Social Security Recipients Get Increase Due To Cost Of Living

[Shadow Wolf]

Just about everything in general

Even I can admit when a Conservative does something I like, such as when Mitch Daniels became the first governor in America to tell WBC they cannot be anywhere near a funeral home or cemetery while ceremonies are going on. I didn't really like much of anything else he did, but he took a stand where one needed to be taken, and he was much much better than Pence, especially since Daniels is a Conservative who took a "cease fire" on social issues (but only closer to the end of his service).
Your turn.

 

[esmith]

Nonsense, you simply don't know and dislike the platform on principle.

Your probably 100% correct.
I don't have any problems with the party of the OLD Democrats, but they have been shifting more and more to the left every year. Heck I even voted for a Dem a few years back.

 

[tytlyf]

Your probably 100% correct.
I don't have any problems with the party of the OLD Democrats, but they have been shifting more and more to the left every year. Heck I even voted for a Dem a few years back.

Ya, but you realize that RW media intentionally demonizes certain words so that when you hear them.....you automatically have a picture painted. Say the word liberal to any conservative, they'll get angry.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ya, but you realize that RW media intentionally demonizes certain words so that when you hear them.....you automatically have a picture painted. Say the word liberal to any conservative, they'll get angry.

Of course, that works both ways.
Say "alt right" to a leftie, & that big forehead vein will dang near explode as it violently throbs.

 

[tytlyf]

Of course, that works both ways.
Say "alt right" to a leftie, & that big forehead vein will dang near explode as it violently throbs.

No, the alt right should irritate everyone. It's a racist movement. You shouldn't defend them.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, the alt right should irritate everyone. It's a racist movement. You shouldn't defend them.

See....
You've fallen prey to leftish propaganda which demonizes the label without
valid justification or understanding, thereby proving that both sides do it.

 

[tytlyf]

See....
You've fallen prey to leftish propaganda which demonizes the label without
valid justification or understanding, thereby proving that both sides do it.

No, I'm going off what the leaders and founders of the 'alt-right' movement have said.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

See....
You've fallen prey to leftish propaganda which demonizes the label without
valid justification or understanding, thereby proving that both sides do it.

Personally, I've not seen anything that defines it, but it is overloaded with racism, misogyny, homophobia, and conspiracy theories. They have no actual defining mission statement, but we can begin to deduce who they are when we know that Alex Jones and Infowars is a big proponent of it.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I'm going off what the leaders and founders of the 'alt-right' movement have said.

Yes, I'm sure you believe that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Personally, I've not seen anything that defines it, but it is overloaded with racism, misogyny, homophobia, and conspiracy theories. They have no actual defining mission statement, but we can begin to deduce who they are when we know that Alex Jones and Infowars is a big proponent of it.

It's not defined, but yet you characterize it exactly as the media do.
This is how propaganda works.
The media train the left to hate without the work of having to consider it.
Milo Yabbadabbadoovich as homophobic?
Preposterous.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's not defined, but yet you characterize it exactly as the media do.
This is how propaganda works.
The media train the left to hate without the work of having to consider it.
Milo Yabbadabbadoovich as homophobic?
Preposterous.

I've characterizing it as I've found it. It's ugly.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've characterizing it as I've found it. It's ugly.

Any group can be seen that way if desired.
But instead of characterizing all Hillary voters as warmongering racist corrupt incompetent
lying sexists, I treat them as individuals, & allow them to differ from the worst I see.

 

[Valjean]

Your probably 100% correct.
I don't have any problems with the party of the OLD Democrats, but they have been shifting more and more to the left every year. Heck I even voted for a Dem a few years back.

To the left!

The Republicans have been trying to reverse Roosevelt's New Deal since its inception. They've been moving to the right for decades -- and dragging the Democrats with them. Today's "far left" would correspond to a moderate Republican platform of a few decades ago.

Some points from the Republican presidential platform of '56:

1. Provide federal assistance to low-income communities;
2. Protect Social Security;
3. Provide asylum for refugees;
4. Extend minimum wage;
5. Improve unemployment benefit system so it covers more people;
6. Strengthen labor laws so workers can more easily join a union;
7. Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.
Full platform: Republican Party Platforms: Republican Party Platform of 1956

Does this sound right-wing to you? Both parties have drifted far to the right.

 

[Revoltingest]

To the left!

The Republicans have been trying to reverse Roosevelt's New Deal since its inception. They've been moving to the right for decades -- and dragging the Democrats with them. Today's "far left" would correspond to a moderate Republican platform of a few decades ago.

Some points from the Republican presidential platform of '56:

Does this sound right-wing to you? Both parties have drifted far to the right.

There are also indicators to the contrary....
- Both parties have made government bigger.
- More things have been federalized, eg, education.
- Both are more pro-gay (one thing I like).
- Both have raised taxes.

 

[tytlyf]

Any group can be seen that way if desired.
But instead of characterizing all Hillary voters as warmongering racist corrupt incompetent
lying sexists, I treat them as individuals, & allow them to differ from the worst I see.

Of course any group can be seen as any way one chooses. That's the problem with propaganda, believe believe falsehoods which you just pointed out.

Hillary isn't warmongering
Hillary isn't racist
Hillary isn't corrupt
Hillary isn't incompetent
Hillary doesn't lie often
Hillary supporters aren't sexist

But you'll tell me it is, without evidence. We have plenty of evidence on the alt-right.
And I'm not even referring to Trump as a comparison for the above.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course any group can be seen as any way one chooses. That's the problem with propaganda, believe believe falsehoods which you just pointed out.

Hillary isn't warmongering
Hillary isn't racist
Hillary isn't corrupt
Hillary isn't incompetent
Hillary doesn't lie often
Hillary supporters aren't sexist

Keep telling yourself that.
As for her supporters, I say that only many are sexist (the ones who say vote for her because "It's time for a woman.").

But you'll tell me it is, without evidence. We have plenty of evidence on the alt-right.
And I'm not even referring to Trump as a comparison for the above.

If I offered evidence (which I already have), would you accept any of it?
It's less work to agree to disagree.

 

[tytlyf]

Keep telling yourself that.
As for her supporters, I say that only many are sexist (the ones who say vote for her because "It's time for a woman.").

If I offered evidence (which I already have), would you accept any of it?
It's less work to agree to disagree.

Well, it's one thing to vote for a woman just because she's a woman. If someone is voting for a random woman for president that has no credentials, then you'd have a point. It just so happened this election had a woman running who was well qualified for the position. She was the responsible choice out of everyone. I would like to have seen Bernie as the nominee, but I think he would have lost worse.

If Bernie was the nominee, RW media would go after his evil commie socialistic ideals and smear him for years on end. That would result in propaganda and disinformation being spread around and he would have lost I'm sure. I mean, say the word 'socialist' to a conservative and they get angry, automatically assuming some very evil thing. Someone teaches them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, it's one thing to vote for a woman just because she's a woman. If someone is voting for a random woman for president that has no credentials, then you'd have a point. It just so happened this election had a woman running who was well qualified for the position. She was the responsible choice out of everyone. I would like to have seen Bernie as the nominee, but I think he would have lost worse.

So you believe that reasonable people cannot disagree on the candidates,
ie, that only your assessment is correct, eh? Strong with you the faith is.

If Bernie was the nominee, RW media would go after his evil commie socialistic ideals and smear him for years on end. That would result in propaganda and disinformation being spread around and he would have lost I'm sure. I mean, say the word 'socialist' to a conservative and they get angry, automatically assuming some very evil thing. Someone teaches them.

The people I see getting really angry over this election are the Democrats.
They're they ones who are making this really personal, hating not just
Trump, but also those of us who voted for him. They're short on tolerance.

 

[Valjean]

There are also indicators to the contrary....
- Both parties have made government bigger.
- More things have been federalized, eg, education.
- Both are more pro-gay (one thing I like).
- Both have raised taxes.

"Bigger" depends on how you define it. It gets complicated. Moreover, if government isn't promoting the general welfare, corporations step
The general welfare isn't usually part of corporate business plans.
The true story: Democratic presidents shrink government; Republican presidents grow it.

More things are being privatized, not federalized, and what federal agencies remain are often deliberately being defunded and mismanaged, often with a view toward eliminating them altogether: Astounding: David Koch's 1980 VP Run: Kill Medicare, Social Security, Minimum Wage, Public Schools
More and more private companies are grabbing a share of the public pie.
Education? State universities used to be free or nearly so, and students used to be able to afford most private colleges working Summer jobs.

Taxes? The post-war golden age, the period of America's most rapid industrial growth and greatest personal prosperity; was a product of protectionism, strong unions, high wages, high taxes (91% top rate), strong economic regulations and generous social services. It was a prosperity born of what some would call big government.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Bigger" depends on how you define it. It gets complicated. Moreover, if government isn't promoting the general welfare, corporations step
The general welfare isn't usually part of corporate business plans.
The true story: Democratic presidents shrink government; Republican presidents grow it.

Using the Daily KOS to prove Democrats shrink government?
That's like asking RJ Reynolds if cigarettes are dangerous.
Even their own presented data contradict the title.
But there's another measure....the CFR (Code Of Federal Regulations)
You'll find that every administration, regardless of party, expands it.
Here's a fun illustration....

Ref....
Reg Stats | Regulatory Studies Center | The George Washington University

Here's another fun thingie....

More things are being privatized, not federalized, and what federal agencies remain are often deliberately being defunded and mismanaged, often with a view toward eliminating them altogether: Astounding: David Koch's 1980 VP Run: Kill Medicare, Social Security, Minimum Wage, Public Schools
More and more private companies are grabbing a share of the public pie.
Education? State universities used to be free or nearly so, and students used to be able to afford most private colleges working Summer jobs.

There isn't much privatization going on.
The Fed's budget continues increasing faster than inflation.
And there's more than just the Fed...the state & local governments are increasing regulation.

Taxes? The post-war golden age, the period of America's most rapid industrial growth and greatest personal prosperity; was a product of protectionism, strong unions, high wages, high taxes (91% top rate), strong economic regulations and generous social services. It was a prosperity born of what some would call big government.

So few understand what happened post WW2.
They see high tax rates, & think that was the cause of prosperity.
Instead, other factors led to expansion....
- The rest of the world was industrially ruined, so there was little competition.
- There was great demand after all the destruction.
- Much of our workforce switched from war to production.
- We had a huge technological advantage over everyone else.
- The high marginal tax rates praised by leftists were offset by massive tax avoidance devices, so that average tax rates were far lower. If you liked that system, that makes you pro-loophole for the wealthy.