isn't, any more than I have the right to you buying me a Mercedes. You have a right to purchase decent healthcare but no one has the right to make another pay for something for him.

And that is what is wrong with liberals.

Collapse -
The devil in the details about ...
by Evie / May 5, 2005 11:20 AM PDT

... any "decent basic healthcare" is defining "decent" and "basic". Even if it could be agreed upon that it is a *right* (something I'm not conceding but merely mention as a hypothetical), nobody as yet has been able to draw that line. I know one thing for sure, I don't want some government bureaucrat drawing it for me!

Evie Happy

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?