For decades now democrats have been painting any proposed republicans proposal
that includes fiscal responsibility as mean spirited, cold and heartless.
Standard practice for democrats, blatant hypocrisy is a common occurrence.
Conservatives have always been compassionate towards seniors. Obama desperately
wants more money for the extravagant costs of Obama care. This is just another
liberal lie about conservatives.
Want to eliminate the debt? And entitlements? Make congress take a fifty percent
pay cut, and no "retirement". The problem is getting them to do that.
How do you make a change like that happen? Vote them out and get someone in new
willing to fight for the citizens and to accept those changes. Unfortunately it
won't happen overnight if at all.So we keep whining. Take action get
Every congressman who lives off the public (all of them) is hypocritical when
they attack retirees receiving social security. The latter live off the money
they themselves provided, while the former live off the public completely during
their entire congressional life and then when they receive their publicly
subsidized congressional retirement (that is not sufficiently funded by their
own contributions) PLUS their social security of course. Guess who lives
highest on the hog: the poor senior or the wealthy senator?
Did anyone else pick up on how ironic it is that CI would use the term
"passive/ aggressive" to describe others?
My political party is less corrupt than your political party. My party is less
hypocritical than your party. My guy said it first. That's
just the kind of childish rhetoric that we see every day. What we need is
someone on each side of the aisle to step up and be a leader instead of a
finger-pointer. Both sides of the aisle.
Re: ECR The Republicans already DID accept tax increases only a few weeks ago.
The ball is now in the Dems court.Re: Blue Could you please
explain how anyone in America today could have "Speech" without using
money? I'd really like to know.Re: Joe Blow Even though I
agree with you in principle, getting all the unions, corporate and lobbying
interests out of Washington D.C. would reduce the population of that town by
about 80%. In other words, aint going to happen. Today the richest part of the
country is in that D.C. Virginia, Maryland area. Mostly because of government
money. Try getting legislators of either party to vote against that gravy train.
Re: Kent C DeForrest To further your point, not all
"entitlements" are necessarily stuff that only old people get. Look at
welfare, food stamps, education assistance, ect. ect. ect. Things like that can
also be seen as entitlements.Re: Joe Blow again Your right, in
truth all presidents and congresses have in the last 50 years or so stolen from
the "lock box" as Al Gore called it. They all should be in jail for
that. Now we have to bail them out.
To "LDS Liberal" again, how is it hypocrisy for the GOP to oppose a tax
hike that has the carrot of spending cuts attached. Are you able to read minds
and know that the GOP opposes the proposed bill because of hypocrisy or because
they oppose tax increases?So far there is no evidence at all to
point to hypocrisy. The only way that the GOP could be hypocrites would be if
they supported the bill. They say they oppose tax increases, and are sticking
to their guns.Also, FYI, the "Bush Tax Cuts" expired over 2
years ago.Again, tell me where the hypocrisy is. The GOP has said
that they oppose tax hikes, and are fighting to stop tax hikes.The
hypocrisy here is comes from Obama. Go to the Huffington Post and look up the
article "WATCH: Obama Vowed Never To Cut Social Security Cost-Of-Living"
and you can see Obama promise to never do what he is proposing now.
LDS Liberal"There is NO way you can reduce the deficiet with spending
cuts alone."Of course there is; Just like I do when I run out of
money - I make choices about what I can afford You just do not want
to deal with reality
RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTObama wants to raise taxes in
exchange for the cuts in spending.============ As
opposed to what?There is NO way you can reduce the deficiet with spending
cuts alone.That is the key-stone of Republican Hypocrisy.We can Never do it out compromises, spending AND letting the "Bush tax
@DeForrest and @Mountanman, how is social security not an entitlement program?
One group of people receive money from another group of people based on who they
are and not what they did. Besides it sounds like you feel very entitled to
receive it.There are no guarantees my friends! Section 1104 of the
1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The
right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to
the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some
way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.
To "Roland Kayser" and the other liberals out there. The republicans do
not oppose the cuts to entitlements. They oppose the strings that Obama has
attached to those cuts. Obama wants to raise taxes in exchange for the cuts in
spending.In other words, you liberals are looking at this with your
blinders on and are intentionally ignoring the part of the deal that is truely
bad.I would love to hear how many liberals here would encourge their
congressmen to vote for a bill that increased taxes on the rich by 15% if it
also included the requirement that all entitlement programs are to be phased out
within 10 years.
Am I mistaken in suggesting that both the Republicans and the Democrats make
mistakes? You could argue over which party is worse, but to what end?Many have pointed out that our entitlement programs as they currently stand
are unsustainable. Notwithstanding, Democrat Pelosi insists that they are off
the table in budget negotiations. Personally, I think that she is wrong.Bucking the Democratic hard liners, President Obama has affirmed that
entitlement programs are part of the financial equation in lowering government
spending. So now, as the letter to the editor explains, the Republicans who
have long staunchly argued for entitlement cuts are surprisingly changing course
and opposing President Obama. Curious, no? I think that they are wrong: first
the Democrats, now the Republicans.Is that so hard?
@Mountanman"S.S in not an entitlement because if you work, the
government takes your money (FICA) and your employer matches that with the
"promise" that you will receive YOUR money when you retire. "That's actually the exact definition of an entitlement because
you're "entitled" to that money. Apparently your side of the aisle
is so busy blaming entitlements and "lazy" people for the deficit that
you feel you need to distance yourself from the terminology.
Roland. Originally the term "entitlement" in the United States was used
to identify federal programs that, like Social Security and Medicare, got that
name because workers became "entitled" to their benefits by paying into
the system, but in recent years the meaning has been distorted to refer also to
benefits, like those of the food stamps program, which people become eligible to
receive without paying into a system. Take your pick on the definition of
Everyone knows Medicare at 65 is patriotic and American64 1/2 and below is
total red communism.
Roland KayserThe Obama budget is a farce.Indeed all of Obama's
budgets have been a farce - the last one not even receiving support from
DemocratsTherefore condemning the Ryan budget, while claiming to be a
victim of those who see the farce in the Obama budget, is the epitome of
'Entitlement hypocrisy'==========Agreed -
Great Letter!You mean like -- Tea-Party Republicans
spewing hatred of Socialism 24/7/365...Until THEY turn 65 and start
collecting Social Security and Medicare, and then it's not Socialism
and not an entitlement?You mean like -- saying they want
spending cuts, and then starting unfunded wars and spending like drunken
sailors?Ya-- That's why I can't support Republicans.
Do any of those receiving social security care that money is being taken away
from younger workers to fund it?Do they care that the younger workers will
never receive anything back; because social security will be bankrupt before
they retire?Any retired senior I have talked to; either tells me:“ The emperor does too have on clothes” meaning they are in total
denial that social security will in the next 10-30 years be completely
unsustainable: too many retired; being supported by too few workers.Or: I
was taxed, and I want to get what I was promised, I know it is unfair, but I do
not care, you need to just pay the tax, and save for your own retirement.
To Mountanman: The word "entitlement" might not mean what you think it
means, but social security and medicare are most certainly entitlement
programs.To lost in D.C.: The Ryan budget is a farce. It is not even
a budget, it contains no budgets for any government departments. It actually
increases the deficit for the first decade, even if you believe its magic
asterisk assumptions, which virtually no economists do.
Ok, Roland, Where was your indignation when the dems did the same thing
with Ryan’s budget?Maverick,You obviously close your
eyes to every dem actionJoeBlow, LBJ set the precedent,
unfortunately followed by all his successors – BO being the worst
"and the government already spent it all and all is left is an IOU in the
"trust" fund! How did that happen? LBJ stole it and spent it all"Mountanman. Care to list all the president and congress that dipped
into SS trust fun.It is certainly a much longer list than just LBJ.
Yes, we have been duped by the Govt, but some of that Govt had a
big red R by their name.I think that you know that. Why not be
I Have Paid Into Social Security All My Life And Expect It To Be There When I
Retire. I don't Accept As An Excuse That We can't Afford It Because Of
The War In Iraq Or Mismanagement Of The War In Afganistan.The
Solution To Dealing With Stupid Wars Is To Deploy The Fact Checkers Before We
Deploy The Troups, And Not Enter Into War We Are Not Willing To Do What It Takes
To Win And Then Get Out. If This Means I Have An Entitlemen
Mentality, Please Forgive Me.
S.S in not an entitlement because if you work, the government takes your money
(FICA) and your employer matches that with the "promise" that you will
receive YOUR money when you retire. Well, now its the government's money
and the government already spent it all and all is left is an IOU in the
"trust" fund! How did that happen? LBJ stole it and spent it all on his
failed, "great society" program! It really doesn't matter that he
was a Democrat, the grand larceny still happened! Congratulations America, you
have been duped by your government, again. It was never the government's
money but that didn't matter did it?
Good letter, Roland. Yes, the hypocrisy of this particular statement could
almost be seen as a Republican attempt to outdo themselves, which is hard to
accomplish.But I would take exception to your assumption that Social
Security is an entitlement. Even the Republicans should argue that point. They
won't, but they should.
"Above all, you have to demand serious campaign finance reform. Your voice
won't matter as long as money is regarded as "speech." "BINGO BlueUntil you get all corporate and union money and
lobbying perks out of the system, nothing much else matters.Unfortunately, we are going in the wrong direction, as this last presidential
election was the most expensive in history.If the money was out,
most of our other problems would fix themselves.
So what will you do about it?Will you demand that political
candidates explain and defend their positions, and hold them accountable through
your votes and your campaign contributions, or will you just dutifully march
into the voting booth and robotically vote straight-party like you always do?We have the government we deserve, and that's nothing to be proud
of.You can grouse about it, or you can start engaging people in
serious, thoughtful conversation for the purpose of improving the quality of
political candidates.Above all, you have to demand serious campaign
finance reform. Your voice won't matter as long as money is regarded as
Silly letter that conveniently leaves out critical factsThe token
cuts in social security were only proposed in response to massive tax increases
and continued irresponsible spending They are not a serious attempt
at reform, but merely a manipulative attempt to divert attention to the general
failure of the larger Obama budgetThe cost is not remotely worth the
benefitThe major hypocrisy here, is the left crying foul over
Republican refusal to take the bait of token changes to entitlement, in a budget
proposal that accelerates economic suicide, in a blatantly manipulative
passive/aggressive attempt to divert attention from their continued economic
Oh my goodness people.Are you trying to play one-upmanship?Which side is worse? Does it really matter?It is clear by these posts
that both sides are hypocrites. Both sides will use virtually
ANYTHING and EVERYTHING done or proposed by the other side as a club.And we fall for it hook, line and sinker.Unfortunately, we
don't want any and all good ideas or good solutions. We only want solution
proposed by OUR party, and will staunchly REJECT all ideas by the other one.
How can we possibly improve things that way?We better
wake up and put America over party. And we better do it soon.
"Who are the REAL hypocrites?"The people who have been
crying for cuts in entitlements but are now crying foul when those cuts are
proposed by the president they have vilified for four years. Those are the real
hypocrits.The other side (the Democrats) has resisted cuts but are
now trying to come to a reasonable middle ground and accepting that some cuts
will be required in order to balance the budget. The unhypocritical thing for
the Republicans to do now would be to accept some tax increases that they have
resisted for so long. (And I'm not talking about just letting Bush tax cuts
expire) That would show that the Republicans are trying to come to some middle
ground, now that they are getting what they want, or at least what they said
What did the Democrats say about the Ryan plan that cut some of the GROWTH in
some entitlement spending? We saw adds on TV of Republicans supposedly pushing
old grandma off a cliff and accused Republicans of staving women and children.
And now Obama says he wants to cut S.S and now we see "acceptance" from
the left but no cries about pushing old people of cliffs or staving women and
children! Who are the REAL hypocrites?
You expect repubs not to be hypocrites? That just isn't going to happen.
Remember when they cheered Bush for setting a date to withdraw from Iraq but
when Obama went ahead and withdrew from Iraq, they all bashed him for it?
It's like that with repubs, they will never accept anything Obama does as a
positive. Obama could give them all a million dollars tax free and they
would criticize him for it.
I have to agree with most posters above. Hypocrisy? Yes. Surprisingly so?
Not at all.It is my belief that if you were to offer the most hard
line conservatives and strident liberals in Congress the following deal, about
half would take it. "You can keep your seat and remain in power for the
rest of your life if you will flip your political views to the opposite
side."On both sides, there are folks who truly believe what they
say. But on both sides there are folks who would say anything if it kept
getting them elected.
Great letter Roland and to answer your question, NO we haven't seen this
kind of hypocrisy ever. It's further proof that the GOP. Is completely out
of touch and not capable of leading as presently constructed. They don't
care about the debt. They don't care about the economy. They don't
care about America. They care about one thing, power. They covet the
power and position which president Obama currently holds.Even if it
means attacking their own positions! This is further proof that
Obama could cure cancer and repubs would attack him for it.My oh my
how desiring power can go to the head. It reminds me of amalickiah from the
scriptures. He could care less what happened to his nation and people, as long
as he had power. We all know what happened to him. If the GOP doesn't
change they too shall face a similar fate. They already are. They haven't
won the popular vote in a presidential election in quite some time!
"I know that all politicians are occasionally guilty of hypocrisy, but have
we ever seen anything this blatant?"Not since 2008 when Obama
called Bush "unpatriotic" for running up the national debt, and after
being elected, outdoing Bush's debt spending by a long shot.
These guys have an automatic pay increase every year. I'm sure they feel
entitled to it. They feel entitled to take every ones ssi if they want. They
have a way to take any ones 401 if they want. Who is the entitled.
Great letter Roland, but when you ask the question, "... but have we ever
seen anything this blatant?" my answer is, well, yeh...almost everyday.Just a couple of examples from close to (your) home:Mitt
Romney's campiagn to end "Obamacare" when the basis of that
healthcare bill came from the program promoted by Governor Romney and passed by
the Massachesets Legilature.Larry Craig's hardline stance
against gay and lesbian rights even though he was caught soliciting from an
undercover officer in the Minneapolis Airport.Yes, there is
hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle but is this the most blatant examople of
Republican hypocrisy? You might gat an argument on that one.
It's not surprising at all. As soon as Obama cut some waste from medicare
they ALL said it was an attack on Medicare and seniors. It's nothing less
Re: ". . . all politicians are occasionally guilty of hypocrisy, but have we
ever seen anything this blatant?"Yes, we have.When
Obama raided the Social Security programs -- welfare programs that sorta work
and are, at least partially, self-funded -- in order to promote and force the
move to his legacy program, Obamacare.Which is not self-funded, and
is widely known to be completely unworkable.Even more hypocritical
than that, however, is how Obama and Democrats, aided by their captive media
sycophants, attempt to sell themselves as champion of the "little guy,"
when they've done more to hurt real people than any administration in US