Republicans no longer a viable party?

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
In summary: Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don't take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.Yes, this is a very real possibility. I think it's safe to say that the Democratic party doesn't want to see this happen, either.In summary, Republicans are being asked to do something that is a no-brainer, and if they don't do it, the consequences could be disastrous.
  • #351
mheslep said:
Yes ...
Statutory Caps ...
Repeal CLASS Act.
Shift to CPI .. exempt SSI ...


I don't see anything in there that adds up to an immediate cut of anywhere near $500B.

It sounded like and "smoke and mirrors" to me as well - let's see what kind of impact Coburn has now that he's re-joined the group.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #352
David Brooks is at it again. The GOP is dysfunctional, and is in the sway of ideologues. I think he's right. IMO, any Republican that votes in favor of tax increases is going to find themselves facing a tea-partier in the next primary, financed by Grover Norquist and his organization. Thanks to SCOTUS' Citizens United decision, hapless incumbents could find themselves outgunned and outspent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/opinion/19brooks.html
 
  • #353
Somehow I find it strange that President Obama is so willing to embrace Mitch McConnell - unless Harry Reid thinks he has him "in-hand"? McConnell wasn't exactly gentle this week on the floor.
http://mcconnell.senate.gov/public/...ecord_id=8fb4c641-3b8c-48e9-af40-72389ad4d61b

"“Two years of reckless spending and debt have brought us to the point of crisis. And this week, Americans will see how their elected representatives decide to resolve it.

“On the one side are those who believe that failing to rein in spending now could be calamitous, and that a government which borrows 42 cents for every dollar it spends needs to sober up. Washington needs strong medicine to heal its spending addiction now, not a false promise of it later.

“And on the other side are those who want to pretend the status quo is acceptable — that everything will be fine if we freeze current habits in place, raise job-killing taxes on small businesses, and do nothing about the long term fiscal imbalance that imperils our economy.

“Republicans have tried to persuade the President of the need for a course correction, but weeks of negotiations have shown that his commitment to big government is simply too great to lead to the kind of long-term reforms we need to put us on a path to balance and economic growth.

“So we’ve decided to bring our case to the American people.

“And that’s why this week, Republicans in the House and the Senate will push for legislation that would cut government spending now, cap it in the future, and which only raises the debt limit if it’s accompanied by a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget.

“The Cut, Cap, and Balance plan is the kind of strong medicine Washington needs and the American people want — and Republicans in both houses of Congress will be pushing it aggressively this week. "
 
  • #354
As a follow up - perhaps the Republicans should declare the real long term debt ceiling requirements given President Obama's runaway spending - start a discussion of a $20Trillion debt ceiling and send it to the President to sign - let him own the number?
 
  • #355
McConnell said:
Two years of reckless spending and debt have brought us to the point of crisis. And this week, Americans will see how their elected representatives decide to resolve it.
The "reckless spending" is not Obama's fault. He doesn't author spending bills - Congress does. Much of the "reckless spending" is the result of W's wars and unfettered military spending. We should also remember that when Wall Street scammed us into a recession (with little or no oversight by the SEC) people lost jobs and Federal revenues dropped at the same time that the unemployed increased the load on unemployment pay-outs, and many families fell into the Medicaid system. It is pretty standard for the GOP to try to hang all that on Obama when in fact it all originated with W. We'll see if the voters are stupid enough to buy that in 2012. Obama is playing a very futile (IMO) game of catch-up, with an opposition party that is determined to deny him any success at all - even at the expense of the US economy and our bond-rating. Lowered bond-ratings will cost us even more money to service our debt and the GOP doesn't care, as long as they score points.
 
Last edited:
  • #356
turbo-1 said:
The "reckless spending" is not Obama's fault. He doesn't author spending bills - Congress does. Much of the "reckless spending" is the result of W's wars and unfettered military spending. We should also remember that when Wall Street scammed us into a recession (with little or no oversight by the SEC) people lost jobs and Federal revenues dropped at the same time that the unemployed increased the load on unemployment pay-outs, and many families fell into the Medicaid system. It is pretty standard for the GOP to try to hang all that on Obama when in fact it all originated with W. We'll see if the voters are stupid enough to buy that in 2012. Obama is playing a very futile (IMO) game of catch-up, with an opposition party that is determined to deny him any success at all - even at the expense of the US economy and our bond-rating. Lowered bond-ratings will cost us even more money to service our debt and the GOP doesn't care, as long as they score points.

The post you responded to stated "two years of reckless spending and debt" - and your response is it's not Obama's fault - that "W" is at fault? I'm going to label your response trolling - IMO.
 
  • #357
WhoWee said:
The post you responded to stated "two years of reckless spending and debt" - and your response is it's not Obama's fault - that "W" is at fault? I'm going to label your response trolling - IMO.
Edited to attribute to McConnell.
 
  • #358
turbo-1 said:
Edited to attribute to McConnell.

What does that mean?
 
  • #359
WhoWee said:
What does that mean?
I edited the post to indicate that McConnell made those statements, not you.
 
  • #360
WhoWee said:
I'm in favor of helping people that can not work because of illness. I am not in favor of helping people that choose to abuse drugs and alcohol and choose not to work. The requirements for Social Security Disability are quite inclusive with an increased chance of abuse of benefits. What do you disagree with as per my point?

Where is your evidence that bipolar disability is being abused?
 
  • #361
WhoWee said:
Somehow I find it strange that President Obama is so willing to embrace Mitch McConnell - unless Harry Reid thinks he has him "in-hand"? McConnell wasn't exactly gentle this week on the floor."[/I]

There is nothing strange about it honestly. I'm sure Obama realizes that McConnell is doing a little political theatre for his base. If he doesn't appeal to some of those tea party fanatics, his bill could get locked up in the house.

Voters are not always right, but it's the politicians job to make them think their right.
 
  • #362
WhoWee said:
I'm in favor of helping people that can not work because of illness. I am not in favor of helping people that choose to abuse drugs and alcohol and choose not to work. The requirements for Social Security Disability are quite inclusive with an increased chance of abuse of benefits. What do you disagree with as per my point?

My admittedly limited experience with getting on SS disability is that it's really tough, even with a legitimate reason. Someone I know has a disease that is causing her spine to crumble. It took *years* to convince SS that she was too disabled to work (she could barely stand for 1 minute by the time her case was approved!).

Btw - her case took so long to approve because SS said she did not have a long enough record of seeing a doctor to treat it, despite "claiming" she was in crippling pain for years. And why had she not seen a doctor? Because she worked in a nursing home and had no health insurance. How's that for a catch-22 :mad:?
 
  • #363
SixNein said:
Where is your evidence that bipolar disability is being abused?

Haven't you twisted that question a bit - should that be classified a troll or a strawman?

You quoted me as saying "The requirements for Social Security Disability are quite inclusive with an increased chance of abuse of benefits. What do you disagree with as per my point?". I said there is an increased chance of abuse - not that I have evidence.
 
  • #364
lisab said:
My admittedly limited experience with getting on SS disability is that it's really tough, even with a legitimate reason. Someone I know has a disease that is causing her spine to crumble. It took *years* to convince SS that she was too disabled to work (she could barely stand for 1 minute by the time her case was approved!).

Btw - her case took so long to approve because SS said she did not have a long enough record of seeing a doctor to treat it, despite "claiming" she was in crippling pain for years. And why had she not seen a doctor? Because she worked in a nursing home and had no health insurance. How's that for a catch-22 :mad:?

What do you think the likelihood the process to verify her legitimate benefits was slowed by questionable claims? I had a friend who paid the maximum Social Security for 25+ years, broke his back on the job and died waiting on Disability.
 
  • #365
lisab said:
My admittedly limited experience with getting on SS disability is that it's really tough, even with a legitimate reason. Someone I know has a disease that is causing her spine to crumble. It took *years* to convince SS that she was too disabled to work (she could barely stand for 1 minute by the time her case was approved!).

Btw - her case took so long to approve because SS said she did not have a long enough record of seeing a doctor to treat it, despite "claiming" she was in crippling pain for years. And why had she not seen a doctor? Because she worked in a nursing home and had no health insurance. How's that for a catch-22 :mad:?
Try pursuing a legitimate disability claim with fantastic documentation through that system. You will get rejected over and over again by every level until you are forced to pay lawyers to get you through the last appeal with an administrative-law judge. Does anybody here think that this is easy or cheap and that disabled people are scamming the SS system? If you have been through the system, I guarantee that you will not think this. Unfortunately, the same nuts that sold the "welfare queen" paradigm to the US voters have convinced most of the "liberal" media that such SS scams are par for the course.
 
  • #366
turbo-1 said:
Try pursuing a legitimate disability claim with fantastic documentation through that system. You will get rejected over and over again by every level until you are forced to pay lawyers to get you through the last appeal with an administrative-law judge. Does anybody here think that this is easy or cheap and that disabled people are scamming the SS system? If you have been through the system, I guarantee that you will not think this. Unfortunately, the same nuts that sold the "welfare queen" paradigm to the US voters have convinced most of the "liberal" media that such SS scams are par for the course.

Again turbo - the benefits need to be saved for legitimate claims. Legitimate people don't know how to "game" the system - they have a difficult time - can we agree on that point?
 
  • #367
WhoWee said:
What do you think the likelihood the process to verify her legitimate benefits was slowed by questionable claims? I had a friend who paid the maximum Social Security for 25+ years, broke his back on the job and died waiting on Disability.

I really have no idea - certainly there are some bogus claims. But the SSD process is so labyrinthine and the ultimate payoff is almost a pittance, there must be lower-hanging fruit for "hard-working" criminals to pick.
 
  • #368
WhoWee said:
Again turbo - the benefits need to be saved for legitimate claims. Legitimate people don't know how to "game" the system - they have a difficult time - can we agree on that point?
These endless distractions that you and others have brought up are all off-topic. Are the Republicans an actual viable political party?

If you want to start a thread about how drunks can game SS, please feel free. Also please be prepared to provide some supporting documentation, because you will be challenged.
 
  • #369
lisab said:
I really have no idea - certainly there are some bogus claims. But the SSD process is so labyrinthine and the ultimate payoff is almost a pittance, there must be lower-hanging fruit for "hard-working" criminals to pick.

I used to think that way until the reality of the cumulative amount of benefits for a professional scammer became apparent. In addition to disability payments, there are food stamps, medicaid, and subsidized housing - to name a few. Add to that any qualifications for EITC, child credit or making work pay (redistribution) credits ( I believe a $1.00 tax return is the requirement?).

Then, the master jewel for the real criminal element - do it in pairs and live happily ever after on the Government dole - total value maybe $60,000 per year? Please label this entire post IMO.
 
  • #370
turbo-1 said:
These endless distractions that you and others have brought up are all off-topic. Are the Republicans an actual viable political party?
Did anyone ever present a reason to think otherwise? If so I missed it in the distractions.
 
  • #371
WhoWee said:
I used to think that way until the reality of the cumulative amount of benefits for a professional scammer became apparent. In addition to disability payments, there are food stamps, medicaid, and subsidized housing - to name a few. Add to that any qualifications for EITC, child credit or making work pay (redistribution) credits ( I believe a $1.00 tax return is the requirement?).

Then, the master jewel for the real criminal element - do it in pairs and live happily ever after on the Government dole - total value maybe $60,000 per year? Please label this entire post IMO.
Please support your claims of the wholesale fraud in federal programs with some real documentation. Not Beck, Limbaugh, etc, but some documented accounting that we can double-check.
 
  • #372
Hurkyl said:
Did anyone ever present a reason to think otherwise? If so I missed it in the distractions.

Again, Coburn and McConnell are both back in the game in the Senate - the House Republicans are not alone - we will soon see the results.
 
  • #374
turbo-1 said:
Please support your claims of the wholesale fraud in federal programs with some real documentation. Not Beck, Limbaugh, etc, but some documented accounting that we can double-check.

Cut the crap turbo - I labeled the entire post IMO. If you think there is no fraud in the SS system - you're entitled to that opinion as well. Why don't you support your strawman claim that I'm quoting Beck, Limbaugh, etc.

Maybe we should move this discussion of fraud in Social Security claims to another thread.
 
  • #375
WhoWee said:
Cut the crap turbo - I labeled the entire post IMO.
That doesn't make you exempt from being called out for talking out of your rear end. :-p
 
  • #376
for turbo
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usab5206.pdf

"III. Impact of fraud on the SSA benefits
p r og rams
The Ti t l e I I progr ams have suf f e red
s ig n i fi c an t ep i so d e s o f fr a u d , a n d th e c o st s t o th e
S o c ia l S e c u ri ty tr u s t f u n d s c a n n o l o n ge r b e
ignor ed. One who wrongful ly appl i e s for and/or
receives benefits payments under any of the Title
II programs may be subject to criminal liability
under 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(1)-(8), which sets forth
penalties for felony fraud violations un der Title II
o f th e Ac t . T h e S o c ia l S e c u ri ty fe l on y fr a u d
statute can be used separately or in concert with
g e n e ra l f e d er a l c r imi n a l s ta t u te s fo u n d i n T it le 1 8 ,
to pros e cut e f r aud in bene f i ts progr ams . A key
risk factor in Title II programs are individ uals
w h o fe ig n or ex a gg er at e s ym p to m s t o b e co m e
eligible for disability benefits, and those who fail
to r epor t change s in r e sour c es or othe r
circumstances that would make a recipient of Title
I I bene f i t s ine l igibl e to cont inue to r e c e ive
payments. Eligibility for the Title II programs is
often complex and difficu lt to verify, and SSA's
abi l i ty to prope r ly de t e rmine a r e c ipi ent 's ini ti a l
and continued eligibility, an d the correct month ly
b e n e fi t d u e th a t r e ci p ie n t , i s d i re c tl y d e p e n d en t
u p o n S SA' s o n g o in g a c ce s s t o ac c u ra t e a n d
current information regarding the recipient.
"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #377
mheslep said:
$60B/year medicare and medicaid fraud.
AG Holder - "Every year we lose tens of billions": http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/May/09-ag-491.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124586523348648621.html"- "By some estimates, more than $60 billion each year is lost to fraud."

Large enough to qualify as wholesale.

I think the fraud mentioned in that link is due to things like charging for services that are never delivered, etc. In other words, it's perpetrated by providers.

The kind of SS fraud WhoWee and I were discussing is "front door" fraud, i.e. bogus claims by individuals who are capable of working but try to scam the system. My (albeit limited) experience with SS is, it's harder to get a bogus claim approved than people think.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #378
I apologize for the garbled text - please see page 3 of my link.
 
  • #379
lisab said:
My (albeit limited) experience with SS is, it's harder to get a bogus claim approved than people think.
MUCH harder than most people think! Much harder. Legitimate claims get denied over and over again through many levels of review until you end up before an Administrative Law judge. Then, SS has to pay for the 5+ years of denied benefits. Been there, done that.
 
  • #380
BTW, why aren't we discussing the viability of the GOP instead of getting derailed continuously with claims that the US is being being defrauded by people who are poor or disabled
 
  • #381
turbo-1 said:
BTW, why aren't we discussing the viability of the GOP instead of getting derailed continuously with claims that the US is being being defrauded by people who are poor or disabled

Didn't you start the derailment with this post in response to my comment about Coburn?

turbo:
"Coburn's plan ignores the fact that many people in demanding jobs can't possibly wait until 70 to retire. If he has a way to ameliorate that, I'd be glad to hear it.

I had to get out of paper-making by age 36. I ruined the joints in my feet, ankles, knees, etc pounding concrete trying to keep that beast humming. I managed to pull off another decade or so consulting for other paper companies, though even that was brutal at times.

There are many brutal jobs that people can't possibly be expected to do until age 70 unless you hope they die in their traces. It's all well and good for a desk-dweller to pontificate on this situation, but those gas-bags shouldn't be taken seriously. They work in air-conditioned comfort, travel to work in air-conditioned cars, and get nice cafeteria lunches every day and the best health-insurance in the world. Let's not pretend that they have a clue what real workers have to go through.

Edit age due to old-timer's syndrome."


Was my link regarding fraud in the SS Disability (page 3) adequate?
 
  • #382
The Republican leadership in the House was successful tonight (234 to 190) to pass their cost cutting and debt containment plan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/19/house-approves-cut-cap-and-balance-plan/

"The bill imposes caps on federal spending as a percentage of GDP. It also allows for an increase in the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion in exchange for both the Senate and House approving a balanced budget amendment. "
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #383
Hurkyl said:
turbo-1 said:
Are the Republicans an actual viable political party?
Did anyone ever present a reason to think otherwise? If so I missed it in the distractions.

Does that mean that there never was an argument, and that I can excuse myself from this discussion? I've pneumonia, predict that I'll be working about 70 hours a week for the next two months, and can barely think.

please. let me go... I need the sleep... :cry:
 
  • #384
WhoWee said:
Haven't you twisted that question a bit - should that be classified a troll or a strawman?

You quoted me as saying "The requirements for Social Security Disability are quite inclusive with an increased chance of abuse of benefits. What do you disagree with as per my point?". I said there is an increased chance of abuse - not that I have evidence.

You pulled out a subset of symptoms of bipolar to try to build a case for abuse. Someone with bipolar is going to need extensive evaluation by a shrink and medical doctor before ever getting a chance of being put on disability. I'm simply wanting some kind of evidence that these experts are unable to do their job.
 
  • #385
WhoWee said:
The Republican leadership in the House was successful tonight (234 to 190) to pass their cost cutting and debt containment plan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/19/house-approves-cut-cap-and-balance-plan/

"The bill imposes caps on federal spending as a percentage of GDP. It also allows for an increase in the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion in exchange for both the Senate and House approving a balanced budget amendment. "

Just some political theatre. The bill to watch for is coming from the senate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top