It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hefficide
I don't I call that trading one master for another.
Still, it's stating preference for one over the other.
Between Social Security,Medicare,Medicaid,free homes,free education($1 Trillion in Student loan debt) and the rest of those social engineering programs that create debt all for naught.
We the people are the biggest welfare recipients in this country, and it is nothing but the redistribution of wealth to so they can go out and buy more corporate products.
Me neither I am a follower of people stepping up to the task of paying their own way of life I absolutely reject any and all those who purport changing the environment to suit the individual.
Because that is what we have here reverse darwinism at work insert label of choice(communist,socialists,marxists) trying to social engineer the environment that creates stagnation, nay regressive policies that created the largest dependency based society the world has ever seen.
So the argument is who pays for it to what we really has is one big arse zoo that would perish if something ever happened to the care takers.
Funny thing here is those same people say 'Don't feed the animals' or turn around and practice the opposite in real life.
So why do people not support that for animals and reject the same rationale for civilization?
Makes no sense to me.
We've argued this before and you know that what you are saying is not accurate. Everyone pays taxes - just not Federal taxes. The only people I can think of who might escape all taxation would be maybe rich televangelists in a state such as Texas... where there is no state tax, where their wealth leaves them able to take advantage of loopholes, and where they get exemption from sales taxes.
I'm lost as to how you figure student load debt is a free education. It's debt. Our entire banking system is built upon the idea of debt and interest.
Social programs and "redistribution of wealth" are not the same thing at all. I
I've yet to meet a social Darwinist who claimed to have told his or her own parent that they should die rather than collect their Social Security or Medicare.
Truth is the majority of people do. Sure a percentage take advantage. Funny when the poor do it - it's an outrage. But when a corporation does it? It's considered good business.
The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.
The American republic has endured for well over two centuries, but over the past 50 years, the apparatus of American governance has undergone a radical transformation. In some basic respects—its scale, its preoccupations, even many of its purposes—the U.S. government today would be scarcely recognizable to Franklin D. Roosevelt, much less to Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson.
In 2010 alone, government at all levels oversaw a transfer of over $2.2 trillion in money, goods and services. The burden of these entitlements came to slightly more than $7,200 for every person in America. Scaled against a notional family of four, the average entitlements burden for that year alone approached $29,000.
Poverty- or income-related entitlements—transfers of money, goods or services, including health-care services—accounted for over $650 billion in government outlays in 2010. Between 1960 and 2010, inflation-adjusted transfers for these objectives increased by over 30-fold, or by over 7% a year. Significantly, however, income and benefit transfers associated with traditional safety-net programs comprised only about a third of entitlements granted on income status, with two-thirds of those allocations absorbed by the health-care guarantees offered through the Medicaid program.
For their part, entitlements for older Americans—Medicare, Social Security and other pension payments—worked out to even more by 2010, about $1.2 trillion. In real terms, these transfers multiplied by a factor of about 12 over that period—or an average growth of more than 5% a year. But in purely arithmetic terms, the most astonishing growth of entitlements has been for health-care guarantees based on claims of age (Medicare) or income (Medicaid). Until the mid-1960s, no such entitlements existed; by 2010, these two programs were absorbing more than $900 billion annually.
Obviously this clearly demonstrates that the issue is not with a culture bent on entitlement or a free ride. It's simply that the Baby Boomers have reached retirement age and have placed a temporary burden upon the system by virtue of their sheer numbers. A temporary anomaly. A skewed data set and interpretation.
A quick look to a nation like Sweden should give even the most right wing of members a pause for thought. Sweden had a marginally higher tax rate than we do and yet they have socialized medicine, much more comprehensive public welfare and unemployment benefits, and free education.
It's all a game here. The US Government is the biggest employer in the world and we, the taxpayers, are supplying their wages.
I'll return to this, probably in the morning, to address the rest of your post.
Does it matter?
This differentiation is actually very important and speaks directly to a propaganda psy-op that has been played upon the American people for well over 50 years... The Red Menace.
Although there may be some truth in your statement, it's not completely accurate. The president is a PR figure for the military industrial complex, which actually runs the country at present.
Obama is all over the boards .. he doesn't know what he is. Sometimes he's a corporate stooge (obamacare) ... sometimes he's a socialist (spread the wealth) ... whatever, the bottom line is he's unqualified for the job he's in and he's not in it for the benefit of America.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Yes, I understand what you're saying. But I feel they use the words to invoke angry emotions rather than rational thought. Anything to make the opposing party look bad.
President Obama doesn't care what we think. It's obvious he won't be impeached and if the pressure gets too high he'll find a scapegoat and then take a vacation.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
you should not make assumptions that you are more informed than anyone else when it comes to political parties.