martha’s vineyard hypocrisy

[wdmso]

The committee focused on Trump falsely declaring victory on election night, which they cast as part of a premeditated plan.

They played taped testimony from Greg Jacob, a top aide to Vice President Mike Pence, saying that Pence’s aides discussed how to deal with that possibility. The committee also shared an email to White House aides dated Oct. 31 from Tom Fitton, head of the conservative group Judicial Watch. Fitton suggested Trump should claim that ballots “counted by the Election Day deadline” showed he won. Fitton sent another email on Nov. 3, saying he had spoken with Trump about this.


For Jim and Scott this did happen either. Or if it did they don’t care
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The committee focused on Trump falsely declaring victory on election night, which they cast as part of a premeditated plan.

They played taped testimony from Greg Jacob, a top aide to Vice President Mike Pence, saying that Pence’s aides discussed how to deal with that possibility. The committee also shared an email to White House aides dated Oct. 31 from Tom Fitton, head of the conservative group Judicial Watch. Fitton suggested Trump should claim that ballots “counted by the Election Day deadline” showed he won. Fitton sent another email on Nov. 3, saying he had spoken with Trump about this.


For Jim and Scott this did happen either. Or if it did they don’t care
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

maybe you and Fetterman had the same stroke? i hate what Trump did, i’ve said it 10,000 times. Yet because you can never admit anyone on your side is flawed, you assume i suffer from that same blindness, when clearly i don’t.

I hope the committee nails trump and he never runs again. What about that don’t you understand?

Now, if he were to run again and be the gop nominee, i’d probably vote for him over and conceivable democrat candidate. Because i am convinced his policy ideas are far superior for the 300 million people living here

He clobbered your unbeatable candidate in 2016, did it by giving you all the finger every chance he could, then he did the unthinkable and got Roe overturned, for which you should be grateful ( it won’t drastically reduce access to abortion and yet it’s a political win for democrats), instead it made you even more deranged with hate. You talk about trump ten times more than you talk about the current president.

[Pete F.]

Has anyone else notice the republican’s are not campaigning on their own platform but are only attacking Biden and Harris.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Hey, Seniors! This is REAL…

President Biden & the Democrats just got you a nearly 9% raise for 2023!

While on the flip side, you've got the Republican Party that want to gut Social Security.

Vote accordingly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Hey, Seniors! This is REAL…

President Biden & the Democrats just got you a nearly 9% raise for 2023!

While on the flip side, you've got the Republican Party that want to gut Social Security.

Vote accordingly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who wants to gut SS, exactly?

How about a fake quote from Greene, saying the GOP wants to kill all seniors and sell their stuff on ebay?

Can you tell us where the money is coming from, for that 9% raise? Because SS is operating deficits as it is.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Who wants to gut SS, exactly?

How about a fake quote from Greene, saying the GOP wants to kill all seniors and sell their stuff on ebay?

Can you tell us where the money is coming from, for that 9% raise? Because SS is operating deficits as it is.

If the Social Security Expansion Act had been enacted last year, Elon Musk would have paid $2.9 billion more in taxes, seniors would have received $2,400 more in benefits and Social Security would be solvent for more than 75 years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Who wants to gut SS, exactly?

How about a fake quote from Greene, saying the GOP wants to kill all seniors and sell their stuff on ebay?

Can you tell us where the money is coming from, for that 9% raise? Because SS is operating deficits as it is.

Here is some fear mongering:


Senator Ron Johnson said on a radio show this month that Social Security and Medicare shouldn’t be “mandatory” programs and should be subject to yearly renewal decisions in Congress.

And he’s one of many Republican candidates touching the “third rail” of American politics and calling for cuts to long-term Social Security, against Democratic objections, per NBC News.

Mandela Barnes, Johnson’s Democratic opponent, accused him of “want[ing] to strip seniors of the benefits they’ve worked their entire lives for.”


Blake Masters, a Republican candidate for Senate from Arizona, offered the “fresh and innovative idea” to “privatize Social Security” during a speech at a fiscal conservative forum this June. He later recanted that idea, but Democrats showcased footage of those comments in TV ads asking voters to “say no” to Masters.

In February, Senate Republican campaign chair Rick Scott (R–Fla.) published “An 11-Point Plan to Rescue America,” which included a call to sunset “all federal legislation” in five years unless Congress opts to pass that legislation again.


And:

Bloomberg’s Jack Fitzpatrick interviewed several Republican contenders to lead the House Budget Committee. They all said, with varying levels of specificity, that they plan to instigate a debt-ceiling standoff to force Biden to accept cuts to retirement and health-care programs. “Our main focus has got to be on nondiscretionary — it’s got to be on entitlements,” said Representative Buddy Carter. Representative Jodey Arrington said he wants “eligibility reforms,” which means raising the eligibility age and imposing a means test for Social Security and Medicare benefits. “We should ensure that we keep the promises that were made to the people who really need it, the people who are relying on it,” said Representative Lloyd Smucker. “So some sort of means-testing potentially would help to ensure that we can do that.”

It might seem strange that Republicans would be pivoting to a more aggressive agenda without holding the White House. But this is actually consistent with the strategy they have followed over the past three decades. Republicans are committed to scaling back the safety net. But they realize this agenda is toxically unpopular — even less popular than defunding the police, a policy Democrats have repudiated en masse.

They could try to accomplish this through compromise — the previous two Democratic presidents showed some willingness to trade social-spending cuts for higher taxes on the rich. But higher taxes on the rich are completely verboten in the GOP. And so their strategy is to force Democratic presidents to sign spending cuts into law against their will.

The 1995–96 Republican Congress instigated a series of government shutdowns in the belief they could force Bill Clinton to accept cuts to taxes and social programs. This crusade blew up in their faces and helped Clinton win reelection. But rather than abandon it, they tried it again under Barack Obama, this time using the debt ceiling as the hostage of choice. That, too, failed.

But the Republican plan is to try it again with Biden. They are already floating their message: The Republicans will insist they won’t raise the debt ceiling unless Biden agrees to Republican-designed spending cuts, and they will blame him for the global meltdown if he refuses their demands. “If Republicans are trying to cut spending, surely he wouldn’t try to default,” said Representative Jason Smith, the prospective chair of the House Ways and Means Committee.

And while this tactic has never worked before, it has the theoretical attraction of evading the public’s deep aversion to the GOP policy agenda by extorting the Democrats into endorsing it.

Last June, the Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus that includes more than three-quarters of the House Republicans, released a sweeping domestic-budget plan. It received little attention in the mainstream media. The plan, notes Fitzpatrick, would

gradually raise the Medicare age of eligibility to 67 and the Social Security eligibility to 70 before indexing both to life expectancy. It backed withholding payments to those who retired early and had earnings over a certain limit. And it endorsed the consideration of options to reduce payroll taxes that fund Social Security and redirect them to private alternatives. It also urged lawmakers to “phase-in an increase in means testing” for Medicare.

On top of partially cutting Medicare and Social Security and partially privatizing the latter, the RSC plan would implement various regressive tax cuts favored by the GOP.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Here is some fear mongering:


Senator Ron Johnson said on a radio show this month that Social Security and Medicare shouldn’t be “mandatory” programs and should be subject to yearly renewal decisions in Congress.

And he’s one of many Republican candidates touching the “third rail” of American politics and calling for cuts to long-term Social Security, against Democratic objections, per NBC News.

Mandela Barnes, Johnson’s Democratic opponent, accused him of “want[ing] to strip seniors of the benefits they’ve worked their entire lives for.”


Blake Masters, a Republican candidate for Senate from Arizona, offered the “fresh and innovative idea” to “privatize Social Security” during a speech at a fiscal conservative forum this June. He later recanted that idea, but Democrats showcased footage of those comments in TV ads asking voters to “say no” to Masters.

In February, Senate Republican campaign chair Rick Scott (R–Fla.) published “An 11-Point Plan to Rescue America,” which included a call to sunset “all federal legislation” in five years unless Congress opts to pass that legislation again.


And:

Bloomberg’s Jack Fitzpatrick interviewed several Republican contenders to lead the House Budget Committee. They all said, with varying levels of specificity, that they plan to instigate a debt-ceiling standoff to force Biden to accept cuts to retirement and health-care programs. “Our main focus has got to be on nondiscretionary — it’s got to be on entitlements,” said Representative Buddy Carter. Representative Jodey Arrington said he wants “eligibility reforms,” which means raising the eligibility age and imposing a means test for Social Security and Medicare benefits. “We should ensure that we keep the promises that were made to the people who really need it, the people who are relying on it,” said Representative Lloyd Smucker. “So some sort of means-testing potentially would help to ensure that we can do that.”

It might seem strange that Republicans would be pivoting to a more aggressive agenda without holding the White House. But this is actually consistent with the strategy they have followed over the past three decades. Republicans are committed to scaling back the safety net. But they realize this agenda is toxically unpopular — even less popular than defunding the police, a policy Democrats have repudiated en masse.

They could try to accomplish this through compromise — the previous two Democratic presidents showed some willingness to trade social-spending cuts for higher taxes on the rich. But higher taxes on the rich are completely verboten in the GOP. And so their strategy is to force Democratic presidents to sign spending cuts into law against their will.

The 1995–96 Republican Congress instigated a series of government shutdowns in the belief they could force Bill Clinton to accept cuts to taxes and social programs. This crusade blew up in their faces and helped Clinton win reelection. But rather than abandon it, they tried it again under Barack Obama, this time using the debt ceiling as the hostage of choice. That, too, failed.

But the Republican plan is to try it again with Biden. They are already floating their message: The Republicans will insist they won’t raise the debt ceiling unless Biden agrees to Republican-designed spending cuts, and they will blame him for the global meltdown if he refuses their demands. “If Republicans are trying to cut spending, surely he wouldn’t try to default,” said Representative Jason Smith, the prospective chair of the House Ways and Means Committee.

And while this tactic has never worked before, it has the theoretical attraction of evading the public’s deep aversion to the GOP policy agenda by extorting the Democrats into endorsing it.

Last June, the Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus that includes more than three-quarters of the House Republicans, released a sweeping domestic-budget plan. It received little attention in the mainstream media. The plan, notes Fitzpatrick, would

gradually raise the Medicare age of eligibility to 67 and the Social Security eligibility to 70 before indexing both to life expectancy. It backed withholding payments to those who retired early and had earnings over a certain limit. And it endorsed the consideration of options to reduce payroll taxes that fund Social Security and redirect them to private alternatives. It also urged lawmakers to “phase-in an increase in means testing” for Medicare.

On top of partially cutting Medicare and Social Security and partially privatizing the latter, the RSC plan would implement various regressive tax cuts favored by the GOP.

"Senator Ron Johnson said on a radio show this month that Social Security and Medicare shouldn’t be “mandatory” programs and should be subject to yearly renewal decisions in Congress."

Oh, that's fear mongering! Then why are public teachers allowed to not take part in Social Security? As always, it's ok when liberals benefit from participation being voluntary, but you say it's fear mongering when a Republican suggests it.

"Mandela Barnes, Johnson’s Democratic opponent, accused him of “want[ing] to strip seniors of the benefits they’ve worked their entire lives for.”"

Nowhere in your quote attributed to Johnson, did he come close to saying he'd take away benefits that people paid for.

You want to see a lying fear monger? Look in the mirror.

SS and Medicare are programs where current benefits are paid for, by people currently contributing. Which necessarily means benefits for todays younger people are NOT funded by their own contributions, but rather rely on future contributions of future participants.

There's a term for that kind of structure. It's called a Ponzi scheme. I'm not saying SS and Medicare were set up to defraud anyone, but they are nonetheless ponzi schemes. Ponzi schemes don't usually end well for people who come along later, the math is especially unfavorable to generations after the baby boomers.

If I could opt out of SS today (meaning I'd walk away from everything I've ever contributed, never see any benefit, never pay another cent in SS taxes, let the feds keep the taxes I've paid so far), Id jump at the chance. I'd be crazy not to do so. This is precisely why teachers bought their way out of it, because it stinks.

Are you telling us you'd rather pay into SS for 45 years, instead of being able to privatize your contributions, and invest them yourself? You gong to say that with a straight face? You wouldn't be way better off putting that money into an age-indexed mutual fund?

Why do teachers deserve the benefit of not being dragged into it? Why is their well being more important than everyone elses?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Senator Ron Johnson said on a radio show this month that Social Security and Medicare shouldn’t be “mandatory” programs and should be subject to yearly renewal decisions in Congress."

Oh, that's fear mongering! Then why are public teachers allowed to not take part in Social Security? As always, it's ok when liberals benefit from participation being voluntary, but you say it's fear mongering when a Republican suggests it.

Yes it is fear mongering. If you want to discuss public teachers start another thread.

You seem to not remember the statement you made about SS so I'll repost it for you.

"Who wants to gut SS, exactly?"

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You want to see a lying fear monger? Look in the mirror.

Ok douche bag. Is it a wonder you have no friends.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Hey, Seniors! This is REAL…

President Biden & the Democrats just got you a nearly 9% raise for 2023!

While on the flip side, you've got the Republican Party that want to gut Social Security.

Vote accordingly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post

Fascists use it to scare people -- there's no better way to control people than with fear.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post

Fascists use it to scare people -- there's no better way to control people than with fear.

I see you didn't get the memo...it's not fear mongering when they do it.

[Jim in CT]

Pail, you criticized Ron Johnson for saying SS shouldn't be mandatory.

Yes you don't care when left-wing groups carve themselves out of SS.

[PaulS]

You said who wants to cut Social Security and I provided quotes showing what Johnson and others have said about social security and then you come out with some gibberish and lies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

You're really making a fool of yourself. He did not say participation should be voluntary. He said Social Security and Medicare shouldn't be mandatory programs and should be up for review every year. There are numerous other quotes indicating Republicans don't want to continue Social Security as is and want to reduce benefits by various methods including using the threat of closing the government down to get reduction in entitlements.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You're really making a fool of yourself. He did not say participation should be voluntary. He said Social Security and Medicare shouldn't be mandatory programs and should be up for review every year. There are numerous other quotes indicating Republicans don't want to continue Social Security as is and want to reduce benefits by various methods including using the threat of closing the government down to get reduction in entitlements.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your post claimed that he questioned if it should
be mandatory. that’s not the same as aging maybe it should be voluntary?

SS is already not mandatory, at least for people
who donate big money to democrats who then reward their donors by carving them out of SS. Nice spot to be in, get a cadillac pension instead of a crappy SS benefit.

SS is an awful, awful program. it’s literally a ponzi scheme. Why should
we stick without forever? why not try and see if there’s a better option? like the teacher pensions, which give teachers $75k a year starting at age 59.5? wouldn’t it be great if everyone had that, instead of just teachers?

this is a complete waste.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

your post claimed that he questioned if it should
be mandatory. that’s not the same as aging maybe it should be voluntary?

SS is already not mandatory, at least for people
who donate big money to democrats who then reward their donors by carving them out of SS. Nice spot to be in, get a cadillac pension instead of a crappy SS benefit.

SS is an awful, awful program. it’s literally a ponzi scheme. Why should
we stick without forever? why not try and see if there’s a better option? like the teacher pensions, which give teachers $75k a year starting at age 59.5? wouldn’t it be great if everyone had that, instead of just teachers?

this is a complete waste.

Yes this is a complete waste because you have no common sense. He's talking about if the program should be continued and if it should be mandatory spending and not discretionary. I e he's saying let's review the program and see if we should cancel it or lower the benefits. You asked who wants to gut Social Security and I showed you numerous Republicans want to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Yes this is a complete waste because you have no common sense. He's talking about if the program should be continued and if it should be mandatory spending and not discretionary. I e he's saying let's review the program and see if we should cancel it or lower the benefits. You asked who wants to gut Social Security and I showed you numerous Republicans want to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

where did he say lower the benefits? and to whom?

i have news for you, benefits are going to have to be reduced for the wealthy. the program can’t afford it.

if you cut benefits to multi millionaires is that gutting the program? or is that making it more viable?

he’s a republican, so therefore it must be sinister. no other possibility. right? he must mean that poor people
should have to eat cat food.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

where did he say lower the benefits? and to whom?

i have news for you, benefits are going to have to be reduced for the wealthy. the program can’t afford it.

if you cut benefits to multi millionaires is that gutting the program? or is that making it more viable?

he’s a republican, so therefore it must be sinister. no other possibility. right? he must mean that poor people
should have to eat cat food.

You asked right? I told you. And what do you? You start with your usual insults.

Here is your first insult "You want to see a lying fear monger? Look in the mirror." That is why (or I should say 1 reason) I think you are a scum bag.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Documents show top DeSantis officials were personally involved in Martha's Vineyard flights….
Hard to believe
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Documents show top DeSantis officials were personally involved in Martha's Vineyard flights….
Hard to believe
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

good for them. state officials should be sending these folks to oma es where people
claim to want them.

[Pete F.]

James Uthmeier, Ron DeSantis's Chief of Staff, who, based on document dump late last night from Governor's Office, was also running point on DeSantis's "relocation program" with Larry Keefe. He formerly worked for Wilbur Ross, Trump's Secretary of Commerce. Stay tuned!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

They left Venezuela months ago and traversed Central America on bus, train, and foot. Then, famously, they flew to Martha’s Vineyard on private planes and ferried to the mainland to stay, for a time, on a military base.

Now, the Martha’s Vineyard migrants are achieving some semblance of stability, or at least striving to do so. Forty-seven of them have found housing in Massachusetts — in Lowell, Brockton, Stoughton, Provincetown, and other towns on Cape Cod, according to Iván Espinoza-Madrigal, the head of Lawyers for Civil Rights.

Four have even returned to Martha’s Vineyard, where the group first landed on Sept. 14, according to Rachel Self, a lawyer on the island who has assisted the migrants since their arrival. (Two of the 49 migrants have moved to New York.)

Meanwhile, their prospects for remaining in the United States long term have received a boost from a Texas law enforcement official.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

They left Venezuela months ago and traversed Central America on bus, train, and foot. Then, famously, they flew to Martha’s Vineyard on private planes and ferried to the mainland to stay, for a time, on a military base.

Now, the Martha’s Vineyard migrants are achieving some semblance of stability, or at least striving to do so. Forty-seven of them have found housing in Massachusetts — in Lowell, Brockton, Stoughton, Provincetown, and other towns on Cape Cod, according to Iván Espinoza-Madrigal, the head of Lawyers for Civil Rights.

Four have even returned to Martha’s Vineyard, where the group first landed on Sept. 14, according to Rachel Self, a lawyer on the island who has assisted the migrants since their arrival. (Two of the 49 migrants have moved to New York.)

Meanwhile, their prospects for remaining in the United States long term have received a boost from a Texas law enforcement official.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that’s great. I always say there’s nothing smarter than rewarding people for breaking the rules, while those who are following the rules pay a harsh penalty. It’s brilliant. Just brilliant. Let’s tell our kids, if you’re waiting in a long line, cut the line, the people who got there first have no rights whatsoever.

i have a neighbor who was here in a student visa, started a masonry business, had a few employees. He wanted to stay after his visa ran out, he hired lawyers, did everything the right way. He didn’t luck out, had to go back to albania for two years to wait for the chance to come back legally.

He played by the rules, and suffered as a result. Liberals, I guess, would say he’s a sucker for doing so.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

that’s great. I always say there’s nothing smarter than rewarding people for breaking the rules, while those who are following the rules pay a harsh penalty. It’s brilliant. Just brilliant. Let’s tell our kids, if you’re waiting in a long line, cut the line, the people who got there first have no rights whatsoever.

i have a neighbor who was here in a student visa, started a masonry business, had a few employees. He wanted to stay after his visa ran out, he hired lawyers, did everything the right way. He didn’t luck out, had to go back to albania for two years to wait for the chance to come back legally.

He played by the rules, and suffered as a result. Liberals, I guess, would say he’s a sucker for doing so.

If only Ron had followed the rules, we wouldn't have to see another bleeding heart/angry Jim post. Do you wake up angry Jim? Do you skip breakfast to get this forum opened to see where you need to focus your anger? I pop in to amuse myself over the never ending circular debates, some threads going off in several different directions. Man I'd love to see you all sit down in a room and see how different the tone and hopefully civility might be; the internet is a great place to post without consequences. Well unless your name is DJT, then you need to start your own media platform to spread your lies.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

If only Ron had followed the rules, we wouldn't have to see another bleeding heart/angry Jim post. Do you wake up angry Jim? Do you skip breakfast to get this forum opened to see where you need to focus your anger? I pop in to amuse myself over the never ending circular debates, some threads going off in several different directions. Man I'd love to see you all sit down in a room and see how different the tone and hopefully civility might be; the internet is a great place to post without consequences. Well unless your name is DJT, then you need to start your own media platform to spread your lies.

what rule did ron break? so there a rule that says that illegals have to stay in FL?

“i pop in to amuse myself”

i love that. you don’t contribute the way others do, just to amuse yourself. you’re better than us. you see. You keep repeating this nonsense, like you’re desperately trying to convince us it’s true.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

that’s great. I always say there’s nothing smarter than rewarding people for breaking the rules, while those who are following the rules pay a harsh penalty. It’s brilliant. Just brilliant. Let’s tell our kids, if you’re waiting in a long line, cut the line, the people who got there first have no rights whatsoever.


i have a neighbor who was here in a student visa, started a masonry business, had a few employees. He wanted to stay after his visa ran out, he hired lawyers, did everything the right way. He didn’t luck out, had to go back to albania for two years to wait for the chance to come back legally.

He played by the rules, and suffered as a result. Liberals, I guess, would say he’s a sucker for doing so.

Except they didn’t break the rules like your neighbor.
They came to the border and legally requested asylum as the law requires.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Except they didn’t break the rules like your neighbor.
They came to the border and legally requested asylum as the law requires.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim considers he’s of European descent no other immigrants from south of the border have done the same. Its just his political views complements of the GOP

And most illegals are like his example they are visa overstayers

It’s Jim’s own party cheer what happened to this man. Not Democrats
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim considers he’s of European descent no other immigrants from south of the border have done the same. Its just his political views complements of the GOP

And most illegals are like his example they are visa overstayers

It’s Jim’s own party cheer what happened to this man. Not Democrats
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i don’t consider im of european descent, it’s fact.

i’m a big believer in immigration. legal
immigration.


you work in law enforcement, and you believe people
can ignore laws that are inconvenient for them? interesting.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Except they didn’t break the rules like your neighbor.
They came to the border and legally requested asylum as the law requires.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

my neighbor broke zero rules. he left when he was supposed to
leave, came back legally.

how come you’re too scared to
comment on recent polling?