It is absurd. You could switch a few words and make his statement apply to welfare, medicaid...

"Gingrich: “It is a long-term program to enable people to know that in their older years they’re not going to starve…they’re not going to be homeless,” Gingrich says. “….I don’t agree with people who attack Social Security. This has been a social program of enormous power. It has improved the lives of virtually every senior citizen in this country. You go back to 1935 and you look at what was happening to people who were 65 and 70 years old and now you look at how much better off they are.” "

Read - socialism is fine and dandy if it's for the people who vote in OVERWHELMING numbers. I'm not anti-socialism, but SS is only so popular w/ Republicans because old people would eat them alive otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:everyone forgets that this is the social security ironic dems are all about bankrupting it but not saying it is a failed system

I wonder who you are going to vote for:

MItt Romney: "Under no circumstances would I ever stay by any measure it's a failure."

Gingrich: “It is a long-term program to enable people to know that in their older years they’re not going to starve…they’re not going to be homeless,” Gingrich says. “….I don’t agree with people who attack Social Security. This has been a social program of enormous power. It has improved the lives of virtually every senior citizen in this country. You go back to 1935 and you look at what was happening to people who were 65 and 70 years old and now you look at how much better off they are.”

Anonymous wrote:if the dems want to cut funding for SS why are they against getting rid of it. Are they wanting to fund it through other means like magic

As above, this bill does not impact social security funding so your question makes no sense. But, yes, they are "wanting" to fund it through other means such as the increase in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fees that is included in this bill.

Anonymous wrote:everyone forgets that this is the social security ironic dems are all about bankrupting it but not saying it is a failed system

Nobody forgets because this has no impact on social security funding. The payroll tax cut is paid for an increase of fees on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages.

Anonymous wrote:if the dems want to cut funding for SS why are they against getting rid of it. Are they wanting to fund it through other means like magic

If the republicans are in favor of getting rid of SS, why are they against taking less money from people to fund it?

if the dems want to cut funding for SS why are they against getting rid of it. Are they wanting to fund it through other means like magic

Missed

Anonymous wrote:everyone forgets that this is the social security ironic dems are all about bankrupting it but not saying it is a failed system

Apparently you ,issued the part where republicans vote for this stuff. Over and over again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:everyone forgets that this is the social security ironic [/b]dems[b] are all about bankrupting it but not saying it is a failed system

Is it your belief that the Republican party is not in favor of extending the payroll tax holiday? That it is only the Democrats that want it extended? If so, please explain how you reached that conclusion. If you do not mind, I would appreciate an explanation fo how the "party of lower taxes" would oppose this tax cut.

Thanks.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/93354/why-republicans-dont-want-extend-the-payroll-tax-cut

It is counterintuitive, yes, but Republicans have opposed this payroll tax cut for most of the year (they also only grudingly accepted Obama's predecessor Make Work Pay credit)

Anonymous wrote:everyone forgets that this is the social security ironic [/b]dems[b] are all about bankrupting it but not saying it is a failed system

Is it your belief that the Republican party is not in favor of extending the payroll tax holiday? That it is only the Democrats that want it extended? If so, please explain how you reached that conclusion. If you do not mind, I would appreciate an explanation fo how the "party of lower taxes" would oppose this tax cut.

Thanks.

everyone forgets that this is the social security ironic dems are all about bankrupting it but not saying it is a failed system

Anonymous wrote:Depends on how much it stimulates the economy. If it causes people to spend more more (which it likely will, because many are struggling and need the money right now), then businesses will have to pay more taxes. If spending is sufficient, businesses may hire more workers or increase worker hours, which also will generate more tax revenue. But regardless, the cost is minimal compared to other costs, like operating two wars for a decade.

Yes!!

Depends on how much it stimulates the economy. If it causes people to spend more more (which it likely will, because many are struggling and need the money right now), then businesses will have to pay more taxes. If spending is sufficient, businesses may hire more workers or increase worker hours, which also will generate more tax revenue. But regardless, the cost is minimal compared to other costs, like operating two wars for a decade.

I'm glad to keep more of my money, but aren't we just running up the deficit even more?