"Biden's jab" was "instead of making the wealthy pay their fair share, some Republicans, some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset."
I'd avoid the metaphor "jab." Clearly, the reference is to boxing. A quick, sharp blow. But "jab" has been such an important word in the delivery of the vaccine, and there, somehow, it's supposed to signify that it won't hurt at all.
BUT: Yahoo News says: "President Biden, while still a senator for Delaware, introduced legislation to sunset all federal programs, including Social Security and Medicare.... Biden doubled down on his legislation in the '90s, saying on the Senate floor that his bill would affect Social Security.... 'When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security, as well,' Biden said. 'I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the federal government.... And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time."
BUT: Yahoo News says: "President Biden, while still a senator for Delaware, introduced legislation to sunset all federal programs, including Social Security and Medicare.... Biden doubled down on his legislation in the '90s, saying on the Senate floor that his bill would affect Social Security.... 'When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security, as well,' Biden said. 'I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the federal government.... And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time."
To be fair to Biden, we should note that he must know the meaning of Scott's proposal, since he himself embraced it and, presumably, understood what it meant.
Posts
58 comments:
I first read "jab" at UK sites because they started vaccinating before we did. But it was more of a stoical than negative connotation.
Meanwhile, the spouse and I are infectious asf. We'll see if our five "jabs" help pull us through.
I don't think some changes to Medicare and Social Security should be out of bounds. I'm a Paul Ryan Republican.
I do think that for a vast array of reasons, today's Republicans -- especially in the House -- have forfeited their position to make such arguments.
I have priorities - a man should - and being fair to Joe Biden isn’t one of them.
Biden understood what his proposal meant? Objection Your Professorship, assumes facts not in evidence.
I first read "jab" at UK sites... But it was more of a stoical than negative connotation.
It's a technical and efficacy distinction. A vaccine is defined as a sterilizing treatment that prevents infection, progression, and transmission. The Covid-19/20/21/22 "vaccines" are comparable to flu shots or "jabs" that do not meet the criteria of a vaccine, but may offer therapeutic benefits.
I would offer a plan to pay legislators one million dollars for every bill they sponsored which passed to rescind a federal law. Any law of their choosing. Cheap at twice the price.
Biden gets no benefit of the doubt, both because he is senile and because he has no principles. Biden's entire political career has been about Biden: Biden getting rich, Biden "earning" prestige, Biden indulging his sexual urges, Biden spewing his typical BS to make himself seem more important or smarter than he is or to gain sympathy, and Biden doing stupid and terrible things and getting away with it because he can. His positions are completely malleable, and he will switch from one position to the exact opposite position not because of any introspection because that will be more politically beneficial to him. He is a devout Catholic who rejects everything the church stands for such that he denounces his own pope, though probably not realizing it. I doubt he even notices when he contradicts himself; I suspect he could do it mid-sentence and not be troubled at all. He takes all the credit when things go well even if he did nothing, and he blames everyone else for his failures. He is the worst America has to offer.
'"Biden's jab" was "instead of making the wealthy pay their fair share..."'
Will someone, for the love of God, please define specifically just what is the amount of the motherfucking fair share?
An opt in like this is a great idea that these yahoos would eff up without fail...
...and I'll take the opportunity to agree with Chuck that these programs could be changed. Despite everyone's dependence they are really really bad, unsustainable versions of what we need them for. They could be improved tremendously...but see the first sentence above...
I paid into Social Security and Medicare ALL MY WORKING LIFE... break the deal, face the wheel.... if you know what I mean.
As for Biden... 'Big Daddy' was corrupted 30 years ago... no surprise there. Still people hated Trump so much they still voted for him. Reap what you sow.
The SOTU accusation was a cheap shot aimed at deceiving low information voters, and thus well within the bounds of contemporary political discourse. No wonder the speech earned such high marks from MSNBC and CNN commentators.
it's obvious that Biden's speech writer was not aware of Biden's history with the spending freeze idea.
Chuck showing his colors;
I do think that for a vast array of reasons, today's Republicans -- especially in the House -- have forfeited their position to make such arguments.
Chuck forgets the Democrats showing Ryan pushing grandma off the cliff.
No better current example of D privilege than the way this episode and the SOTU is being reported now. Quite stark. Exactly what the Chucks and Ingas require of the media they consume. The rest of us could just puke seeing this spin in the media.
Nice try, Rick. But SS was designed to be locked in place.
"Will someone, for the love of God, please define specifically just what is the amount of the motherfucking fair share?"
More than one is currently paying. Always more.
This is pretty good proof that politicians do not do things based on what is beneficial for the country but rather what benefits them and benefits the people they are beholden to (their donors). Sometimes they propose legislation just to get the other side to oppose it so that they can vilify them with the base. It's all theater.
This is why some people on this site are not enamored of DeSantis. He may not really be "for" us once he is in the White house. It is also why Some people are very pro Trump. He appeared to be more about helping the base than the donor class. He has a lot of warts, but the fact that both sides of the aisle opposed him is the main reason the voters should support him. He is more on our side than theirs.
Time for some serous revival of the "subvert the dominant paradigm" paradigm. IF you are not against the establishment, you are supporting the establishment. Reality will mug you in the future.
The interesting thing about this whole kerfuffle is that SS and Medicare are two enormous, potentially life-altering issues that affect nearly everyone in America.......but somehow we never have any real conversations about them.
LLR Chuck: "I'm a Paul Ryan Republican."
Paul Ryan is not a "republican". He is an open borders, off shoring american jobs globalist that labels himself a "republican" in order to act as controlled opposition for his democratical allies.
The quintessential Paul Ryan public comment moment, aside from spending 8 years lying about what he supposedly supported and opposed during the obama admin which was completely exposed post-2016 election, came during the "debate" between Joe Biden and his policy ally Paul Ryan when Joe "cornpop"/"top of his class" Biden told Ryan to his face that the "republicans were always betting against America". Paul Ryan simply smiled and let the comment go...because that was his job. Sandbag any opposition to obama.
LLR Chuck: "I do think that for a vast array of reasons, today's Republicans -- especially in the House -- have forfeited their position to make such arguments."
Interesting to note that LLR Chuck has never indicated that any democratical, for any reason, has "forfeited their position to make such arguments" on any topic.
And why would he? It would be unrealistic to expect a democratical to hold democraticals to any arbitrary standard.
Nielsen is out with the ratings.
President 81MillionVotesLOL lost 30% of his audience, and had the lowest viewership of a State of the Union address in 30 years. If you're popular, and you're doing what people want, they tune in to hear the good news.
So, that about sums up this Presidency. It's over.
Static Ping at 12:49: Well Said!
Michael K said...
Chuck showing his colors;
I do think that for a vast array of reasons, today's Republicans -- especially in the House -- have forfeited their position to make such arguments.
Chuck forgets the Democrats showing Ryan pushing grandma off the cliff.
He didn't forget anything.
Just like Paul Ryan, Chuck is dishonest about everything. He doesn't believe a single word he says.
He is the definition of bad faith.
Rick Scott is inscrutable to me. Still, when I moved back to Florida for a few years, he did fix the DMV.
He's probably a benign space alien. That's all I've got.
He also may have sucked out Charlie Christ's brain. But somebody had to do it.
Biden's in Tampa today repeating the claims. He even has a handout from Scott. I wonder if he even knows what he proposed in '75.
Also, Rick Scott should be able to see the extreme political fallout from forcing SS up for re-vote every 5 years and the weapon that proposal hands to the Democrats. Apparently he doesn't.
Joe Smith said...
['"Biden's jab" was "instead of making the wealthy pay their fair share..."']
"Will someone, for the love of God, please define specifically just what is the amount of the motherfucking fair share?"
All of it. All your wealth are belong to the State. Then, you get what you get and you don't throw a fit.
I guess it is "fair" to Biden to note that he does understand what is being said but is lying about it, but I think you were trying to give him at least a little credit!
As for the "jab" and the vaccine, the word tended to be used by the antivaxxers and even some of the merely skeptical, in order to highlight that it did hurt and to speak slightingly of it. Advocates did not tend to use that metaphor.
I like the idea of sunset/renewable laws & regulations. In some cases, the government is operating under laws written decades ago, and that as originally written are not usefully relevant to life today. That's one reason for the courts straining to interpret laws that are poorly applicable to life as presently lived.
I think 5 years is too short -- that's hardly long enough to write policy & guidelines, organize & staff up. I'd probably want it to be long enough to cover 1-3 House/1-2 Senate elections, so if the political winds switch direction, there might be some effect felt.
I'd require each such program or law to be voted on separately, no omnibus crap. I'd also allow amendments, to "tune up" any unforeseen & consequential gaps or negatives recognized during its existence and practice. The vote for renewal, as amended, would have to be no less as the initial requirement (i.e., majority, 2/3, etc.)
All that is as likely to happen as repeal of the 17th A. Too bad.
I do wonder what Biden's response would be if confronted on this issue -- not that anyone's likely to get a chance to corner him. What's changed? The times? His own mind? The fact that now he's President, rather than a junior Senator? His much-vaunted greater age and wisdom?
Because the conflict between what he said then and what he says now is obvious and unavoidable. I really do not know what he'd do with such a question. If he says, "well, that was fifty years ago; how can you expect me to remember what I said back then?," I can see, shall we say, several responses to that.
Personally, I think Early Biden and Rick Scott were/are right. There ought to be sunsets on all laws. SS and Medicare are obviously to be reauthorized pro forma, whatever shenanigans are involved with the budget. But Biden now can't say that.
What would happen is that you'd have a must pass omnibus bill with all the previous bills stuffed into it, and they'd then stuff even more garbage into it, because if you don't pass it all federal laws will disappear and it'll be disaster. Disaster!
I mean I like the idea in principle, but the problem is Congress and the people who vote for Congress not the way passing laws is set up.
A "Paul Ryan Republican". I'd never heard that but it's very descriptive. Fair enough.
When I was 40 you could convince me that SS and Medicare needed restructuring. Now at 60, you can fuck right off. If Scott is trying to play chicken with this he's a fool.
Unless the laws are changed social security benefits will be cut by approximately 25% in around 10 years (when the fantasy trust fund is depleted). This is well known and the exact timeframe is updated every year by the social security trustees. The fact that none of our so-called leaders are willing to address this is pure cowardice. So, it's to be expected. But knowing ahead of time just how cowardly our leadership is will be cold comfort when the cuts come. But hey, slow Joe thinks it will help him and the Democrats win reelection if they ignore the problem and demagogue any one who dares propose a solution (and all the evidence says he's right about that), so we're screwed.
I paid into Social Security and Medicare ALL MY WORKING LIFE...
You've spent all that money, and a trillion dollars more. Now you expect the next generations to give you money?
could you imagine Congress reauthorizing anything? They can't even agree what day it is. C'mon man. Use your head, these folks never do any peoples work. sunset my A%#.
Yes- every single Congressional bill should come with a sunset provision, but it will never happen.
To be fair to Biden, we should note that he must know the meaning of Scott's proposal, since he himself embraced it and, presumably, understood what it meant.
The Senator Biden of 2008, maybe, presumably. President Biden? An unwarranted assumption.
"The SOTU accusation was a cheap shot aimed at deceiving low information voters...."
Republicans--if not all of them--have said they want to get rid of Medicare and Social Security.
Yes, Biden made the same declarations for years, so he is a hypocrite, but he opposes it now, even if only for opportunistic reasons, and that he now opposes his former stance is no reason not to take Republicans seriously when they make such statements. The only changes that should be considered are increasing payments and making Social Security income exempt from taxation, which was the case until 1984.
Sunset laws would just multiply the debt ceiling crisis for each law. In return for re-passing it, do the following for me.
Social Security is in no danger of going bankrupt. It's paid out of general revenues anyway. The government must instantly return to circulation every dollar it takes in, lest the money supply fall. So the trust fund has no money it in anyway.
Robert Cook: "Republicans--if not all of them--have said they want to get rid of Medicare and Social Security."
LOL
Cite. Links. You know, all the stuff you demand others provide.
BTW, its never a good idea to go Full LLR Chuck.
Ever.
Republicans--if not all of them--have said they want to get rid of Medicare and Social Security.
And Democrats like Ezekiel Emanual, brother of Barack Obama's original Chief of Staff, have suggested that people should be involuntarily euthanized when they reach age 75.
I'd avoid the metaphor "jab." Clearly, the reference is to boxing.
Well it's a reference to Biden, so I think jibber jabber is the more likely reference.
is no reason not to take Republicans seriously when they make such statements.
They? It's one person. Who wrote one piece of legislation. Which has precisely ZERO co-sponsors.
Althouse said...
To be fair to Biden, we should note that he must know the meaning of Scott's proposal, since he himself embraced it and, presumably, understood what it meant.
Fair to Biden? It's Biden who's mischaracterizing Scott, knowing full well how disingenuous it is to do so!
Reminds me of the scene in Rosemary's Baby when, for ulterior motives, the husband Guy said to his wife Rosemary that obtaining a second medical opinion wouldn't be fair to the satanic Dr. Sapperstein.
Guy: It's not fair to Dr. Sapperstein.
Rosemary: Not fair to... What are you talking about? What about what's fair to me?.
Paul said “I paid into Social Security and Medicare ALL MY WORKING LIFE... break the deal, face the wheel.... if you know what I mean.”
Too fucking bad. By the way, payroll taxes only cover 38% of Medicare spending. Nearly 75% of Part B (physician services) and Part D (drugs) comes from general tax revenue. A lot of people are going to get fucked over by Medicare and SS. I’m sure Boomers will make sure it ain’t them. It’ll be us in Gen X and younger, unless Millenials figure out what a screw job they’re in for before it’s too late.
Paul: I paid into Social Security and Medicare ALL MY WORKING LIFE...
Hate to break this to you, but they may have said you were paying into these systems but it was just another general tax that they spent on whatever. Technically, they owe you nothing. Eventually, we are going to run out of money and something is going to have to give. The Democratic Party's position is to pretend nothing is wrong until they have no choice, at which point they will blame the Republicans for not doing something sooner.
I have a modest proposal. The problem with Medicare and social security is that they were designed as Ponzi schemes. They work great as long as you have more new people paying in the new people demanding payment. Unfortunately, educated women prefer not to have children, so we are now in the early stages of the collapse of the scheme. Let’s solve the problem by tying your SS income and Medicare coverage to how many people you brought into the system, i.e, how many children did you have. Fewer than 2.1 and your benefits are cut.
"To be fair to Biden, we should note that he must know the meaning of Scott's proposal, since he himself embraced it and, presumably, understood what it meant."
Let's not get carried away here. Maybe he did once.
Chuck--Maybe you "Paul Ryan Republicans" could have the stones to convince your many, many Democrat friends to take the lead on the issue.
Or at least to demonstrate the tiniest bit of good faith.
This plan would not be necessary if they actually did the work and passed a budget every year.
As you may recall, Paul Ryan was invited to the Reagan Museum where Ryan gave a speech exhorting republicans and conservatives to completely surrender to the dems on all social issues. In fact, Ryan did not identify a single social issue where he thought conservatives should fight it out with the dems.
Because there are no issues where Ryan wants to fight the dems...because he supports them across the board.
Which explains Romney marching with BLM. They are all democrats now and they actually always were.
5th columnists amongst the republicans. Quite irrefutable.
That was one fantastic outcome of Trump's election in 2016" in that ALL the masks are off now.
I suspect Pierre Delecto will choose not to run for reelection in 2024 unless there are enough McConnell-ites in Utah to throw the state into the democraticals preferred ranked choice voting.
"This plan would not be necessary if they actually did the work and passed a budget every year."
I'm not sure if that is still true, if it ever was. Big entitlement programs (like Social Sec and Medicare) are just that, which is why they created separate taxes and dedicated funds, which were originally off budget. At some point it became useful politically to roll them into the budget (when taxes were generating far more than current expenditures), to conceal general fund deficits. The 5 year sunset for all budget items is a way to force priorities among spending (like a private entity does) and identify entitlements exceeding their dedicated tax revenues.
Of course, none of this will ever happen. The younger generations who should care most about being left holding the bag after a career of paying into the funds don't seem to care, or care more about Democrat values. Republicans who try to propose any reforms to Medicare or Soc Security will lose every time. Meanwhile, the damage of Woke/DEI policies, enviro extremism and WWIII are more immediate existential threats, that can be stopped by an imaginary electable Republican government.
Drago on Paul Ryan: "Paul Ryan is not a "republican". He is an open borders, off shoring american jobs globalist that labels himself a "republican" in order to act as controlled opposition for his democratical allies."
Donald Trump on Paul Ryan: “He’s like a fine wine. Every day goes by, I get to appreciate his genius more and more.”
Bernie Sanders nails Joe Biden about freezing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and more. Bernie Sanders, no less:
https://youtu.be/9X3UiSvgle0
SS and Medicare were often referred to as the Third Rail of politics. I don't see it that way anymore. The fear was always that this large voting block of seniors would rise up and punish any politician who dared mess with their benefits.
Now that The Party has determined to how modify election outcomes to their liking and demonize anyone who questions those outcomes, the Third Rail is gone. Who cares about a large voting block when you can manufacture an even larger one of your own?
As you may recall, Paul Ryan was invited to the Reagan Museum where Ryan gave a speech exhorting republicans and conservatives to completely surrender to the dems on all social issues. In fact, Ryan did not identify a single social issue where he thought conservatives should fight it out with the dems.
Because there are no issues where Ryan wants to fight the dems...because he supports them across the board.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders answered him, and a lot of other GOP squishes, on Tuesday night
”We are under attack in a left wing culture war we didn't start, and never wanted to fight. Every day we are told we must partake in their rituals, salute their flags, and worship their false idols...That's not normal. It's crazy, and it's wrong."
One of the things that surprised me was how few Republican candidates last fall took any lessons from Glenn Youngkin’s victory in Virginia in 2021. Glenn ran against the teachers’ Union, and he ran against the crazy people who think teenaged boys with raging hormones belong in the girls’ rest rooms and locker rooms. And he won. The RNC absolutely did not get it.
lonejustice: "Drago on Paul Ryan: "Paul Ryan is not a "republican". He is an open borders, off shoring american jobs globalist that labels himself a "republican" in order to act as controlled opposition for his democratical allies."
Donald Trump on Paul Ryan: “He’s like a fine wine. Every day goes by, I get to appreciate his genius more and more.”
Time to plug some dates on those quotes. But that would defeat your purpose, wouldn't it?
LOL
You aren't fooling anyone, and neither is Paul Ryan. And certainly not in 2023.
Try again and see if you can do a bit better. You have a shot as its quite the low bar, wouldn't you say?
Big Mike: "One of the things that surprised me was how few Republican candidates last fall took any lessons from Glenn Youngkin’s victory in Virginia in 2021. Glenn ran against the teachers’ Union, and he ran against the crazy people who think teenaged boys with raging hormones belong in the girls’ rest rooms and locker rooms. And he won. The RNC absolutely did not get it."
By and large, the RNC DOES get it, but the RNC "heavies" and their major funders actually agree with the democraticals on almost every social issue across the board.
That's why there was so little pushback from republican candidates against the Woke/Groomer campaign in 2022. It's not that they don't get it, it's that the funders won't fund that kind of pushback.
But here's where it gets interesting at the Presidential level. If you are the Koch brothers or Ken Griffin of Citadel capital and all the rest of them, and you are opposed to ALL the economic and foreign affairs policy of Donald Trump and you want to continue to the March to Full Globalization and America Last, what do you do?
Well, you sign up to support a DeSantis who always was a Paul Ryan type on all the economic/globalist issues and you simply accept that in order to get that, you have to unleash DeSantis to go FULL Eye Of The Tiger on the social issues in order to build sufficient street cred to win.
And that's where we are.
So, the RNC did learn something: if they are going to continue to despise the 80% of the republican base voters, and they do, but they need some graft opportunities while in power, they will have to sacrifice their beliefs on either the economic or social issue side.
And its not really that bad of a choice given the democratical governors and democratical state legislatures are giving the GOPe-ers all they want in terms of social issue wins anyway in the states where most of the GOPe-ers live.
Post a Comment