NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[Whose Yur Planner]

The Tea Bagger Militia should do what any other self respecting right wing militia does-go buy a lot of land, take on pseudo religious trappings, create a compound, move their families there, buy enough guns and ammo to arm a 2 world county, shoot their guns, train, and wait for the: feds, new world order, the collapse of world civilization, and wait for with the return of Jesus or aliens. This is no more a legit protest than the idiots who showed at the town hall meetings openly displaying their guns. It's not about their rights, it's open intimidation. Do what I say or I'll shoot or start the revolution. The tea bagger militia is about intimidation-pure and simple.

The tea baggers are upset because things are going their way and they are always right. They know what's best for America. Those who disagree can go straight to hell along with government employees, gays, democrats and whoever else they disagree with. If they loved their country, they would work within the system, present their ideas in form in candidates and let their fellow Americans decide on the validity of them during elections. What I love about this country is that things can change. We can have a peacefull revolution every 4 years.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

That's just it - they have been doing just that. It's just that their elected politicians are being drowned out by other people's elected politicians in Washington DC, and Washington DC is usurping the authority of the Tea Party-ers' (not "tea baggers") state and local elected politicians who, under the auspices of our federalist system, should be able to assume responsibility for things not covered in the Constitution by/for the federal government.

As "REAL" Americans, shouldn't they understand how a representative republic works? Your statement would lead us to believe that the TeaBaggers didn't listen very well in civics class during the 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's when they were in school. If they went to school.

They described themselves a s"Tea baggers" on their own. A nice little scrolling bar along the bottom of FOX news and signs at rallies proves it (also shown on FOX news). Some nitwit member of the GOP didn't understand it already stood for dipping ones genitalia in the oral cavity of another human being. That is funny in a way that is really hard to change.

You are well within your rights to try and change the image of that. The rest of us are amused and take great pleasure, schadenfreude you might say, in watching them try to change an image that is more scurrilous to them than to us.

 

[TexanOkie]

The Tea [strikeout]Bagger[/strikeout] Party Militia should do what any other self respecting right wing militia does-go buy a lot of land, take on pseudo religious trappings, create a compound, move their families there, buy enough guns and ammo to arm a 2 world county, shoot their guns, train, and wait for the: feds, new world order, the collapse of world civilization, and wait for with the return of Jesus or aliens. This is no more a legit protest than the idiots who showed at the town hall meetings openly displaying their guns. It's not about their rights, it's open intimidation. Do what I say or I'll shoot or start the revolution. The tea [strikeout]bagger[/strikeout] party militia is about intimidation-pure and simple.

The tea [strikeout]baggers[/strikeout] partiers are upset because things are going their way and they are always right. They know what's best for America. Those who disagree can go straight to hell along with government employees, gays, democrats and whoever else they disagree with. If they loved their country, they would work within the system, present their ideas in form in candidates and let their fellow Americans decide on the validity of them during elections. What I love about this country is that things can change. We can have a peacefull revolution every 4 years.

Corrections noted above. :a:

As "REAL" Americans, shouldn't they understand how a representative republic works? Your statement would lead us to believe that the Tea [strikeout]Baggers[/strikeout] Partiers didn't listen very well in civics class during the 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's when they were in school. If they went to school.

They described themselves a s"Tea baggers" on their own. A nice little scrolling bar along the bottom of FOX news and signs at rallies proves it (also shown on FOX news). Some nitwit member of the GOP didn't understand it already stood for dipping ones genitalia in the oral cavity of another human being. That is funny in a way that is really hard to change.

You are well within your rights to try and change the image of that. The rest of us are amused and take great pleasure, schadenfreude you might say, in watching them try to change an image that is more scurrilous to them than to us.

Tea Partiers seem to understand how representative republics work. They also seem to understand how U.S. Constitutional federalism was designed, something that it seems they're opponents didn't listen very well to when they were in school... which is a shame, because many of them were in school 2+ years longer than most people. The U.S. government is more than just a representative republic - that's just the format that serves as it's context.

Tea Partiers being referred to as "Tea Baggers" did not start with Fox News or members. It started out as a snide remark by Anderson Cooper on his CNN show and subsequently took the liberal blogosphere and other media outlets by storm. I am not going to defend the credibility or intelligence of Fox News or some outlying morons within the Tea Party movement. They're not worth it.

Oh, and P.S. I also made a correction to your post above. :a:

 

[Hink]

That's just it - they have been doing just that. It's just that their elected politicians are being drowned out by other people's elected politicians in Washington DC, and Washington DC is usurping the authority of the Tea Party-ers' (not "tea baggers") state and local elected politicians who, under the auspices of our federalist system, should be able to assume responsibility for things not covered in the Constitution by/for the federal government.

To me this is why I think they need to be their own party. They need to prove that they stand for something other than "small government", "less spending" which are extremely vague and mostly impossible.

If they want to become something that matters other than a Fox News militia, they need to do it in the system we have set up. What about the Libertarians, Greenies, and Communists? Are their opinions crazy sometimes, sure, but they are able to push candidates that back their opinions. They lose because those opinions are not part of most of America. The Tea Party can join the ranks. I think that if the Tea Party put out their actual platform, many Americans would not only laugh at it, but realize that this well-funded joke has very little depth to it. If they can start a party and fund it, put candidates up that win on substance, that I am all for it. Until they can do that, I will continue to find them a very annoying loud squeaking sound that gets in the way of having civil discourse.


Moving away from the crazies, and onto real politics for a minute... what does everyone think of the New Contract with America? Will this help the R's in November and beyond like it did in 1994? I think it will. That is if they are able to keep their word. If they set out principles and follow them, it will work. If they set up vague ideas and do what they want, it will further alienate the middle. I like the concept, but in Washington I don't believe they can follow the rules.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35835.html

 

[imaplanner]

Tea Partiers seem to understand how representative republics work. They also seem to understand how U.S. Constitutional federalism was designed, something that it seems they're opponents didn't listen very well to when they were in school... which is a shame, because many of them were in school 2+ years longer than most people. The U.S. government is more than just a representative republic - that's just the format that serves as it's context.
:

This is total hogwash. Who are the foxpartiers opponents anyways? Constitutional scholars who serve on federal courts? The partiers claim to know all about the constitution, but over a hundred years of court precedent says they are wrong.

What is their big beef anyways? It seems to be taxes. They want tax cuts. Well Obama already cut their taxes more than any other president in the last 30 years. They are paying less in taxes now than almost any other time in history. The anger makes no sense.

Moving away from the crazies, and onto real politics for a minute... what does everyone think of the New Contract with America? Will this help the R's in November and beyond like it did in 1994? I think it will. That is if they are able to keep their word. If they set out principles and follow them, it will work. If they set up vague ideas and do what they want, it will further alienate the middle. I like the concept, but in Washington I don't believe they can follow the rules.
]

Here's the thing. The republicans want to cut more taxes. They can't agree on cuts to spending- even Paul Ryan's roadmap was seriously poo-poo'd by the republican leadership. The republicans will not cut spending - they never have. They will cut taxes and continue to starve the government beast and force an even bigger fiscal crisis. There is considerable evidence that they do this on purpose- that they've taken a position of running up huge defecits while they are in power and then throwing huge fits about defecits when they are out of power - yet refusing to help to solve the crisis that they are responsible for.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Tea Partiers seem to understand how representative republics work. They also seem to understand how U.S. Constitutional federalism was designed, something that it seems they're opponents didn't listen very well to when they were in school... which is a shame, because many of them were in school 2+ years longer than most people. The U.S. government is more than just a representative republic - that's just the format that serves as it's context.

The TeaBaggers do not understand. The point is, the laws that authorize those things they don't like can be challenged in the courts. Many of those things they don't like, like the establishment of the IRS and a permanent federal levy have been challenged and lost. So guess what, it IS constitutional. Get over it.

They also have some fantasy that law is black and white and unchanging. This is the fallacy that makes them believe they can turn back the clock to 1787. Decisions are made and create a body of law that sets precedent. The chances of going back to whatever halcyon days where life was great is nill.

 

[TexanOkie]

This is total hogwash. Who are the foxpartiers opponents anyways? Constitutional scholars who serve on federal courts? The partiers claim to know all about the constitution, but over a hundred years of court precedent says they are wrong.

What is their big beef anyways? It seems to be taxes. They want tax cuts. Well Obama already cut their taxes more than any other president in the last 30 years. They are paying less in taxes now than almost any other time in history. The anger makes no sense.

Okay, perhaps "opponents" wasn't the appropriate term. "Detractors" might have been more appropriate. I've already discussed the Tea Party's reasoning on court precedent.

Also, to say that the Tea Party's big beef is just that they want more tax cuts is to oversimplify their position. They're looking at broad-based fiscal responsibility, which includes removing several government programs and legislation they consider inappropriate at the federal level or just outright inappropriate because it is contrary to their notions of classical liberalism espoused in the country's founding documents and subsequent debate. As with any disorganized movement with varying degrees of motive, reason, and goals, especially with the disparity in education levels of adherents seen with the Tea Party movement specifically, this might take different shape or seem incoherent when examined holistically (and to me argues that it can't be anything but grassroots, even if it has been prodded by shabby news networks and celebrity pundits).

The Tea [strikeout]Baggers[/strikeout] Partiers do not understand. The point is, the laws that authorize those things they don't like can be challenged in the courts. Many of those things they don't like, like the establishment of the IRS and a permanent federal levy have been challenged and lost. So guess what, it IS constitutional. Get over it.

They also have some fantasy that law is black and white and unchanging. This is the fallacy that makes them believe they can turn back the clock to 1787. Decisions are made and create a body of law that sets precedent. The chances of going back to whatever halcyon days where life was great is nill.

Corrections noted above. :a:

"The Tea Partiers don't understand." You keep saying that and maybe one day it'll be true.

So the IRS is constitutional, as is a permanent federal income tax. So what? While many things have been challenged and lost, there are still many things that have not been challenged. However, even if they are never challenged, and even if the aforementioned judicial activism was never an issue for the Tea Party, the movement would still have significant heading and purpose. It is possible to change policy within these court-upheld institutions and/or to implement new measures that could change the court decision.

And the fantasy that you claim Tea Partiers believe about the law being black and white is misleading. It's not the law themselves - it's the underlying assumptions and principles behind them that the Tea Partiers seem to be in favor of preserving.

 

[imaplanner]

Also, to say that the Tea Party's big beef is just that they want more tax cuts is to oversimplify their position. They're looking at broad-based fiscal responsibility, which includes removing several government programs and legislation they consider inappropriate at the federal level or just outright inappropriate because it is contrary to their notions of classical liberalism espoused in the country's founding documents and subsequent debate.

This is what I don't get though - is that polls have also shown that the Fox Party generally does not want cuts to medicare, social security or defense. I realize that some fox party commentators and self appointed leaders have said they want to get rid of medicare and SS, but every poll I have seen indicates that the members (a majority of who are on ss and medicare) do not want to actually defund those programs.

As far as fiscal responsibility, realistically medicare, ss and defense are the only three things significantly contributing to government spending. This is why I say that their anger makes no sense.

 

[TexanOkie]

This is what I don't get though - is that polls have also shown that the Fox Party generally does not want cuts to medicare, social security or defense. I realize that some fox party commentators and self appointed leaders have said they want to get rid of medicare and SS, but every poll I have seen indicates that the members (a majority of who are on ss and medicare) do not want to actually defund those programs.

As far as fiscal responsibility, realistically medicare, ss and defense are the only three things significantly contributing to government spending. This is why I say that their anger makes no sense.

That's just human nature shining through. Everybody wants something until it negatively affects them (medicare and ss). It's seen in life, period, not just in the political activity of a select movement. And yes, it's extremely hypocritical. I won't argue that, either, because I personally can't stand it.

Defense spending, on the other hand, is a primary federal function according to the Tea Party's political philosophy and their understanding of federalism, so I doubt their views on supporting the funding of the defense system will change.

[ot]From Futurama Episode 314: "Time Keeps on Slippin'"

[Outside Social Security office]

KID: Stupid senior citizens. Why should we have to pay for their social security benefits?

[Time skips and the kids turn into old men.]

OLD MAN: I deserve free money!

[/ot]

 

[imaplanner]

Interesting poll data on the Fox tea partiers.

 

[TexanOkie]

More interesting poll data on the Tea Partiers, from the New York Times and CBS: Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier, More Educated. It finds that "most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as 'fair.' Most send their children to public schools. A plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, and, despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers." Also, "the largest number of respondents said that the movement's goal should be reducing the size of government, more than cutting the budget deficit or lowering taxes," and that 8 in 10 Tea Party supporters believe the movement should focus on economic issues rather than cultural ones.

Column about above poll in the Denver Post: Why the Tea Party Isn't as "Radical" as You Think.

 

[Hink]

More interesting poll data on the Tea Partiers, from the New York Times and CBS: Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier, More Educated. It finds that "most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as 'fair.' Most send their children to public schools. A plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, and, despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers." Also, "the largest number of respondents said that the movement’s goal should be reducing the size of government, more than cutting the budget deficit or lowering taxes," and that 8 in 10 Tea Party supporters believe the movement should focus on economic issues rather than cultural ones.

These polls just go to support the notion that this is much more about pomp and much less about substance. If you are fighting taxes, but feel that your tax load is fair, then why are you yelling? Because of the future taxes that will kill our children? I love that even the Tea Party understands how unqualified Sarah Palin is. Although I somewhat hope that they create a party and have her and Michelle Bachmann on the ticket and see how few votes they get.

If the Tea Party actually decided that they were about fiscal responsibility, and were moderate on anything else, I think they would actually find that many people could support that. If their platform was given that had smaller government, lower deficits and lower taxes - all the while explaining how they plan on doing those things without losing the funds necessary to run the country - maybe I could support that. I just think that they aren't really just about fiscal conservatism... they seem much more... how do I say it .... radical? Maybe it is just the way they decided to go about making their thoughts heard...

 

[Hink]

Well I am digging it up from Page 3, as I cannot let it get away from the front page for too long - there is just too much going on.

Charlie Crist, the once great Republican has chosen to leave the party to run as an Independent. I think this is just what the country needs. People need to start realizing that party is not what is important, but ideas. The R's are trying to make this about conservative values - which is fine, but the people in the Republican party who don't agree with this value system needs to be able to find a place in the political spectrum. As the conservatives begin to erode away the republican party, I think we will see a much stronger middle and possibly a third party. I would love to see our country put one more party up with the D's and R's. I think we should call it the Moderate Party. Watch who wins the next twenty years of elections.

On another note Arizona has started a crazy frenzy with their new law. Does anyone really think that was the best way to go about handling the situation? I think that everyone agrees that there are issues with our border, and that they need to be address with a comprehensive plan for illegals, but it seems to me that this will lead to (although it says it is is illegal...what a joke) profiling. I think that there needs to be some discussion on how we deal with illegals, what to do with those who are here already, and how we deal with those born here to illegals.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

......and how we deal with those born here to illegals.

They are called US Citizens and are every bit as much an American as you are.

So the real question is, how are the parents of American Citizens who have every right to remain in the country, to be handled after their children turn 21.

 

[Hink]

They are called US Citizens and are every bit as much an American as you are.

So the real question is, how are the parents of American Citizens who have every right to remain in the country, to be handled after their children turn 21.

I understand that is what the law currently says. I am not trying to be a crazy immigration person, but I also understand that our system is broken. Just as entitlements shouldn't be off the table in our national debate over how to reduce the deficit, the way we give and the way you get citizenship should be reviewed.

I think it is short sighted to say that this is how we do it, so we don't need to review it. If the policy we have it good, it will stay, otherwise, it will be looked at and made better.

 

[CJC]

I understand that is what the law currently says. I am not trying to be a crazy immigration person, but I also understand that our system is broken. Just as entitlements shouldn't be off the table in our national debate over how to reduce the deficit, the way we give and the way you get citizenship should be reviewed.

I think it is short sighted to say that this is how we do it, so we don't need to review it. If the policy we have it good, it will stay, otherwise, it will be looked at and made better.

It would take a constitutional amendment to change that part - I would certainly say that it's realistically "off the table." There's simply no way that you're ever going to get 75% of the states to agree to alter something like citizenship by birth, any more than you're ever going to get 75% of states to alter something like the second amendment.

 

[chrisinmd]

Coffee Party

Screw all this talk about the Tea Party. I joined the Coffee Party.

 

[Hink]

So I am a little bit annoyed at the talking heads today as they are SO happy about the Supreme Court ruling over Gun Control. What I really don't understand is that it is basically taking away states rights and saying that the federal government has that power... isn't that against everything they believe in? I support someones right to have a firearm in general, but I do not support the denial of a city being allowed to ban them.

I believe that if my fair state wants to ban guns they should be allowed to. If you want to own a gun without any strings move to a state that allows it. I am so amazed that this isn't drawing ire from the R's when they support states right SOO much. They believe that gay marriage (or civil unions... whatever you want to call them) should be a states decision, even though I would say that it is MUCH more protected by the Constitution than the ability to carry a concealed or automatic weapon.

It is this kind of politics that make me so angry at the system.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

So I am a little bit annoyed at the talking heads today as they are SO happy about the Supreme Court ruling over Gun Control. What I really don't understand is that it is basically taking away states rights and saying that the federal government has that power... isn't that against everything they believe in? I support someones right to have a firearm in general, but I do not support the denial of a city being allowed to ban them.

I believe that if my fair state wants to ban guns they should be allowed to. If you want to own a gun without any strings move to a state that allows it. I am so amazed that this isn't drawing ire from the R's when they support states right SOO much. They believe that gay marriage (or civil unions... whatever you want to call them) should be a states decision, even though I would say that it is MUCH more protected by the Constitution than the ability to carry a concealed or automatic weapon.

It is this kind of politics that make me so angry at the system.

The ruling states that the ownership of a firearm is not really in the power of the state or the federal government. The SCOTUS has said its an individual right above the state or federal government.

The SCOTUS did leave open the ability of the states to put legitimate limits on firearms, like not allowing them in certain locations like bars, churches, or public events. This will be hashed out in the courts over time, but the second amendment individual right to have and bear firearms is over. The individual has won that argument.

Did anybody catch that the SCOTUS also told religious groups that public institutions (colleges in this case) do not have to support (give them space, matching funds, or institutional support) for organizations that discriminate based on religious discrimination, racist, or other exclusionary views?

 

[TexanOkie]

The ruling states that the ownership of a firearm is not really in the power of the state or the federal government. The SCOTUS has said its an individual right above the state or federal government.

The SCOTUS did leave open the ability of the states to put legitimate limits on firearms, like not allowing them in certain locations like bars, churches, or public events. This will be hashed out in the courts over time, but the second amendment individual right to have and bear firearms is over. The individual has won that argument.

+1. Good summary, Duke.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

The SCOTUS did leave open the ability of the states to put legitimate limits on firearms, like not allowing them in certain locations like bars, churches, or public events. This will be hashed out in the courts over time, but the second amendment individual right to have and bear firearms is over. The individual has won that argument.

Personally, I believe they should be allowed everywhere, churches, daycares, schools, planes, public beaches. Before anyone says anything, I am not being iconic.

 

[Maister]

Concerning the Federal budget, neither party in congress will do anything in the way of significantly reducing expenditures and/or increasing revenues and will continue to borrow borrow borrow in order to maintain the status quo .....until we've reached a point of crisis and can claim they had no choice but to eliminate entitlements and/or raise taxes. To do otherwise would only ensure the other party of a landslide victory (e.g. what party would go on the record "Seniors you paid your entire working lives into Social Security...but now you're not going to collect. Sorry. Oh, and vote for me again Okay?") Anyone disagree with this statement?

 

[Hink]

"Seniors you paid your entire working lives into Social Security...but now you're not going to collect. Sorry. Oh, and vote for me again Okay?") Anyone disagree with this statement?

Well I put it in the President thread, but I think it is unfortunate that this is true. One of the couple of easy ways to deal with our financial mess is to look at each program and deal with it accordingly. Many people now use SS as a means of retirement. It was never meant as such. It should be a way to keep people from living in poverty in their elderly years - not as a support to live off of. I do not think it is fair to punish those who have retired and have already known the rules of SS. I do think it is fair to state an arbitrary cut off (or scientific based on ability to save prior to retirement) and say anyone below this age has different rules. SS isn't insolvent yet - it still brings in more a year then is dolls out, but once all the baby-boomers retire, it will be a crazy fest.

I have no faith that I will ever see a penny from SS in my retirement. I don't think that people should ever expect to see anything from SS. I say 35-40 somewhere in there... if you are younger than that - you live in the new world of no SS. We pay into a mandatory mutual fund personal savings account. This account cannot be accessed until you retire. This way, if you pay in a TON of money over your life, you get a lot, if you don't you get the minimum requirement to live on in retirement.

The status quo is what is getting us in trouble. If people got elected for a cause, or to do what they felt is just, that would be one thing - but the career politicians of today (52 years in office?) care little about right and wrong, and much more about getting elected. Can you imagine how much would get done in lame duck periods if we had term limits? "I don't care if you don't vote for me again, we are going to get rail". "The budget is going to be met, so we will make it unconstitutional to spend more than we bring in"... :-@

 

[CJC]

The status quo is what is getting us in trouble. If people got elected for a cause, or to do what they felt is just, that would be one thing - but the career politicians of today (52 years in office?) care little about right and wrong, and much more about getting elected. Can you imagine how much would get done in lame duck periods if we had term limits? "I don't care if you don't vote for me again, we are going to get rail". "The budget is going to be met, so we will make it unconstitutional to spend more than we bring in"... :-@

I think your faith in term limits making things better is sorely misguided. If you don't have to worry about being elected again, then it doesn't matter what you do - instead of saying "I don't care if you vote for me again, we are going to get rail," someone could just as easily say "I don't care if you vote for me again, industry x is getting $2 billion for the next five years." There may be flaws with the current system, but having to worry about being re-elected is a check on power.

A constitutional amendment requiring us to bring in more than we spend would be disastrous. A large part of our current global power comes from our debt - it makes the US dollar ubiquitous around the world and provides an easier way to manage monetary policy. Running a surplus in boom times (like the late 90's) is one thing - trying to do it all the time (or having zero government debt) would be economic suicide. Most of the time (mild economic growth times) it's better to run a small deficit (and decrease taxes) than it is to run a surplus or a balanced budget.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

For those of you who think that SS will not exist in the future, you are fooling yourself. It is here to stay. Changes? Certainly, but it will not be going away. The worst case scenario is that it would drop to 75% of what it is supposed to be. Still likely to keep most people above poverty.

The sky is not falling.

Even if the worst case scenario would hit, watch the politicians find a way to pay for it even in the future. Its not an unrealistic system. Stop building new roads or funding the rebuilding of non federal highways with Federal funds. There is most of the rest of the money you need to pay for it.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Concerning the Federal budget, neither party in congress will do anything in the way of significantly reducing expenditures and/or increasing revenues and will continue to borrow borrow borrow in order to maintain the status quo .....until we've reached a point of crisis and can claim they had no choice but to eliminate entitlements and/or raise taxes. To do otherwise would only ensure the other party of a landslide victory (e.g. what party would go on the record "Seniors you paid your entire working lives into Social Security...but now you're not going to collect. Sorry. Oh, and vote for me again Okay?") Anyone disagree with this statement?

I think the problem with SS is three fold. First, when it was started, they never thought people would live as long as they now. The problem is that as people get older, they start breaking down and need more help.

Second, I do believe that the fund has been raided from time to time.

Third, it was neve meant to be people's sole source of income when they retired.

I agree with Maister that SS has be come a third rail of American politics. Not even W at the height of his power could get it done. In retrospect, it is a good idea that his plan didn't work. Putting our faith in that casino on Wall Street called the stock market has proven not to be a good idea. As a country we are going to have to find a solution to the budget problem. Everyone is going to have to bleed a little to make it work.

 

[Hink]

I think your faith in term limits making things better is sorely misguided. ...There may be flaws with the current system, but having to worry about being re-elected is a check on power.

They may be misguided, but it is only because I do not believe that our system now could be any worse. I agree though that reelection is a check on power, albeit a very weak one.

A constitutional amendment requiring us to bring in more than we spend would be disastrous. .... Most of the time (mild economic growth times) it's better to run a small deficit (and decrease taxes) than it is to run a surplus or a balanced budget.

I disagree. But I guess it is because we have very rarely done this, and the data does not definitively prove that it is a better way. I think that there would be obvious reasons to go into debt - but a constitutional amendment that strengthens what those are, would help this country out; not hurt it.

For those of you who think that SS will not exist in the future, you are fooling yourself. It is here to stay. Changes? Certainly, but it will not be going away. The worst case scenario is that it would drop to 75% of what it is supposed to be. Still likely to keep most people above poverty.

I do not think the sky is falling. But I do think that SS is a program that needs to be changed. It will not become insolvent in the near future. It will probably stop bringing in more than it sends out shortly, but that does not mean it is insolvent. To me that isn't the issue. It is changing the way our society functions. I think it is just a fundamentally wrong to have people expect to get a "retirement" from SS. It should be used as a safety net to give people enough money to live on, but barely. People should save during their life and "retire" on that. Or they will work until they can "retire". I don't think people of 1935 were worried about retiring at 65. I don't agree with much of anything W ever did, but trying to reform SS was one of the things I did.

 

[CJC]

They may be misguided, but it is only because I do not believe that our system now could be any worse.

Oh, it can be. See California, State of - circa 2010. Term limits are but one part of the disaster of our state-level politics, but they are an important part of the disaster (the initiative system is the biggest disaster, and term limits were passed through an initiative).

I disagree. But I guess it is because we have very rarely done this, and the data does not definitively prove that it is a better way. I think that there would be obvious reasons to go into debt - but a constitutional amendment that strengthens what those are, would help this country out; not hurt it.

No developed country does what you're talking about though, and any country with a floating currency would never dream of it. The only way that it might be somewhat feasible would be in a country with some large state-owned export industry that's paying the bills (like one of the petro states), rather than tax receipts.

In any place that relies on taxes to fund government, it's going to be advantageous for the government to run a small to mid-sized deficit and simultaneously lower taxes on its citizens, simply because the government can borrow money on the cheap. Perhaps this isn't "definitively proven" (nothing in economics can be) but it's something that pretty much every economist will agree on. Even hard-core libertarian economists will not argue for no government deficits ever, unless they're against basics like fractional-reserve banking.

Regardless of the economics talk, I don't believe in constitutionally mandating certain specific actions be done in any circumstance (for reasons that I believe this, again, see California). IMO, the constitution should be about protecting specific rights and setting aside broad powers for the government. Enshrining something like annual budgets in the constitution is far too restrictive and takes too much authority from our elected representatives. If we don't trust the elected reps to do anything, then we have far bigger problems.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

........
I think it is just a fundamentally wrong to have people expect to get a "retirement" from SS. It should be used as a safety net to give people enough money to live on, but barely. People should save during their life and "retire" on that. Or they will work until they can "retire". I don't think people of 1935 were worried about retiring at 65. I don't agree with much of anything W ever did, but trying to reform SS was one of the things I did.

Just like we keep trying to tell Mgk, times change.

in 1931, the fed did not have a fiscal policy of keeping the unemployment rate at 4.5% - 5%. In other words, the game is ALWAYS FIXED against people who need work. That means you have a much harder time significantly increasing your earnings to save in the hope that you can have a job if the cycling of the economy would stay flat. Ooops, looks like wall street and big business F that up all the time.

In the modern world (that is NOT 1935 or 1776 for MgK), the real wages have shrunk for decades (1970 to present), how are people supposed to save money for retirement?

Its unconscionable for the bottom 80% of peoples meager protections to always be cut while the top 20% (top 2% really) continue to amass greater wealth with every single year.

 

[imaplanner]

. I think it is just a fundamentally wrong to have people expect to get a "retirement" from SS. It should be used as a safety net to give people enough money to live on, but barely. People should save during their life and "retire" on that. Or they will work until they can retire.

Well, what are you going to suggest we do with the people who are too old to work, and never made enough to save?

 

[Hink]

Well, what are you going to suggest we do with the people who are too old to work, and never made enough to save?

Define to old to work. Are you disabled? Then you are supported by SS. Are you 65 and just don't want to work anymore, but never saved anything? Sorry.

I think that there should be a system in place - just as there should be in healthcare - that keeps everyone at a point that is not poverty. A standard of living for EVERYONE in the US should be kept. I agree with Duke that times change, but we do not need to be giving people a quality of life that allows them to not value what they are given. You will not find one study that shows that if a person knows they are getting a retirement that they will plan, save, and live below their means... this article is unacceptable for our country...

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/09/pf/retirement_confidence/

In the modern world (that is NOT 1935 or 1776 for MgK), the real wages have shrunk for decades (1970 to present), how are people supposed to save money for retirement?

We are to live below our means. I agree that there is a percentage of people who cannot afford to live day to day, and we already have programs for them (food stamps, medicare, medicaid, etc.) that work to help them get back on their feet. This is not a large percentage of America. These are the people who NEED SS. If you look at the study above you see that almost half of Americans do not have $10k in savings for retirement. HALF! Are all these people poor? Are all these people unable to save? I seriously doubt it. These people mostly just either don't value the savings for retirement, or are living at a level that does not allow them to save for anything.

It isn't a modern world versus pre-modern argument. It is an argument about whether we are supporting poor choices and financially supporting those who cannot sacrifice now to have a quality of life in retirement. If you are middle class or above you shouldn't need SS, because you are able to save enough to live off of in retirement.

 

[imaplanner]

Sorry.

.

Ok. Let's explore this for a minute. What does "sorry" mean exactly?

If you look at the study above you see that almost half of Americans do not have $10k in savings for retirement. HALF! Are all these people poor? Are all these people unable to save? I seriously doubt it.
.

I think perhaps you need to open your eyes a little more. What sort of savings do you think a two earner family with two kids would have when both earners are making 10 dollars an hour or less?

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

.......... It is an argument about whether we are supporting poor choices and financially supporting those who cannot sacrifice now to have a quality of life in retirement. If you are middle class or above you shouldn't need SS, because you are able to save enough to live off of in retirement.

Your first part of this question is absolutely dead smack on. Its about choices. Unfortunately, you veer off track and blame the majority of problems on those who are least likely to defend themselves, including the middle class. The people you blame for poor judgment are not the ones making the business decisions that matter. Off-shoring of middle class jobs in all sectors has been promoted rather than discouraged by government regulation.


How do you intend for people to do all of the saving required when?:

The jobs don't exist
There are not enough good paying jobs
Jobs are off-shored
Wages are depressed by federal monetary policy
No policy exists to limit predatory business practices
The number of businesses no longer offering pensions continues to drop

Just asking, because I could follow your point if it were the case where it was all dumb decisions. The fact that "HALF" don't have great retirement savings should actually tell you that the squeeze is on and it's NOT the general fault of a general group of people but more likely systemic issues that limit the ability to save.

 

[CJC]

Off-shoring itself isn't a problem - it's only the fact that we've encouraged free (or close to it) trade with nations unwilling to offer us the same benefit that's the problem.

Hink_Planner, as far as complaining about the average American having less than $10,000 in savings, you're missing a couple key figures - the average American has nearly all of their savings wrapped up in home equity (and it's higher than $10k, even with the decline in the real estate market over the past few years), as a direct result of government policy. When you subsidize mortgage debt (directly or indirectly, and on an absolute basis as well as a relative basis) to the level that we have over the past 70 years (and especially the last 25, after the credit card debt change of the mid-80's), you can only expect the situation that we have now, where too much capital and savings is tied up in real estate.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Off-shoring itself isn't a problem - it's only the fact that we've encouraged free (or close to it) trade with nations unwilling to offer us the same benefit that's the problem........

I don't disagree with your statement. However, the political will to take that option away from businesses because of the lack of reciprocation is a huge problem.

 

[Hink]

Ok. Let's explore this for a minute. What does "sorry" mean exactly?

Sorry means that you aren't going to be retiring anytime soon. You are going to work to survive, or you are going to use the benefit programs that already exist for those who cannot find a job or who cannot work for some reason other than being disabled.

I think perhaps you need to open your eyes a little more. What sort of savings do you think a two earner family with two kids would have when both earners are making 10 dollars an hour or less?

My eyes are open. I would imagine that the family in your example will have to deal without TV, cell phones, and other things that are enjoyable - but it can be done. They make over $40k a year (~$34k after taxes...). It is obviously very dependent on location and cost of living - but not many low to middle class families need more than $34k a year to survive. (6-8k on housing, 2-3k on insurances, 6-8k on food and clothes, $4k a year on utilities, leaving $11k for misc costs (childcare, eating out, vacations?) and saving. You can't tell me that you can't save at least $100 a month. You can - you just need to prioritize.

Unfortunately, you veer off track and blame the majority of problems on those who are least likely to defend themselves, including the middle class. The people you blame for poor judgment are not the ones making the business decisions that matter. Off-shoring of middle class jobs in all sectors has been promoted rather than discouraged by government regulation.


How do you intend for people to do all of the saving required when?:

The jobs don't exist
There are not enough good paying jobs
Jobs are off-shored
Wages are depressed by federal monetary policy
No policy exists to limit predatory business practices
The number of businesses no longer offering pensions continues to drop

Just asking, because I could follow your point if it were the case where it was all dumb decisions. The fact that "HALF" don't have great retirement savings should actually tell you that the squeeze is on and it's NOT the general fault of a general group of people but more likely systemic issues that limit the ability to save.

I am not going to disagree that jobs have been allowed to be shipped off. Let's put in more structured regulation as to the incentive packages we give to companies that don't do this practice. That is fine. But in the end, it is up to the individual to assure they have their retirement in place. Otherwise, they shouldn't be retiring.

I would imagine you meant that the number of businesses that no longer offer pensions continues to rise. And that is true. Many companies cannot afford to give their employees a nice fat check the rest of their days. I don't fully understand why we ever started this practice, as it has shown to be the fastest way to make a company unstable. I think that companies should pay into someones 401k or equivalent program while they are working there and when they retire with a certain number of years, give them a fat check as they walk out the door and then be done with it. With life expectancies what they are, how could we expect anything else?

Hink_Planner, as far as complaining about the average American having less than $10,000 in savings, you're missing a couple key figures - the average American has nearly all of their savings wrapped up in home equity (and it's higher than $10k, even with the decline in the real estate market over the past few years), as a direct result of government policy. When you subsidize mortgage debt (directly or indirectly, and on an absolute basis as well as a relative basis) to the level that we have over the past 70 years (and especially the last 25, after the credit card debt change of the mid-80's), you can only expect the situation that we have now, where too much capital and savings is tied up in real estate.

Unfortunately government policy does not require that we put money into personal savings plans. It also doesn't require people to put money into homes. Sure the subsidization of mortgage debt as well as the easing of lending practices in the past 15 years has allowed many people to be in this situation. I don't disagree at all. But I don't understand how you can use this as a reason for someone to not be able to save. Did you buy a house that is too big and you can't afford it anymore? That is your fault. It isn't the governments, and it surely shouldn't be the taxpayers. Because you made this choice, you are going to have to work until you can afford to retire. You shouldn't be subsidized for the poor financial choices you made.

Again, I understand having a safety net program for those who cannot help their situation - whether it be social programs while you are working, or something like SS for those in their elder years. But I don't support giving a guy that made $200k a year for 30 years during his life a retirement package or giving a guy that made $50k a year for 30 years and never saved a penny a retirement package. If those two didn't save some money over that time period, they should keep working until they fall into a category that allows them to stop - disabled, poor, or financially stable enough to retire on their own.

 

[kjel]

I have come to the conclusion that as a single parent employed by the private sector that I am completely hosed financially. Make too much for any kind of assistance and not enough to put anything substantial into savings, especially in this region. I am middle class by the overall U.S. figures but decidedly lower class in this region.

 

[CJC]

Unfortunately government policy does not require that we put money into personal savings plans. It also doesn't require people to put money into homes. Sure the subsidization of mortgage debt as well as the easing of lending practices in the past 15 years has allowed many people to be in this situation. I don't disagree at all. But I don't understand how you can use this as a reason for someone to not be able to save. Did you buy a house that is too big and you can't afford it anymore? That is your fault. It isn't the governments, and it surely shouldn't be the taxpayers. Because you made this choice, you are going to have to work until you can afford to retire. You shouldn't be subsidized for the poor financial choices you made.

I wasn't using this as a reason for people not to save - I was merely saying that your stat about most families having less than $10k in savings is wrong, because it's not accounting for where most families have the majority of their savings - the equity in their homes.

 

[Hink]

I wasn't using this as a reason for people not to save - I was merely saying that your stat about most families having less than $10k in savings is wrong, because it's not accounting for where most families have the majority of their savings - the equity in their homes.

Fair enough. It was CNN's stat though, not mine.

 

[TexanOkie]

Finally, a candidate for Texas governor I can throw my full-level support behind (as opposed to my "lesser of two evils"-level of support).

http://www.votewoodrow.com/

 

[Planit]

I really enjoyed the fact the Michael Steele, head of the Republican Party, stated that Afganistan is Prez. Obama's war of choosing - along with many other erroneuos points - and then several other party representatives saying he just misspoke. Oopsy.

On top of that, several Republicans actually helping confirm Elena Kagan by comapring her views to her mentor and very respectable justice T. Marshall.



(I'm not saying the dems are the best, just everyone is stumbling over each other to make the other look bad instead of actually working real issues, but that's how politics work)

 

[TexanOkie]

I really enjoyed the fact the Michael Steele, head of the Republican Party, stated that Afganistan is Prez. Obama's war of choosing - along with many other erroneuos points - and then several other party representatives saying he just misspoke. Oopsy.

On the other side, I enjoy that President Obama has made it a primary goal of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to further US relations with the Islamic world. :-s

Does that mean to recruit more visiting astronauts and scientists from the Muslim world, or to work with them to develop their own space programs, or what? Or does it mean becoming a State Department replica?

 

[Planit]

On the other side, I enjoy that President Obama has made it a primary goal of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to further US relations with the Islamic world. :-s

Does that mean to recruit more visiting astronauts and scientists from the Muslim world, or to work with them to develop their own space programs, or what? Or does it mean becoming a State Department redux?

Sorry, but I'm missing the relationship to a party chairman blantantly lying about a war that was going on prior to Prez. Obama even annoucing his intent of thinking of running for President ... vs. ... stating a direction (whether right or wrong) of a federal program

 

[TexanOkie]

Sorry, but I'm missing the relationship to a party chairman blantantly lying about a war that was going on prior to Prez. Obama even annoucing his intent of thinking of running for President ... vs. ... stating a direction (whether right or wrong) of a federal program

I don't see any blatant lying, just a lack of a grasp of the English language (or just a flubbed word in a speech). He should have said "war of choice", not "war of choosing". In this regard, he was correct. Afghanistan was/is a war of choice for Bush and for Obama.

While I may disagree with its ultimate point, this column explains how.

Either way, both statements seem to be poorly explained and contrary to our notions of what each subject truly is about. There's your connection. And look beyond ideologically-comfortable opinion networks to formulate your own talking points.

[I say this last thing partially to sting but mainly in the interest of intelligent debate.]

 

[Planit]

Afghanistan was/is a war of choice for Bush and for Obama.

There's your connection.

So by that statement, I guess you are saying that Vietnam was a war of "chioce" for Nixon since it was going on before he became President. I guess I'm one stupid slacker not to see that.

 

[TexanOkie]

So by that statement, I guess you are saying that Vietnam was a war of "chioce" for Nixon since it was going on before he became President. I guess I'm one stupid slacker not to see that.

Yes and no (about Nixon and Vietnam, not your second sentence). Nixon continued the war effort, even introduced new strategies and expanding the war into Laos and Cambodia, but his goal was to start withdrawing troops and turning over South Vietnam's defenses to the ARVN. He started phased withdrawals of US troops within his first year of election. Nixon never pushed (strategically) for a US/South Vietnamese victory in the war.

Obama campaigned on the idea that Afghanistan was the "right" war (in comparison to Iraq), and while, yes, he does not want the US to be fighting in Afghanistan, he wants US objectives to be victorious in the its outcomes prior to handing over the reigns to a hopefully-by-then stable Afghani democratic government. This is further illustrated in contrast with the Presidents handling of Iraq (which is really more a moot point by now, thanks to the Bush-presided surge).

In essence, "war of choosing" doesn't necessarily reflect who originated the war. It has more to do with strategy and actions in response to it.

You're not "one stupid slacker", either. You're passionate about certain topics, and sometimes that passion and personal opinion cloud your judgement/analysis. And that is something every one of us is guilty of at one point or another (most of us even in these forums).

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

.........
In essence, "war of choosing" doesn't necessarily reflect who originated the war. It has more to do with strategy and actions in response to it.
........

That is a real stretch. The outcome of foreign policy issues NOT related to specific conflict hinge on the method of uncoupling from any specific conflict in any specific location.

The Afgahn conflict helped tip the Russians into nearly complete collapse after their withdraw was viewed as a loss. Not to mention all of the desperately needed capital they lost in fighting an inconclusive war. The boldness of the Chechens can be directly related to their poor performance.

Likewise, if the US can not find some form of more effective withdrawal from Afghanistan than the Russians, it will likely have multiple negative impacts throughout our foreign policy.

Bring that back to a war of choice. The Bush run afgahn conflict was much more of a disaster than what Nixon inherited. Its costing more to fight people with less. In no circumstances can you just walk away as mentioned in the ramifications of doing so above. Secondly, the conflict was justified by any measure of warfare convention past or present. Since no war goes according to plan, one has to worry about the methods of uncoupling from the conflict as much as how one enters. In this case, Obama has chosen to take the strategy you attributed to Nixon. Engage heavily while finding the exit strategy. So how the hell do you get to the clueless chairman Steele making a minor misstatement?

 

[wahday]

Personally, I don't buy the arguments saying Steele meant to say "choice" instead of "choosing" and that this somehow makes more sense (see the longer quote of what he said below). To me, this is akin to Guiliani's comment that there were no terrorist attacks under Bush's administration (Cheney and Dan Perino said the same thing, making it seem like it is a talking point) or 2/3 of the GOP saying that it is Obama's fault we are in a recession.

These statements are, in my mind, deliberate attempts to confuse the situation, to sow misinformation, and to essentially spread lies that, once they are out of the bag and circulating, are very difficult to disprove, particularly among folks that already are looking for a reason to be upset with the administration or with Democrats generally. Such deliberate strategies are well-documented in the past. Swift Boating, saying McCain has a black love child, etc.

For the record, this is what Steele said: “Keep in mind again, federal candidates, [the war in Afghanistan] was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in.” Taking into account the second part of this statement, I have an even harder time accepting TexanOkie's take on what he meant to say. It seems very clear to me that he was saying Obama led us into this even though the US did not want to actively engage in this war.

Wait - Wha?!

The US didn't want to engage in it?! Didn't want to prosecute?! Does he remember 9/11? That Bin Laden was (is?) living there? That we went in just short of one month after the towers fell? Shock an awe? Is any of this ringing a bell? He is either woefully ignorant of the facts, or trying to misinform the American public. Either way, it makes it seem like this is not the best job for him...

As Mark Twain said "A lie can get halfway across the world before Truth has a chance to get its boots on" So true.

Maybe I am giving Steele too much credit for this being a calculated mis-information strategy. He does not strike me as the sharpest tool in the shed, frankly, and has stepped in it more than enough times to deserve a firing, IMHO. Still, he is the chairman of the party. If he "meant" to say something else, he should probably be going to greater efforts to make that clear. Did he make any statements clarifying or apologizing yet?

 

[TexanOkie]

Maybe I am giving Steele too much credit for this being a calculated mis-information strategy. He does not strike me as the sharpest tool in the shed, frankly, and has stepped in it more than enough times to deserve a firing, IMHO.

Bingo.

The Nation sums it up well (including mention of the argument that the current character of the war is of Obama's choosing) here, but also discusses how Mr. Steele is running against at least 2/3 of his party's opinion of the Afghan war situation, and is either an idiot (from a GOP perspective) or a sage who's afraid of neoconservative ideological policeman and the likes of William Kristol (from the author's perspective).

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

He he, I like Steele. He has caused the GOP more heart burn, lost time, wasted effort, and off target messaging than anything the democrats could have done to counter them. To top it off, the GOP is more caught up in political correctness than any other organization in history!

The GOP finds itself incapable of firing a bumbling incompetent because he is black and it might "look bad". So they find themselves in the ultimate politically correct actions they can muster, which is wasting time building fund raising mechanisms around him (that waste time) and wasting political opportunity by not being focused or on message resulting in fewer seats in the house and senate than they should gain.

PRICELESS!