"The Republicans’ war on science and reason"

[JoeTheJuggler]

Medicare and SS aren't entitlements if you pay your fair share into them.

That doesn't follow. They're entitlements because if you qualify to get them, you're entitled to those benefits.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

SS law makes or shall we say infers promises it cannot keep.

I think you mean "implies" and not "infers", but it does neither.

The Trust Fund has been solvent for all of its 80-some year history, and even with the problem of changing demographics, it will remain solvent for some time. And Congress has the authority to make the relatively minor changes necessary to guarantee its solvency indefinitely.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Robert do you know that words have definitions? A Ponzi scheme is defined as a fraudulent investment operation.

Care to explain what is fraudulent about SS? Do I need to define fraud as well?

And "fraud" isn't the only necessary characteristic for something to be a Ponzi Scheme. It involves misleading investors about the value of an investment. SS is funded by a tax. It's not voluntary, so there's no question at all of misleading participants (not investors) into buying something.

The idea that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme has been thoroughly debunked many times over. Apparently, the only germ of meaning is that people correctly complain that under the status quo the Social Security system is not indefinitely sustainable. Of course the minor changes necessary to correct this problem aren't what they're after. People use the Ponzi Scheme rhetoric to support the argument that we should effectively* do away with the Social Security System. If it were a Ponzi Scheme, that would make sense. But it's not, so it doesn't.

*ETA: And I include in that proposal such as Perry's that would make participation voluntary. (Voluntary taxes don't work.) Or plans to privatize it and make it much more like some kind of IRA rather than the taxpayer funded safety net that it is.

 

[BenBurch]

...

And Congress has the authority to make the relatively minor changes necessary to guarantee its solvency indefinitely.

And that is what is at stake in this election.

Do we kick old people to the curb, or do we remain a civilized nation?

 

[Walter Ego]

I think you mean "implies" and not "infers", but it does neither.

Despite being an expert on any subject he cares to discuss, Robert often doesn't know the correct meaning of words and phrases he uses. Don't expect him to admit even a trivial mistake like the one above, however.

The Trust Fund has been solvent for all of its 80-some year history, and even with the problem of changing demographics, it will remain solvent for some time. And Congress has the authority to make the relatively minor changes necessary to guarantee its solvency indefinitely.

Despite their talk of "reforming" entitlement programs like Social Security, the Republicans would like to eliminate all such programs. This would probably be fine with some Gen X'ers (like Robert?) who would appreciate a few extra dollars in their paychecks to pay for the latest cool apps and downloads for their cellphones but don't count on it while the Baby Boomers are still alive.

(Of course, after the Boomers are all dead, the Gen X'ers will have paid enough money into the system that they wont be happy to see SS eliminated.).

 

[Robert Prey]

Oh, this has got to be good. What's your source? WND? Jenny McCarthy? Some dude with a blog?

These stories are legion. This is just one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100501193.html

LONDON -- A polio outbreak in Nigeria was caused by the vaccine designed to stop it, international health officials say, leaving at least 69 children paralyzed.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Do we kick old people to the curb, or do we remain a civilized nation?

False dichotomy.

Kinda like...

...do we make adjustments to entitlements (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), or do we become like Greece?

 

[Upchurch]

These stories are legion. This is just one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100501193.html

from the article:

Experts say such outbreaks only happen when too few children are vaccinated. In northern Nigeria, only about 39 percent of children are fully protected against polio.

and this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dm52sa.html

is about events over 60 years ago.

 

[Walter Ego]

from the article:

Experts say such outbreaks only happen when too few children are vaccinated. In northern Nigeria, only about 39 percent of children are fully protected against polio.

and this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dm52sa.html

is about events over 60 years ago.

So Robert didn't actually read the links he posted to see if they supported the position he's taken? Why am I not in the least bit surprised? Maybe he should have relied on his usual source for accurate information.

Yeah, well Facebook is probably a little more reliable that the mainstream news media.

 

[Bri]

Apparently, the only germ of meaning is that people correctly complain that under the status quo the Social Security system is not indefinitely sustainable.

Actually, even that's not true. Social Security is sustainable even under the status quo. Social Security does not run out of money or go “broke” even when its trust funds are exhausted in 2036, as projected in the most recent Social Security trustees report. SS will continue to pay as long as payroll taxes are collected. At current levels, tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75% of scheduled benefits through at least 2085.

-Bri

 

[Fast Eddie B]

As long as payroll taxes continue to be collected, tax income would be sufficient to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through at least 2085.

Not sure, but are you saying that some time between now and 2085 we'll need to cut benefits by 25%? Or simply that that deficit will have to be paid for with other funds?

 

[Bri]

Not sure, but are you saying that some time between now and 2085 we'll need to cut benefits by 25%? Or simply that that deficit will have to be paid for with other funds?

Well, either more funds would have to be collected (by raising payroll taxes, removing the limit on taxable income, etc.) or we could use some form of means testing that provides more money to those who need it most. Or some combination.

If Congress does nothing at all, benefits would be cut by 25% or so from current levels starting in 2036.

-Bri

 

[elbe]

Death Panels*

*specifically for those who've railed against the program prior to receiving benefits.

 

[Robert Prey]

from the article:


and this:

is about events over 60 years ago.

Oh, so 60 years ago doesn't count, eh? What does count? Give me a time frame and I'll show you people who have been victimized by mandated vaccinations. The ball is in your court, Upchurch.

 

[Robert Prey]

from the article:


and this:

is about events over 60 years ago.

Read it again:

The outbreak was caused by the live polio virus that is used in vaccines given orally _

 

[BenBurch]

Not only should vaccinations be mandatory, but not giving your child each and every vaccine on the schedule on time should be cause for immediate termination of parental rights.

 

[elbe]

Also of importance in that article:

The oral polio vaccine contains a weakened version of polio virus. Children who have been vaccinated excrete the virus, and in unsanitary conditions it can end up in the water supply, spreading to unvaccinated children.

 

[Walter Ego]

Oh, so 60 years ago doesn't count, eh? What does count? Give me a time frame and I'll show you people who have been victimized by mandated vaccinations. The ball is in your court, Upchurch.

Actually, the ball is in your court, Robert. You haven't show us yet how people have been victimized by required vaccinations.

Here's a time frame for you: I was born 60 years ago and had to get vaccinated to attend elementary school. How was I victimized by mandated vaccinations?

 

[Robert Prey]

First of all, this isn't a red herring. Remember that the basic assertion of this thread is that most of the Republican candidates for the presidential nomination are antagonistic to science. Since we've pretty much beaten the discussion of global climate change to death, pointing out to you that anthropogenic global climate change is scientifically valid - which you still continue to deny; and, since you also seem to deny the reality of evolution, I thought I'd look at another example of Republican antagonism toward science. Hence, I brought up Michele Bachmann's weird stance on HPV vaccination.

YOu are now asserting that people have been victimized by mandatory vaccinations. S far, this is nothing more than an assertion on your part. Do you have any evidence to back your assertion?

ETA: Here are quotes from the Wikipedia article on the HPV vaccine. First, let's consider its effectiveness:

HPV vaccination has also been found to prevent nearly 100 percent of the precancerous cervical cell changes that would have been caused by HPV 16/18.[2] The data so far show duration of production for up to 6.4 years with Cervarix and for up to 5 years for Gardasil—in women who were not infected with HPV at the time of vaccination.

As to harming people, here's what the article says. See if you can find anything here about the vaccine causing mental retardation:

Both Gardasil and Cervarix have been tested in tens of thousands of people in the United States and many other countries. Thus far, no serious side effects have been shown to be caused by the vaccines. The most common problems have been brief soreness and other local symptoms at the injection site. These problems are similar to ones commonly experienced with other vaccines. The vaccines have not been sufficiently tested during pregnancy and, therefore, should not be used by pregnant women.[2]
[edit]Safety

Gardasil is a 3-dose (injection) vaccine. As of 1 September 2009 there have been more than 26 million doses distributed in the United States, and there have been 15,037 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports following the vaccination.[34] Ninety-two percent were reports of events considered to be non-serious (e.g., fainting, pain and swelling at the injection site (arm), headache, nausea and fever), and 8 percent were considered to be serious (death, permanent disability, life-threatening illness and hospitalization). There is no proven causal link between the vaccine and serious adverse effects; all reports are related by time only. That is, they are only related because the effect happened some time after the vaccination.[34]
As of 1 September 2009, there have been 44 U.S. reports of death among females who have received the vaccine.[34] None of the 27 confirmed deaths of women and girls who had taken the vaccine were linked to the vaccine.[34] Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), a rare disorder that causes muscle weakness, has been reported after vaccination with Gardasil. There is no evidence suggesting that Gardasil causes or raises the risk of GBS. Additionally, there have been rare reports of blood clots forming in the heart, lungs and legs

If you or your child happens to be one of the victims of an "adverse event," does the small percentage of such an event occuring give you or your child any comfort?
Your post confirms that a whole lot of people do indeed have "adverse events" following vaccinations including death.

 

[Robert Prey]

Except that is not what happened now is it?

Of course if you ignore the fact that at the same time as the cuts the Bush admin borrowed heavily and pumped deficit spending money into the economy in the way of war spending, you could be fooled that the modest increase was related to the tax cuts. If it were, then one needs to explain how the economy stuttered and the government ended up with lower revenues not greater revenues at the end of Bush's term.

Rebuttal:

The Truth About Tax Cuts
From: The Foundry
Heritage Network

President Bush signed the first wave of tax cuts in 2001, cutting rates and providing tax relief for families by, for example, doubling of the child tax credit to $1,000.

At Congress’ insistence, the tax relief was initially phased in over many years, so the economy continued to lose jobs. In 2003, realizing its error, Congress made the earlier tax relief effective immediately. Congress also lowered tax rates on capital gains and dividends to encourage business investment, which had been lagging.

It was the then that the economy turned around. Within months of enactment, job growth shot up, eventually creating 8.1 million jobs through 2007. Tax revenues also increased after the Bush tax cuts, due to economic growth.

In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced. Rather than expand by 36% as the Congressional Budget Office projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/22/morning-bell-the-truth-about-tax-cuts/