What did Cantor mean?

[Guns Guns Guns]

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) recently had this to say while addressing the Hoover Institution:

"I mean, just from the very notion that it said that 50 percent of beneficiaries under the Social Security program use those monies as their sole source of income, so we've got to protect today's seniors.

But for the rest of us? For, you know, listen, we're going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be."

What did he mean?

 

[DamnYankee]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

 

[SmarterthanYou]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

and of course, it's implied that those in power need more than those not in power. the way of maintaining their elite status.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Rep. Eric Cantor (D-VA) recently had this to say while addressing the Hoover Institution:

"I mean, just from the very notion that it said that 50 percent of beneficiaries under the Social Security program use those monies as their sole source of income, so we've got to protect today's seniors.

But for the rest of us? For, you know, listen, we're going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be."

What did he mean?

I think (and this is just a guess) that he meant: we're going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be! Is there anything about that you don't comprehend? Any tough words there for ya, Epic? We're broke, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, and if something isn't done to change the program, it will collapse. So what do you think we should do? We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend there is no problem, that's what we've been doing the past couple of decades... do you think that is the best way to approach this problem? Perhaps you just don't live in reality and you believe somehow SS will magically find a way to pay for itself... that it can continue on, even though it is insolvent?

I don't get what part of this is so hard for Liberals to accept, the program is on the path to its demise, and when Republicans suggest ways it can be saved, you start screaming that we want to get rid of Social Security and kick old people to the curb, relegate them to eating cat food and such... Republicans want to SAVE Social Security, not sit here and watch it die a slow painful death, as we live in denial of the problem. Proposals have been made that do not effect anyone currently on Social Security, or anyone who is going to be on Social Security over the next 10-20 years... not a thing will change for them, no reduced check, no eating cat food.... not gonna happen! What the proposal does, is deal with the influx of the Baby Boomers, and shifts some of the burden off the government and back to the individual. It would allow younger workers to shift a portion of their SS to investment accounts, which would have a much greater rate of return and would also be the property of the owner, not the federal government.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

"these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be."

means

"Republicans want to SAVE Social Security"?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be."

means

"Republicans want to SAVE Social Security"?

Is that all that he has said on the subject? Is that all any Republican has said? Why do you liberals have to take one sentence and distort it out of context to make it seem as if something else has been said? Are you really that morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest?

 

[Annie]

Is that all that he has said on the subject? Is that all any Republican has said? Why do you liberals have to take one sentence and distort it out of context to make it seem as if something else has been said? Are you really that morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest?

That was rhetorical, right?

 

[Phantasmal]

I think (and this is just a guess) that he meant: we're going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be! Is there anything about that you don't comprehend? Any tough words there for ya, Epic? We're broke, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, and if something isn't done to change the program, it will collapse. So what do you think we should do? We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend there is no problem, that's what we've been doing the past couple of decades... do you think that is the best way to approach this problem? Perhaps you just don't live in reality and you believe somehow SS will magically find a way to pay for itself... that it can continue on, even though it is insolvent?

I don't get what part of this is so hard for Liberals to accept, the program is on the path to its demise, and when Republicans suggest ways it can be saved, you start screaming that we want to get rid of Social Security and kick old people to the curb, relegate them to eating cat food and such... Republicans want to SAVE Social Security, not sit here and watch it die a slow painful death, as we live in denial of the problem. Proposals have been made that do not effect anyone currently on Social Security, or anyone who is going to be on Social Security over the next 10-20 years... not a thing will change for them, no reduced check, no eating cat food.... not gonna happen! What the proposal does, is deal with the influx of the Baby Boomers, and shifts some of the burden off the government and back to the individual. It would allow younger workers to shift a portion of their SS to investment accounts, which would have a much greater rate of return and would also be the property of the owner, not the federal government.

It means let those who aren't able to do for themselves, parish...get out the ice bergs, and death panels, "We The People" ,have two of them in Washington right now! And the beat goes on!

 

[Phantasmal]

Yeah, I bet she doesn't get anything from the government...

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Is that all that he has said on the subject? Is that all any Republican has said? Why do you liberals have to take one sentence and distort it out of context to make it seem as if something else has been said? Are you really that morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest?

Couple of things, Dix; I'm not a liberal, and I asked this:

Rep. Eric Cantor (D-VA) recently had this to say while addressing the Hoover Institution:

"I mean, just from the very notion that it said that 50 percent of beneficiaries under the Social Security program use those monies as their sole source of income, so we've got to protect today's seniors.

But for the rest of us? For, you know, listen, we're going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be."

What did he mean?

​

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That was rhetorical, right?

Yes it was! I mean, we've had this debate about privatizing part of Social Security for what... 15 years now? Yet here we have a pinhead hanging on one sentence from one Republican, and on the basis of nothing more than grammatical perceptions, disregarding the entirety of the debate. It's just the typical routine practice of pinheads these days, they don't think anything of it, they're quite proud of themselves for sticking their thumb in the pie and pulling out a plum! Well done! Chalk one up for the Gotcha Brigade! Now, can the adults in the room continue the conversation about how we save Social Security for future generations, or are we going to stick our heads back in the sand for another decade?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Couple of things, Dix; I'm not a liberal, and I asked this:

Rep. Eric Cantor (D-VA) recently had this to say while addressing the Hoover Institution:

"I mean, just from the very notion that it said that 50 percent of beneficiaries under the Social Security program use those monies as their sole source of income, so we've got to protect today's seniors.

But for the rest of us? For, you know, listen, we're going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be."

What did he mean?

​

First of all, Eric Cantor is a Republican, not a Democrat. Second of all, he said quite a bit more than the single sentence you quoted. Thirdly, Republicans have been talking about partial privatization of SS for years, and have constantly reiterated, they don't want to do away with SS. Finally, the current system is broke, won't work, can't survive, is insolvent.... is there something about that you aren't understanding? The program can not exist in its current form, it has to be replaced with something that works in the 21st century. Is there something about THAT you are failing to comprehend? If we fail to act soon, millions of Americans will not have Social Security, it will be gone, and there will be nothing to take its place. Something there you're missing? Help me out here, Mr. I Am Not A Liberal.... what part of this problem are you failing to understand?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

First of all, Eric Cantor is a Republican, not a Democrat. Second of all, he said quite a bit more than the single sentence you quoted. Thirdly, Republicans have been talking about partial privatization of SS for years, and have constantly reiterated, they don't want to do away with SS. Finally, the current system is broke, won't work, can't survive, is insolvent.... is there something about that you aren't understanding? The program can not exist in its current form, it has to be replaced with something that works in the 21st century. Is there something about THAT you are failing to comprehend? If we fail to act soon, millions of Americans will not have Social Security, it will be gone, and there will be nothing to take its place. Something there you're missing? Help me out here, Mr. I Am Not A Liberal.... what part of this problem are you failing to understand?

I'm not understanding why your answer didn't stop at "I don't know".

Anybody else want to try?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'm not understanding why your answer didn't stop at "I don't know".

Anybody else want to try?

But I do know, I explained it to your dumb ass. You just seem to be stuck on the semantics of one sentence, where he said "these programs can't exist" ....that's the part you heard, and you pretend like nothing else was said, and no one has tried to explain it... I explained it in my first post. ..........If you're not a Liberal, stop acting goofy!

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

But I do know, I explained it to your dumb ass. You just seem to be stuck on the semantics of one sentence, where he said "these programs can't exist" ....that's the part you heard, and you pretend like nothing else was said, and no one has tried to explain it... I explained it in my first post. ..........If you're not a Liberal, stop acting goofy!

If acting goofy makes one a liberal, where does that leave you?

Cantor’s office claims he misspoke.

Cantor spokeswoman Laena Fallon said, "Leader Cantor does not want to abolish Social Security and Medicare."

Now, why couldn't you have looked that up, Goofy?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If acting goofy makes one a liberal, where does that leave you?

Cantor’s office claims he misspoke.

Cantor spokeswoman Laena Fallon said, "Leader Cantor does not want to abolish Social Security and Medicare."

Now, why couldn't you have looked that up, Goofy?

Because I didn't need to look it up, I already knew what he meant, I am not acting goofy like you.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Because I didn't need to look it up, I already knew what he meant, I am not acting goofy like you.

The real answer: Cantor’s office claims he misspoke. Cantor spokeswoman Laena Fallon said, "Leader Cantor does not want to abolish Social Security and Medicare."

Dix's answer:

I think (and this is just a guess) that he meant: we're going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be! Is there anything about that you don't comprehend? Any tough words there for ya, Epic? We're broke, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, and if something isn't done to change the program, it will collapse. So what do you think we should do? We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend there is no problem, that's what we've been doing the past couple of decades... do you think that is the best way to approach this problem? Perhaps you just don't live in reality and you believe somehow SS will magically find a way to pay for itself... that it can continue on, even though it is insolvent?

I don't get what part of this is so hard for Liberals to accept, the program is on the path to its demise, and when Republicans suggest ways it can be saved, you start screaming that we want to get rid of Social Security and kick old people to the curb, relegate them to eating cat food and such... Republicans want to SAVE Social Security, not sit here and watch it die a slow painful death, as we live in denial of the problem. Proposals have been made that do not effect anyone currently on Social Security, or anyone who is going to be on Social Security over the next 10-20 years... not a thing will change for them, no reduced check, no eating cat food.... not gonna happen! What the proposal does, is deal with the influx of the Baby Boomers, and shifts some of the burden off the government and back to the individual. It would allow younger workers to shift a portion of their SS to investment accounts, which would have a much greater rate of return and would also be the property of the owner, not the federal government.

Yeah, same answer, right, Goofy?

​

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yep same answer... he "mispoke" means he said something that you misconstrued to mean something it did not mean. His office issued the statement to clarify that he did not mean or intend what you thought he did, which is pretty much what I said.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Yep same answer... he "mispoke" means he said something that you misconstrued to mean something it did not mean. His office issued the statement to clarify that he did not mean or intend what you thought he did, which is pretty much what I said.

Asking what he meant is misconstruing, Goofy?

Here's what you said he meant:

I think (and this is just a guess) that he meant: we're going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be! Is there anything about that you don't comprehend? Any tough words there for ya, Epic? We're broke, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, and if something isn't done to change the program, it will collapse. So what do you think we should do? We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend there is no problem, that's what we've been doing the past couple of decades... do you think that is the best way to approach this problem? Perhaps you just don't live in reality and you believe somehow SS will magically find a way to pay for itself... that it can continue on, even though it is insolvent?

I don't get what part of this is so hard for Liberals to accept, the program is on the path to its demise, and when Republicans suggest ways it can be saved, you start screaming that we want to get rid of Social Security and kick old people to the curb, relegate them to eating cat food and such... Republicans want to SAVE Social Security, not sit here and watch it die a slow painful death, as we live in denial of the problem. Proposals have been made that do not effect anyone currently on Social Security, or anyone who is going to be on Social Security over the next 10-20 years... not a thing will change for them, no reduced check, no eating cat food.... not gonna happen! What the proposal does, is deal with the influx of the Baby Boomers, and shifts some of the burden off the government and back to the individual. It would allow younger workers to shift a portion of their SS to investment accounts, which would have a much greater rate of return and would also be the property of the owner, not the federal government.

His office said he "misspoke".