• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Another Trump lie that matters:

Discussion in 'General Politics' started by The Barbarian, Feb 8, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,802
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Remember when Trump promised he'd never cut Medicare or Social Security? Guess what?

    His last budget proposal called for a total of $1.9 trillion in cost savings from mandatory safety-net programs, like Medicaid and Medicare. It also called for spending $26 billion less on Social Security programs, the federal retirement program, including a $10 billion cut to the Social Security Disability Insurance program, which provides benefits to disabled workers.

    Spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is expected to cost the federal government more than $30 trillion through 2029, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

    Mr. Trump’s willingness to consider such cuts marks a shift from four years ago, when he stood out in a field of deficit-minded Republicans in the 2016 primary race with a promise to shield entitlements from cuts.
    Trump Opens Door to Cuts to Medicare and Other Entitlement Programs

    Those lavish tax cuts he got for himself and his friends, didn't "pay for themselves" as he said they would.


    So someone has to pick up the tab. He thinks that retired people should be the ones to pay for the tax cuts.

    Did anyone really believe he'd keep his word?

     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. crossnote

    crossnote Berean Supporter

    +1,206
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Funny thing, my SS went up considerably more that it did under B.O. (jes sayin)
     
  3. Robin Mauro

    Robin Mauro Well-Known Member

    633
    +331
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    He is the ultimate con man; the quintessential example of why the love of money is the root of all evil.
    And we paid into social security our entire lives, so for them to call it an entitlement is deceptive.
    Our taxes should go for the common good, not to corporate welfare, to bail out banks, to prop up the rich so they do not pay their fair share...
    Medicare and social security are the most popular programs ever, but the GOP always takes it off the bottom, not the top. They are the opposite of Robinhood. They steal from the poor to give to the rich
     
  4. Josheb

    Josheb Christian Supporter

    +393
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Do you hold yourself to the same degree of honesty to which you hold Trump?

    What Trump said was he'd not cut SS benefits. Trump has been unabashed in his efforts to cut government spending. The two, government spending and SocSec benefits, are not necessarily mutually exclusive conditions and when it is argued to omply otherwise that is a false dichotomy.

    Furthermore, I just wen to the ss.gov website and according to that source SS benefits are slated to increase this year with a COLA increase of 1.6% (one to two tenths below inflation), following a COLA increase of 2.8% last year, and a 2% increase the year before. This is comparable to the previous administration.

    Would you not say it is a good thing to make sure benefits keep up with the cost of living while making sure government costs are managed more effectively? If so then why isn't this op giving the man credit for something that should have been done every year for the last 30 or 40 years?

    Revenues under Trump have set records. Well above the current rate of inflation. This, in and of itself, isn't anything particularly novel because the US economy has been expanding similarly for decades. What is worth noting is that we were all told such growth was impossible and Trump's bragging about being able to boost the economy was impossible. We were told 1% growth would be amazing.

    Now it hasn't made much difference because the House is the part of the government that controls the purse strings, and the House has spent the money at a rate greater than that which is brought in. It's almost always been that way going beck to the early 1900 under Wilson. Once in a blue moon there will be a "balanced" budget (they don't truly reconcile to zero when all legislated expenditures are counted).

    So, again, why isn't this op giving POTUS credit where credit is due and not applying the same metric to Congress that it applies to POTUS?

    I've never traded posts with you, Barbarian, so I don't know you history. Have you ever given the current POTUS credit for anything done correctly or well?

    One last question: Is the NYTimes reliable as an objective news source?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  5. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,802
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Yeah. When I headed a sports league, whatever I promised I'd do, I did.

    I'd say that it's typical of Trump to promise one thing and then try to do another. It's his M.O.

    Since deficits have grown at a record pace, it's not surprising. You can always live high for a while by maxing out your credit cards.

    For hitting Syria with raids after they tried to resume chemical weapons.
    For signing sentencing reform.
    For backing off on spending for the wall.

    Way more than Fox and MSNBC. Less than NPR or the Washington Post.

    In general,those who get most of their information from newspapers or NPR are better informed.
     
  6. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,802
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Not if Trump has his way. He's looking to find a way to finance that lavish tax cut he gave himself. (Yes, he lied when he told you that the tax reform would hurt him personally).
     
  7. FenderTL5

    FenderTL5 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,902
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    The cost of living adjustment (COLA) has nothing to do with who is in the white house.
    COLAs are based on increases in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). CPI-Ws are calculated on a monthly basis by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    The formula for COLA is part of the social security act.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  8. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,802
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    People who watch no news at all can answer more questions about international current events than people who watch cable news, a survey by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind finds.
    ...
    NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative news outlets, while exposure to partisan sources, such as Fox News and MSNBC, has a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge.
    ...
    Interestingly, the results of the poll controlled for partisanship. MSNBC, Fox and talk radio consumers answered more questions correctly when their political views aligned with those of the outlets they preferred. Moderates and liberals who watched only Fox did worse than conservatives who watched it. This mirrored the results at MSNBC, where a conservative viewer could be expected to answer an average of .71 international questions correctly, for example, and a liberal viewer could be expected to answer 1.89 questions correctly. “None of the other news media had effects that depended on ideology,” says the report.
    Survey: NPR's listeners best-informed, Fox viewers worst-informed - Poynter

    I am somewhat skeptical; I watch Fox as often as I watch MSNBC, and I don't see that either has a negative effect. I could be kidding myself, of course.
     
  9. crossnote

    crossnote Berean Supporter

    +1,206
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    And many companies went belly up under B.O. so there were less funds to pay into SS.
     
  10. crossnote

    crossnote Berean Supporter

    +1,206
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    It had little to do with COLA as the increase was significantly higher percentage wise in relation to COLA compared to other admins as of late. In any case I find this thread as a hysterical-hate-Trump thread with little factual basis.
     
  11. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,802
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    There were a few rough years following the Great Recession, but that was what G.W. Bush left him. Still, if Trump hadn't treated himself and his friends to lavish tax cuts, the deficits would not be in the dire place they are. He promised, as conservatives always have, that tax cuts "pay for themselves." But of course, that never happens.
     
  12. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,802
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Cutting the budget for Social Security at a time when more people are entering retirement would require a cut in benefits. How do you think it wouldn't? Likewise, with Medicare. You can't have more people needing services, and lower funding, without cutting benefits.

    Trump is doing precisely what he said he wouldn't do. Now, it probably won't work, since there's no way the democrats in the House will abandon those people who paid into the system all those years. But Trump will try.

    It's true that the republicans held both houses of Congress, and could have restrained Trump from those lavish tax giveaways. But they didn't.

    He promised never to cut those programs, and now he's proposing to do just that. Not that it's any surprise; the huge tax cuts have the deficit going out of sight, and someone has to pay for that huge windfall he gave himself. He thinks perhaps the money we paid into Social Security would do it.

    I notice that newspapers and NPR tend to be more reliable than cable news services like Fox and MSNBC.

    Would you like to see the data on that?
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2020
  13. Josheb

    Josheb Christian Supporter

    +393
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    What does that tell you about the NYTimes?
    You do understand comparisons are by nature skewed data. Why do you suppose those who watch/listen to both are not represented?
    Then why trust the pols? And why trust the news sources about which the polls are asking?
    With good reason.
    I would prefer you watch none of them. They are all biased.

    Here's what I suggest you do for the first step: look up the the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics and read it. I think you'll be appalled at how unprofessional the professionals truly are and how much they hide behind their "professionalism" as a defensive asserting objectivity that nowhere exists even in the slightest.

    Then consider the premise "conservative news" sources probably would not exist, or would exist on the margin had news journalists acted ethically is their Code dictates.

    Third, do a little look at history and check out the "muck raking" and "yellow journalism" of the early 1900s Pulitzer and Hearst newspapers to better understand the roots of what we observe in modern times as a matter of uniformed routine.

    Fourth, do a little research on the staffing of news media and academia to see how skewed is the pool of service providers. The WashPost once polled its editors (editors, not editorialists) asking about their political affiliations and all but two of the 128 editors were registered Dems and the two that registered as Republicans were in fact Democrat voters who had their wives register as Dems so as to get Dem political literature while they registered alternatively to receive the other sides literature. In other words, 100% of of the administrative positions that filter what is received to decide what is printed were all from one specific political party. This is the antithesis of democracy! Things have changed in recent years but they are still woefully skewed in representation. It is decidedly unprofessional and unethical but no one holds anyone accountable and no one does anything about it. You'll find similar conditions at NPR, NYTimes, CNN, MSN, Breitbart, Fox, and OneAmerica (the last of which I throw in just to balance the bias because there are a plethora of liberal outlets for every conservative one).

    Look it up.

    See if I'm not right.

    We in the US live in a very pluralistic society that is extraordinarily diverse (politically speaking, not ethnically, socio-economically, etc.) and that diversity is not accurately represented nor portrayed. This means none of us can rely on an objective Fourth Estate to provide the check and balance the Constitution hoped for.

    Fourth, I recommend you get subscriptions to the think tanks. Brookings, Cato, Heritage, Hoover, American Enterprise, etc. These sources are openly biased but paradoxically better sources of news. They are also much more influential than news media sources. I live in the DC area and have known many pols and leaders on both sides of the political divide and none of them use the news (Tim Kaine, Mark Warner, Mike Pence, Clarence Carter, and many others). I have heard them ALL say the last place they would ever go to get news is the news media. No politician I have ever met is much like their public persona. What we see on television and in print is a caricature. The opposite is true of news and news commentary personalities I've known (Kojo Nnamdi, Janet Parshel, Gordon Peterson, etc.).

    Lastly, if you've a greater interest in news bias, pick up a copy of sociologist Gaye Tuchman's "Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality," and give it a read. It's a little old but still very, very relevant. She hung out in print and broadcast newsrooms in the Seattle, Washington area and observed how the news product is assembled and disseminated.

    It is not objective.






    None of that is why I responded to the op, though. Most important to my op-reply, this op is problematic because it is not true. It is biased propaganda. That is due either to the biased intent of the NYTimes, or the biased intent of you, or both. If the op was posted with conscious intent to provoke then you're a troll and I'll be moving on. If the op is an unwitting product of the NYTimes' biased intent then you're a victim and perhaps we can discuss that. There is no discussion of the NYTimes article, though, because it is factually untrue and anyone and everyone no matter their personal political orientation should be able to objectively 1) verify that and then 2) agree. The degree to which ALL repudiate the NYTimes will then likely be commensurate with the degree of political affiliation of the critic, but all will be critical of factual falsehood.

    Including you and me.


    (my apologies for the length)
     
  14. Josheb

    Josheb Christian Supporter

    +393
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    1) That is not a fact in evidence, and 2) You have not proven that. That claim is pure unadulterated speculation.
     
  15. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,802
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    It's indeed a fact...

    Social Security Costs Keep Increasing Over the Long Term
    Social Security and Medicare together accounted for 45 percent of Federal program expenditures (excluding net interest on the debt) in fiscal year 2018. The unified budget reflects current trust fund operations. Consequently, even when there are positive trust fund balances, any drawdown of those balances, as well as general fund transfers into Medicare’s Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) fund and interest payments to the trust funds that are used to pay benefits, increase pressure on the unified budget. Both Social Security and Medicare will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth through the mid-2030s due to rapid population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment.

    Trustees Report Summary

     
  16. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,802
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    I like to hear from everyone,and then sort it out myself. Saves me a lot of embarrassment.
     
  17. Josheb

    Josheb Christian Supporter

    +393
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    You are again arguing a false dichotomy. Costs, benefits, and efficiency are not mutually exclusive conditions. Neither the NYTimes article nor you have proven benefits will suffer. Until it is evidenced (if not proven) benefits will proven the article and the op upon which it is based, is baseless speculation that proves to be propaganda, not news. Repeating the false dichotomy makes the argument and argument ad nauseam and that is not a resonable or rational argument for or against anything.

    Do you understand Social Security is a net loss investment? When SocSec was first legislated it was supposed to be a "locked box" purse that Congress was prohibited by statute from using for any purpose other than that for which it was designated. About 20 years after its inception when its first set of regulations were set to expire the Democrats legislated changes that allowed Congress to use the money as part of the whole pool of revenues and spend SocSec money on expenditures other than SocSec. Conservatives predicted this would happen and they decried and voted against the change but they held a minoty so the changes were legislated despite the dissent.

    Look it up.

    According to your profile you're a decade older than me so you were a kid in the mid-fifties when these debates began. You know what I just posted is true because you have been there along the way.

    Lest time I checked, SocSec returns about 78 cents on every dollar invested. That's an abysmal return. If the money was kept under your mattress it would be better than SocSec. If it were invested in bonds it would provide a better return than it does currently. If the government invested in the market the way private citizens do then 1) SocSec would be profitable and 2) the federal government could use the excess elsewhere (I'd have a problem with that as a conservative, but it would be a measurable improvement over confiscating tax-payer revenues designated for retirement and healthcare), and 3) the stock markets would have had enormous capital to hedge against recession. This change could have been legislated at any time over the last 80 years. Such a change has been suggested many times and resisted by Dems.

    I could go on but 1) you probably know the history, 2) you probably don't care because you're more ideological than you care to admit (as evidenced by your having accepted the NYTimes bait), and 3) it digresses from my point. My point is thie NYTimes article is baseless and as such it amounts to propaganda. My response to you, the author of this op, is to look at the article objectively and examine it critically to see that it is not actually factually news. The only fact in the article is the fact Trump is going to cut SocSec resources. Any objective news reporter practicing the professional journalists' code of ethics would have objectively investigated the significance of that announcement (no change has actually been made) and both lib and con could read the objectively written article and walk away from it with a shared understanding of what happened and what might happen reasonably, not speculatively. We might still have differing opinions about the veracity of any change but we would not be indispute as to the facts.

    And when you, The Barbarian, 1) buy into the bait, and 2) don't push back on it then 1) you're part of the problem and not the solution and 2) not living up to what you've said were your own standards.

    Now you're in a defensive posture as evidenced by the posting of this Trustees Report. The problem that report cites is not specific to the current POTUS and has been a concern for at least the last fifty years! Did you complain under all of the prior POTUSes? I did. I don't care what party affiliation exists, the problem(s) with SocSec are chronic and ignored.

    Why wasn't that stated in the NYTimes article?

    Occam's razor: because the article isn't news; it is propaganda.

    And there is no defense for that, Barb. I exhort you to be more discerning. I'm not a big fan of Trump. I'm impressed with many of the changes made economically and socially but I don't trust the man. I posted posts in other boards decrying the man's lifestyle and repeat practice of "covenant-breaking" or breaking contracts and exploiting legal loopholes for personal gain. I decry his practice of willful provocation and governance by tweet. It's undignified and unprofessional but that's kinda the point from his perspective and a lot of his supporters. People that take him literally aren't taking him seriously and people that take him seriously don't take him literally. It shouldn't be that way but it is.

    None of which justifies the NYTimes article.

    How many times have you heard news media and editorial personalities say they should be covering other more important events and not tweets but there's so much to say about those tweets? They are openly acknowledging their failure to do their job because spending the Fourth Estate's capital on tweets is not their job.

    If Rappeport and Haberman had done their job as journalists that article would look much different and you and I would have something of substance directly related to that article to discuss. As it is the only news is Trump is considering cuts. Nothing has actually happened (other than an announcement).

    And you took the bait.

    I appreciate your time, patience, and tolerance. I suspect my op-reply was not what was hoped for originally. I again exhort you to be more discerning. Check out some of the history and background I posted (including the ethics code), be as critiqual of "news" as you are of forum posts. It will serve you well.
     
  18. Josheb

    Josheb Christian Supporter

    +393
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    My apologies. I should have posted an emoticon to indicate my rhetoric. I was being somewhat facetious. I too endeavor to read/listen diverse sources. The problem is the diversity betrays the problem. One one hand objective journalism should not breed such diversity. On another hand, if any given news source was staffed in a manner representative of the populace it supposedly serves then there would be mor in-house diversity; there'd be more diversity within the NYTimes, the WaPost, the LATimes, MSN, Fox, etc., and there'd be more uniformity of diversity between the sources. The fact of simple dichotomy and its degree of polarity is 1) evidence of a problem to be solved and 2) impossible to obtain from a normal sampling of the population. There's simply no way what we see is representative of the population. The "sampling" that is the news media is skewed by any measure of objective statistical analysis.

    Hence my desire that you not read/watch any of them ;):(:mad::confused::cool::p:D:eek::oops::rolleyes:.

    Since we cannot escape the problem we must be discerning and the particular NYTimes article this op references is an excellent and obvious example of how vulnerable anyone can be. Our ideology should not be so easy to exploit ;). Of course, it would be best if we weren't ideologues.

    You and I have to negotiate the same world when we leave our homes each day. It would be nice if we did so with objectively shared facts and not merely competing propagandas.

    You heard it here first from a conservative white male fundamentalist Christian. I'm supposed to be the bad guy.
     
  19. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,802
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    It's not that complicated. With more people qualifying for Social Security, if you cut the amount of money available, someone has to get less than before.

    It's not an investment. It's insurance. Look it up.

    How Social Security Works- Investopedia

    Social Security is an insurance program. Workers pay into the program, typically through payroll withholding where they work. They can earn up to four credits each year.

    Social Security

    But that error alone is enough to derail your argument, but you probably don't care because you're more ideological than you care to admit.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2020
  20. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +5,802
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Barbarian observes:
    I like to hear from everyone,and then sort it out myself. Saves me a lot of embarrassment.

    It won't, only so long as there are only a few independent sources. When when had the local paper and three networks, everyone got the same stuff, and there was little need to pander to a particular political demographic.

    Then cable and internet fractured the news into dozens of competing services and countless blogs. Now there's money in slanting coverage to a particular group.

    Yep. So I look at everything, particularly where there's controversy. Fox and CNN may slant one way or the other, but the news programs rarely tell outright lies. (commentators, not directly reporting news, often blatantly lie)

    So I look at the information, keeping an open skepticism, and it works better than anything else I can do.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...