Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it.
Right-wing authoritarians want society and social interactions structured in ways that increase uniformity and minimize diversity. In order to achieve that, they tend to be in favour of social control, coercion, and the use of group authority to place constraints on the behaviours of people such as political dissidents and ethnic minorities. These constraints might include restrictions on immigration, limits on free speech and association and laws regulating moral behaviour. It is the willingness to support or take action that leads to increased social uniformity that makes right-wing authoritarianism more than just a personal distaste for difference. Right-wing authoritarianism is characterized by obedience to authority, moral absolutism, racial and ethnic prejudice, and intolerance and punitiveness towards dissidents and deviants.
The Right-wingers are also not happy about having their wealth, unless they can look out and see many more who are living in poverty.
Mindsets of a feather flock together.
Your immediate invocation of the term "right-winger' shows us all that you don't even know what you're ranting abut: only that you perceive the common sense of those of us who don't subscribe to your Master Plan as a threat.
The real evolution of American progress since the Great Depression is far more complicated; the swing voters who gave rise to Franklin Roosevelt and the New deal were fairly recent (post-1900) immigrant families, mostly non-WASP, and poor Southerners, black and white alike, who migrated northward.
The older Protestant mainstream had no idea what to do, so simply kept quiet, or pointed out the flaws which would take a generation or more (interrupted by war and Cold War) to rise to the surface. The more-hostile approach of ideologues like Huey Long and Father Charles Coughlin fell flat, but it was the recently-converted New Deal Democrats, with too much faith in authority, whose lack of a view of the larger picture and longer horizons eventually gave rise to the tragedy of Vietnam and the stagflation of the 1970's.
And it was a new, mostly-moderate center-right coalition who elected Ronald Regan and cleaned up the worst of the mess. The rise of alternative-conservation media (the too-cerebral William Buckley first, then the down-to-earth, but outspoken Rush Limbaugh and the more-upbeat Sean Hannity) presents a pragmatic manifestation of this trend -- the new Red Wave.
Donald Trump is no Reagan, but he falls "below" the "standards" of the spoiled-children-grown-old who seek to dominate the Democrats' Coalition of Losers.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 09-21-2018 at 09:46 AM..
Medicare and Social Security should be means tested. There is no reason a millionaire needs an extra $2K per month when he has so many other sources of income. Many old people only have SS income.
Absolutely not..they paid into it so they should receive it.
Under your logic, all payments made on claims presented to insurers should be means-tested as well. All those wealthy people have so many other sources of income.
And how do you know what sources of income people have, anyway? You must have a lot of information about all the "millionaires" in the country to know these things. And what is a millionaire anyway? Someone that owns a house that they could sell for a million dollars?
Someone with a million dollar bank account balance but a 1.2M mortgage?
How exactly, did you define this millionaire you want to steal from?
You frightened lefties sit back, relax and enjoy the ride. It's a sure fire cure for the TDS that drives you to wring your hands and fret over imaginary gloom and doom scenarios.
Medicare and Social Security should be means tested.
Social Security is means-tested.
You pay a tax on your Social Security benefits directly to Social Security based on your income.
The threshold to be means-tested and pay the tax is rather low at $25,000 for a single person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp
All they have to do to make SS solvent is to raise the wage cap to above $150,000.00. They won't do that.
That will not make Social Security solvent.
That nonsense has been repeatedly debunked.
It will only generate $64 Billion from tax-payers plus the employer's share which is $64 Billion which comes to $128 Billion annually, and in a few years, you'll be paying out $130 Billion each month.
Eliminating the cap won't even cover a single month of benefits.
You pay a tax on your Social Security benefits directly to Social Security based on your income.
The threshold to be means-tested and pay the tax is rather low at $25,000 for a single person.
That will not make Social Security solvent.
That nonsense has been repeatedly debunked.
It will only generate $64 Billion from tax-payers plus the employer's share which is $64 Billion which comes to $128 Billion annually, and in a few years, you'll be paying out $130 Billion each month.
Eliminating the cap won't even cover a single month of benefits.
Raising (or eliminating) wage cap on SS would help, but won't solve all of that programs fiscal woes on its own.
Part of the problem is that SS taxes only apply to *earned* income; wages and so forth. Large amounts of high earning, wealthy or whatever persons in USA do *NOT* get their money from wages, but investments and assets. Jeff Bezos does not have more money than God because he's given huge paychecks every two weeks; but rather from compensation derived from Amazon.com stocks. Ditto for Mark Zuckerberg and nearly everyone else on Fortune 500 list.
Yes, these people often are employed per se and as such do get checks, but again a bulk of their money can't be touched by SS.
Other nations such as France have "social insurance" taxes that apply to things like capital gains, sale of certain assets and so forth. That is where the big money is, but you'll never get such a thing into US tax laws.
For one thing many Europeans have a strong notion that those who have more should give to provide for those that don't. The former may not like it, and yes many do take steps to hide income/evade taxation but often pay a high price socially and legally if found out.
The United States however largely still operates under Protestant Work Ethic; which loosely translates into "I got mine, now you go and get yours". Under that way of thinking the poor are such because they are lazy, failed to plan accordingly and work hard. Wealth is a blessing from God on their hard labor and industry which in no way should be taken away and given to the "underserving".
Have said this often and am repeating; once you understand PWE all sorts of polices from taxation to welfare to healthcare in this country become quite clear. White Anglo-Saxon Protestants may no longer run this country, but their legacy of PWE still largely influences how things go.
FDR was viewed as a traitor to his class for the various New Deal reforms and schemes he proposed and put into force
Raising (or eliminating) wage cap on SS would help, but won't solve all of that programs fiscal woes on its own.
<But it will be an important first step in tossing Republican looting on the scrap heap.>
Other nations such as France have "social insurance" taxes that apply to things like capital gains, sale of certain assets and so forth. That is where the big money is, but you'll never get such a thing into US tax laws.
<Too bad for us.>
FDR was viewed as a traitor to his class for the various New Deal reforms and schemes he proposed and put into force
<The Kennedys were also regarded in that way by some. But if they and FDR had not come along and put their power to work, our country would have collapsed into 3rd-world status.>
Kudlow answered a question from Becky Quick on CNBC on entitlements. He said the GOP will fix them. Just like Rubio did when the GOP controlled all 3 parts of the Government.
So the GOP playbook, cut taxes for the top 1% and then do not pay for anything. Increase spending to force even greater deficits. Create HUGE deficits and start telling all the followers oh do not worry we are fixing it all.
We have already seen them fix the ACA by trying to kill it.
No matter what the GOP needs to lose control of the House and Senate.
I find this highly unlikely. It's very hard to get rid of a benefit once it's become entrenched. They may start to try to undermine it, but they won't be able to abruptly kill them off.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
of the spoiled-children-grown-old who seek to dominate the Democrats' Coalition of Losers.
