Budgets Pass

Like I said:
.
Run ‘em the f*ck over.
.
Thump-thump Thump-thump

Déjà vu – It’s 1993 all over again.

We’re going to HAVE to get control of the debt sometime. Also, inflation, here we go!

*Cue attacks saying that my hero Bush inherited a surplus and ran up a massive debt, therefore it’s fair for Obama to do the same thing, assuming that since I’m criticizing Obama I was a Bush fan*

I don’t disagree that we have to get control of the debt, apollyon…but to think we can get out of this without spending in the short term is wishful indeed.
.
I really hope we get an opposition party with ideas soon…it’s good for balance in the long run. The Repubs are going to “no, no, no” their way out of office completely if they keep this trash up.

But in the meantime, I’m with you 53_3…back it up if you have to.

I guess, I just don’t foresee anyone getting control of the debt, even when this is all over. It’s just so much easier to hand it off to the next leader. I mean, a 1.2 TRILLION deficit in 2010? I about died when Bush ran up 400 billion deficits, you can imagine how I feel about this one. As far as Republicans go, it’d probably just be better for them to stay in the background and be as invisible as possible, banking on the possibility that it will take the economy longer than expected to come back, and since the general public is pretty stupid when it comes to economic matters, will start to blame the party in charge.

Then again, maybe in that case the public would just say “screw it” and either stop voting or *gasp* find a third party.

apollyon07 — I share your concern about the debt and inflation, but from everything I’ve read, so is the administration. Having no plausible alternative from the minority party (spending freeze? tax cuts for earners over $100,000? repeal Recovery Act?), I’ll have to do the hope-watch-wait-and-hold-our-leaders-accountable thing.

Jo, the alternative you refer to was shocking in it’s predictability. Kinda of a strange sentence I know, but I couldn’t believe they trotted out that same BS. Nothing new. But on top of that it’s the same stuff that people are sick of. Out of touch doesn’t begin to describe it.
.
apollyon, 3rd party is what needs to happen. But god forbid Americans drink something other than coke or pepsi. We need a Dr Pepper party, badly.

Heh, Dr. Pepper is what we have here in Texas. If only it was the same politically.

“*Cue attacks saying that my hero Bush inherited a surplus and ran up a massive debt, therefore it’s fair for Obama to do the same thing, assuming that since I’m criticizing Obama I was a Bush fan*”
.
apollyon — I don’t assume you are a Bush fan unless you fail to recognize a reality based argument. It’s not as if Democrats are unconcerned about deficits, after all only Democrats have any recent experience in getting rid of them. Once we get this crisis behind us I’m confident the President will turn his attention to deficit and debt reduction just as he promised.
.
Now at this point a Bush fan would be screaming bloody murder because they don’t trust anyone other than members of their fan club. However, the facts show a President who has systematically kept his word. So give him the benefit of the doubt long enough for him to get the job done, it hasn’t even been a hundred days.
.
Think of it this way, the President has promised entitlement reform. JUst as on;y NIxon could go to CHina only Obama can reform entitlements.

Just to make sure the regulars here don’t think I’ve lost my mind, the alternatives I listed in #7 were the GOP ones, not mine. And for a third party to get my attention, they would need to put together a plausible alternative (make that a whole platform, not just no-not-them) before they start selling buttons and t-shirts.

apollyon07:
I gotta do it again:
.
The GOP handed out far more than $400,000,000,000.
http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/bailout_total_trillions/2008/11/24/154693.html
http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/topstocks/archive/2008/11/24/the-real-bailout-cost-7-4-trillion.aspx
.
The above are from Money Central and from Money News for Nov 24, 2008.
.
If I take the lowest figure I’ve seen for the Bernanke/Paulson bailout, which is 7,200,000,000,000 excluding TARP, it would take, at 131/Month, at 0 percent interest so long to pay off that if paid that amount over the entire history of this planet, you would still not pay it off!

I’m in Tejas too, love me some DP.
.
See, we can find common ground!
.
I seriously would like to see a “Common Sense” party. But I’m not tight with JC, so I don’t know how many people will follow.

Dee, you not assuming is sure a change in tune to my ears, but maybe that just has to do with me living in Austin. It just seems like everybody has been put into two groups: Bushies and Obama-maniacs.

And I don’t trust the Democrats right now, but I don’t trust the Republicans either, mainly because I just hate the government.

I really hope you’re right about Obama turning his attention to the deficit, I’m not optimistic though. I don’t see how that would be possible while simultaneously expanding welfare and govt. health care (look at what Bush’s expansion to Medicare, the prescription drug benefit *thank you Tom DeLay* has done to future projections on its own). Reducing the deficit through all this is a noble and worthy goal though.

53_3: how can you not understand that I hate exuberant spending NO MATTER WHICH PARTY IS RESPONSIBLE?

Fun fact: this year’s deficit was projected to be 1.8 trillion last year. So in a way, we’re ahead of the game.
.
And I don’t like deficit spending. That said, our society is falling apart. We need to invest in it–spend–to have a better future.
.
The real linchpin to this whole affair will be boiled down to one question: Will we see real, effective health care reform that reins in geometric cost increases?
.
If the answer is no, then around 2015 or so the deficit will SKYROCKET due to costs, and the GOP gets their dream of seeing social security/medicare collapse.
.
If the answer is yes, then we have a chance to reduce the deficit and american companies can be that much more competitive. Fun fact: the automotive industry spend more on health care than steel.

apollyon07:
.
I’m extending my apology to you on this thread, too, for overlooking your very important point.
.
However, one has to be very careful when dealing with what and what did not actually happen.
.
I myself can see times when government should not be playing as large a role as it is now, but right now, the only entity with enough resources to make a dent in these problems is the government.
.
There will always be room for a smaller government platform, lower taxes, and a pro-business poltical force, but that particular platform has been corrupted, and even a third pary, right now, truly adhering to those ideals would be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
.
However, it would be a valuable opposition force, but not in the current GOP form.

Apollyon — You ought to heartened by the facts. If your concern is really that the President won’t really attempt to get our debt under control that he will simply pass it off to the next administration, then you have little to fear. So far this president has gotten rid of the budget games that hide the true debt obligations of the war and health care. He is the only one saying that we must address these long term problems now. And all he has gotten from the right for his honesty is a bunch of name calling and divorced from reality alternatives.
.
If you were really being honest with your comments, you would have at least acknowledged some f these points from the outset. Here is where I begin to question whether or not this is just a more stealthy strategy to sow the seeds of doubt with a President who so far has kept his promises or told us when and why he may shift his thinking.

apollyon07:
.
I was writing my second apology to you for that very reason as you wrote yours. Again, apologies!
.
I wanted to make clear, however, that what the GOP did dwarfs what Obama has done, to the tune of approximately five times.

Also, some factory line workers made 50, 60, 70 an hour. Pretty high for manual labor, I think.

I wouldn’t like to see Medicare collapse but I would LOVE for there to be a policy where young people like me could opt out of social security now with the understanding that we won’t get any SS benefits when we retire. I mean, I’d rather not be throwing away money (since putting into SS when you work is theoretically for the purpose that you get that money back starting in your mid-60s) and then NOT see any of it later. That money could be much better saved through other means. Hell, even just throwing it under my mattress would be better. I don’t trust the government to handle a package going through the mail, much less a retirement system. Funny thing is, if this option was presented, I don’t think too many people would take it because the government would scare people into not doing it (like Republicans on national security and Democrats on the economy).

Government, like Soylent Green, is people. I live in the DC area and, while neither my husband nor myself work for the government, many of my friends and neighbors do. For the most part, they are good people, trying their best to serve their country. The part of government that votes, writes, marches, serves on juries, petitions, volunteers and contributes is also people. Sometimes I like what the government does, sometimes I don’t; it will probably never completely please me. Right now, I feel that the administration I helped elect is doing what it promised to do (mostly) in the way it promised to do it. I hope it works.

I would desperately, gleefully love a social-moderate-fiscal-conservative party to rise up; like the libertarians only without the crazy.
.
The Democratic party tends to go overboard and tries to do too much at times. This can open the door to corruption in the long run (see: congress circa 1990).
.
The GOP as it stands has been well and truly co-opted by the neocons and the remains of the Religious ‘Right’–they’ve abandoned fiscal conservatism except as a convenient excuse to be obstructionist, they’re beholden to the whims of the extremist pundits, and they seek to ‘limit government’ while attempting to legislate morality and enforce christianity as the state religion in all but name.
.
A third party–or even a ballot that ranks your choices (I forget the term for it) to prevent this binary choice we’re chained to…would be a great breath of fresh air.

53_3, apology accepted, no harm done. Even though individually being generalized peeves me, I really can’t blame you, since so many people in the general public don’t think individually and so desperately need to fit in with a bigger crowd. This, I believe, is a huge cause to many of our country’s problems.

“Also, some factory line workers made 50, 60, 70 an hour. Pretty high for manual labor, I think.”
.
This is not true, apollyon07. And besides, why are you focused on them to the exclusion of the rampant excesses of the very highest incomes, which have increased by ten times?
.
Also, apollyon07, Dems didn’t “scare” anyone on this economy. If it is so soft as to be affected by talk, then the economy is not sound by any means.
.
The alternative is McCain and Bush’s oft-repeated, but relentlessly ignorant statements that the “fundementals of the economy are sound”.

Hammerlock, I would vote for the party in a second, since that’s what I consider myself to be. As much as I’d like it to, it’ll never happen. The current system in place does not allow for much wiggle room in the two parties, much less a credible, strong third party to rise up.

apollyon–the 60/70 per hour figure is a falsehood. That number was including the value of benefits like health care (which isn’t income) and factoring in the costs incurred by paying the pensioners while omitting them from the worker count.

Okay Apollyon — I was born at night but not last night. Like all extremist you just did what all of you do go one step too far. People, this poser just systematically hit every single wing nut talking point, while changing the tone by not posting bat sh#t crazy diatribes, but nevertheless for someone appalled by both parties is surprisingly in synch with their traditional positions. I’m done.

apollyon07:
.
I think very individually, and I think some swamplanders will agree that it has been to the point sometimes that even they, on occasion, are not happy with what I’ve stated.
.
I think the thing is that you look at government as a bad guy, without any room whatsoever for compromise. I look at government as a potential bad guy, but not in the Republican sense.
.
The thing is, that at this point, one cannot appeal to anything higher than one’s government to save a situation that threatened to get out of control. Doing nothing might have been ideologically ok, but one has to remember that an ideology is really not worth even one life.
.
The point being, is that FDR is the only template the world has for properly dealing with eccnomic disasters like this, and a responsible way to handle a situation like this is to go with what you know and modify as best one can.
.
Recessions and depressions don’t come with instruction manuals.

Which wing-nut talking points did I hit? By that, you mean me saying I hate the government and that I don’t trust either political party? Do you hear any Republicans or Democrats saying that? And which, “traditional positions” am I in line with? I guess you’re done, but other posters, help me out here? I must remind you Dee that it’s harder than you think it is to ascertain one’s political beliefs purely through an ONLINE MESSAGE BOARD.

Oh, Dee, I know, it’s when I said I was scared about inflation, right?

My own input into your question is that you have stated that you hate the government.
.
Ok, given that, what choices do you have? Anarchy?

It may have been the 50, 60, 70 dollar an hour manual labor stuff. But I’m just guessing.

Both parties hate the government, just in different ways.

And I don’t see how a company paying it’s manual labor employees 50-70 an hour and then turning around and saying they treat their employees like crap is fair. Sorry, that’s just how I feel. I guess I was too hasty and said too high an amount, but cmon, in order to cut costs, you’re going to have to cut salaries too. That’s just being realistic.

apollyon, I totally agree with you that we should be concerned. I think everyone else in here is being way too hard on you. For the most part, you make a sound argument: it is hard to believe someone saying they’ll reel in spending when they are doing the opposite. I believe we disagree on who’s responsibility it is to provide for our basic needs of education, healthcare, and infrastructure. That’s fine, but if you just hold on for a while, I think you’ll come to understand where we are coming from, even if you don’t agree.

Publicizing certain services will lower their cost, even if the transition may take a fairly large amount of money to do.

zs, thanks for the sympathy. I don’t think that I’m being unreasonable here. I’ve gotta go now, though, no more for now.

“Both parties hate the government, just in different ways.”
.
This is a very cogent observation, in my opinion.
.
However, the question remains:
.
If you hate the government to the point that you portray, what alternative is there? The Free Market’s bottom line isn’t social equity, it’s the bottom line and is not capable of righting social problems.
.
It also is not capable of self-regulation. That much has been proven. Relying on individual initiative isn’t going to work either, as, as amply proven, human nature is not monolithic and a ‘faith based’ approach won’t work either.
.
So what does one do? After all, rural America is what it is today because the government redistributes income and tax dollars from large tax bases to smaller, less dense rural areas.
.
Like it or not, these stand as facts, and it behooves one to be very careful what they wish for!

Apollyon — You revealed you true nature the moment you didn’t entertain any nuance to the positions you were taking and dismissing. You went from inflation to $70 per hr. auto workers, to opting out of social security without skipping a beat or displaying any doubt of a government failure despite past history of Democratic successes in these areas. Now these are perfectly fine positions to take but not in such absolute terms. Anyone with any level of intellectual honesty admits that no position is absolutely without merit except for the wing nuts who are divorced from reality in the first place. Never mind the fact that the whole $70 per hr. salary was debunked so long ago and the only ones still citing it is the wing nut brigade. You can where a disguise but you can’t hide your aversion for critical thinking.

Amy, I want to apologize for slamming you on an earlier thread, if you did not see my belated apology there.

Call me paranoid but is anyone else picking up on this new GOP charm offensive (szmorgan & apollyon)? Perhaps this is what Chairman Steele meant by becoming unpredictable.

Guys, please….

Stop harassing the other commenters, even if you don’t agree with them. Even if they don’t offer viable alternatives, we should still listen to their concerns. Just debunk the rumors, don’t attack the person speaking them. If we want to educate and include, we have to be more respectful.

Two things:
.
Everyone should look at this. It made me feel better about the DOW and I thought it was clever.
.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/phd9/3409444758/
.
Secondly. There’s a lot of political reality that need to be overcome if we ever want to get deficits under control. Human nature and Democracy work together to insure that the way to political success is to sell benefits and hide costs. Republicans like to cut taxes but they do nothing about spending except to point to cartoon caricatures of the people they imagine benefiting from Fed spending. (Witness the $70/hr line workers and the “illegal aliens” who are allegedly gobbling up our taxes). Dems, on the other hand acknowlege that this all has to be paid for but use equally distorted caricatures of cigar-chomping bankers and ‘corporate greed’ to sell the notion that tghe cost should be someone elses problem.
.
We’ve just come through a period of severe distortion of several markets. I like to point out that the Boom portion of a Boom/Bust cycle is just as harmful as the Bust side. At this juncture however, inaction is not an option.
.

zs, I see a couple of apologies out there and some decent exchanges. This isn’t a love fest. I’ve seem much worse here, we don’t need to “hug it out”.

Also I want to say that I visit alot of other boards just to see different opinions, and the usual group of Swamplanders is by and large intelligent, respectful and open to opposing viewpoints that are articulated well and have merit.
.
Some other places out there, are really “out there”.

I just sometimes think we create the QH’s when we constantly insult their intelligence. The best way to teach is through conversation, not lecture, isn’t that something we’ve learned from Obama?

The Free Market’s bottom line isn’t social equity, it’s the bottom line and is not capable of righting social problems.
.
It also is not capable of self-regulation. That much has been proven. Relying on individual initiative isn’t going to work either, as, as amply proven, human nature is not monolithic and a ‘faith based’ approach won’t work either.
.
http://phd9.blogspot.com/2009/04/posted-for-easy-linkage.html
.
A big problem with our debates nowadays is that people have had ‘free markets’ preached to them for so long that they treat it like some kind of magical deity instead of a simple mechanism to allow for the pricing of goods and reasonably efficient way to allocate resources.
.
There are many problems that markets are unable to solve because no participants have a finacial stakes in the solution. I still think that Hog Manure Odor Abatement represents a perfect example but there are many others. Pig farmers don’t mind the smell and their neighbors have no recourse but to use government to hold the farmers accountable for the problem. So we can either shut down the hog farms thus directly interfering in the ‘market’ or create incentives or spend public funds to deal with the problem.

Thanks for that first link PD.
.
If you think about it in the sense that, especially in this last bubble, most of that “money” never really existed. It sucks that it went away and the bubble burst, but really most of this money came out of thin air and that’s exactly where it went back to.

apollyon07
.
A few quick points.
.
1 The fear right now is DEflation not INflation. I don’t know if you know the difference but deflation is when no spending is going on so that prices come down precipitously and no profit is made. Inflation is when the prices come up precipitiously and the spending power is weakened. Right now because of the economy sh*t is cheap but lots of people can’t buy it because they still can’t afford it. IE cars, houses, all manner of big ticket items and thus GDP keeps falling
.
2. Factory line workers don’t make $50 an hour. I know you are probably referring to auto workers. The truth is they are making about $30 an hour compared to $27 an hour which their foreign counterparts are making. The inflated figure comes from health insurance paid to all the retired employees ever to work for the Big 3 then averaged into the current workers’ pay even though they don’t see a dime of it.
.
3. If you opted out of SS then true soem people might have more money in the end but whats also true is many won’t and will end up as wards of the state anyway which in fact will be MORE expensive than SS is now.
.
4. If you are really worried about deficits then you should want to cut defense spending, be an advocate for universal healthcare, and an against no bid contracts. Those three things will do the most to cut the deficit, many of which are in the President’s budget. So what say you, are you for all three?
.
5. Its not just Bush who ran up deficits, so did Bush 41, so did Reagan and so did most Republicans before them. If you want I will provide you a chart of deficits under different Presidents but historically its clear that deficits come down under Democratic Presidents and go up under Republicans. You might not like that but it is what it is.
.
Now Im gone.

A big problem with our debates nowadays is that people have had ‘free markets’ preached to them for so long that they treat it like some kind of magical deity instead of a simple mechanism to allow for the pricing of goods and reasonably efficient way to allocate resources.
.
Paul,
.
The “free market” has been treated almost as a religion by some. Greenspan looked like his deity/high prophet had been caught in bed with a hooker when the market crashed. He could not believe that banksters/money managers could get so greedy that they would trash the economic system he knew and admitted as such. He was struggling with the sight of 40 years of economic beliefs falling in from of him and was obviously having a real problem with that . . .
.
In fact, I might propose that many on the Right would be more flexible in their religious beliefs than they have proven to be in their criticism of the markets. They just can’t bring themselves to entertain the thought that it has failed dur to greed and excess.
.
All they know how to do is “double down” on what they have always done and hope things come out differently this time. Kinda the very definition of insanity . . .

SG, I think his point is that he will like it, that’s been his point all along. He’s not saying he wants Obama to fail, he just wants Obama to succeed with limited resources.

zsmorgan
.
See this is why you have to be careful. This is what apollyon said initially.
.

I guess, I just don’t foresee anyone getting control of the debt, even when this is all over. It’s just so much easier to hand it off to the next leader. I mean, a 1.2 TRILLION deficit in 2010? I about died when Bush ran up 400 billion deficits, you can imagine how I feel about this one. As far as Republicans go, it’d probably just be better for them to stay in the background and be as invisible as possible, banking on the possibility that it will take the economy longer than expected to come back, and since the general public is pretty stupid when it comes to economic matters, will start to blame the party in charge.

.
Then they said
.

Both parties hate the government, just in different ways.
.
And I don’t see how a company paying it’s manual labor employees 50-70 an hour and then turning around and saying they treat their employees like crap is fair. Sorry, that’s just how I feel. I guess I was too hasty and said too high an amount, but cmon, in order to cut costs, you’re going to have to cut salaries too. That’s just being realistic.

.
I know high level concern trolling when I see it. Either they are a card carrying Republican or all the people they get their information are. Bush didn’t run up a 400bn deficit, he ran up a 1.3 TRILLION dollar deficit. Line workers don’t make 50-70 dollars an hour, and then of course there is the obligatory advice for Republicans that the economy continues to tank. Now I don’t know if they are a wingnut, but they have the wingnut talking points DOWN COLD! Now just to prove my point ask them who they voted for whenever they come back around.

should read
.
I know high level concern trolling when I see it. Either they are a card carrying Republican or all the people they get their information from</strong are. Bush didn’t run up a 400bn deficit, he ran up a 1.3 TRILLION dollar deficit. Line workers or as apollyon put it “manual labor”don’t make 50-70 dollars an hour, and then of course there is the obligatory advice for Republicans to hope that the economy continues to tank. Now I don’t know if they are a wingnut, but they have the wingnut talking points DOWN COLD! Now just to prove my point ask them who they voted for whenever they come back around.

Dee:
.
I’d rather have this type of commentator. At least I don’t have to plant a flag on their behinds for insulting behavior and we can get down to the problem of the contrafactual vs factual in debate.
.
Despite my many go rounds with people like Stuart Zechman about it, I’m really tired of the racial stuff, but as long as I see it, I’ll call it.
.
So to sum up, when we get a QH, or a Rusty, or spob, and they go for the insult, then I’m more than willing to put a tire on ‘em and tromp on the pedal.

sg:
.
I’m with you. His TPs were what drove me to assume that he’s got an R next to his name, and is not a moderate. His arguments are as full of holes as any of the others, but the positive I get is that at least he didn’t come up with “moonbat”, “little liberal”, and the other typical little nicities that they come in here to open their args with, then complain about being insulted on Swampland.
.
If I had even seen one of those allusions, I would never have apologized to him. As a matter of fact, for those that do, I would have handed them the old adage:
.
If you can’t stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen!

insulting behavior
contrafactual vs factual
.
There comes a point where contrafactual argument IS insulting behavior. When someone reaches a point where facts don’t matter and reality is whatever they wish it to be, then links and figures become a waste of time and simple name calling becomes the only rational response left.

PD:
.
You’re right, but I have to walk the fine line between SZ’s inane corrections and outright digital fisticuffs (which, incidentally, I love to partake of, sometimes).

53_3
.
Thats how spob started off though. They always sucker you in like they are rational but just uninformed and the next thing you know they are posting insults like “silly libs” and the like. Thats why I kill spob with silence If nobody responded to that fool it would drive him crazy. But I understand the impulse to challenge him. I just realize that its all he wants anyway, some attention. And I have a feeling that the newbie is going to go the same route eventually but for now I will engage.

53_3 I hear what you are saying and its perfectly reasonable to give apollyon and szmorgan the benefit of the doubt. However, if they are as unwilling to entertain reasonable arguments in favor of position that have no basis in reality it doesn’t really much matter how civil they are you are still wasting your time.
.
At the outset I was willing to entertain that this was legit because I have no problem with an honest commenter having opposing views. I just think this is a scam. Now,I could be wrong, but the adherence to the traditional GOP talking points is just a little too pat to be just a coincidence. If you are not a fan of either party and claim a pox on both their houses, shouldn’t your information be more varied representing a variety of sources rather than just one source — faux news?
.
But I guess its good practice and there’s no harm in honing your argument. However, when you find that no matter what you say their is no acknowledgement of your logic — hit me back.

53 so I misunderstand the exchange and you do get that these folks are frauds — okay I thought you were admonishing me for calling them out early on?

apollyon07, you seem to be a traditional conservative. Obviously as a progressive I disagree with much of what you’re saying, but it’s nice to see your perspective represented here on Swampland.
.
And could you explain how you’re coming up with that $400 billion figure?
.
Paul Dirks @12:31, great post.
.
If you are not a fan of either party and claim a pox on both their houses, shouldn’t your information be more varied representing a variety of sources rather than just one source — faux news?
.
Dee, I suspect they are Republicans whose party left them behind. Which might explain why they are drawing on right-wing sources. Frankly, they do not seem to be equally estranged from both parties in the sense that they (reasonably) expect to be estranged from the Democratic party, while as conservatives they expect to have a home in the Republican party. In 2000 when I supported Nader I disagreed with both parties but of course I drew on left-wing sources and was much closer to the Democratic party.

When someone reaches a point where facts don’t matter and reality is whatever they wish it to be, then links and figures become a waste of time and simple name calling becomes the only rational response left.
.
Paul Dirks, actually ignoring them is the only rational response left, IMO. Life is too short to waste time insulting irrational commenters on the internet.

The hand wringing over the tone at Swampland can be over done. Arguing is what happens at political blogs with comment sections.
As message boards/comment threads go this place is pretty tame.
The no swearing rule probably helps.
I visit a local music message board that is hilarious in how over the top they can be with each other.

Dee:
.
No way I would admonish you. Sorry if it came across that way. I fervently wish for the day SZ would stop admonishing me when I call racist speech racist speech, so I know what that feels like.
.
I entirely agree with you and SG theat they are frauds. I know they are. It’s like now they are too embarrassed to even admit they are Republicans. It’s a typical offshoot of what I called the ‘Arkele Syndrome’ on some of the other threads:
.
Wasn’ me!
.
Remember yesterday with spob when he denied he listened to Rush Limbaugh.
.
Like I said, if I gave the impression that I was admonishing anyone I’m apologize!

PNNTO:
.
If you want real over-the-topness, try Independent Argument over at BBC. Dip your toes into one of the Isreali/Palestinian conflict threads and you will get as much over-the-top as you can possibly stand!

Ha fifty-three, I have just the right amount of that already.
What I like about the place I mentioned is that they will go nuclear over important issues like how should one use the restroom and eating out versus cooking at home.

Hey, is this still the apology thread? Can I apologize to my mom for not filling the gas tank after taking the car out on Feb. 14, 1983? Thanks.

rose88: I like the point you made about suspecting them of being republicans whose party left them behind. I think about that fairly often when I’m posting on here. I wonder how I would react if my party became a party controlled by the Cindy Sheehans and Jessie Jacksons or worse yet…Ben Nelson. It’s got to be killing the true old school republicans that have seen their party get taken over by fanatics and intellectual lightweights. Being a progressive myself, I like what Obama is doing overall. There are some things I wish he’d do that he isn’t willing to spend political capital on now, but I’m willing to settle for pie and ice cream rather than the whole dessert cart. The republicans that got left behind by their party are being presented with a cracker that the mice have nibbled on.

PNNTO:
.
I was just thinking that you might want to indulge in some of the best* of the best* in pure, unadulterated, hate filled, flame throwing, digitally deadly unwell wishing that was ever to be poured into these here internet tubes. This is as close as you can get to being shot, stabbed, beaten, decapitated, eaten by wolves, harfed up by same, washed downstream into the sewer, to fates unknown without actually being shot, stabbed, beaten, decapitated, eaten by wolves, and harfed up by same to be washed downstream.
.
If punishment is your God, than this site is for you!
.
*worst, actually.

billiecat:
.
You stole her car?!?!

For the people who feel the republican party left them and has been taken over by their nuttier members they are correct.
They would be wise to try to fix their party from within. Arlen Spector gets challenged and will likely lose to a nuttier who will then lose the GE.
.
On the other hand I read that Newt the Intellectual is threatening a 3rd party if the republicans don’t do as Newt desires so it will probably get worse before it gets better.

I was brought up in an old Republican household which was socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I moved to an area where the Republican party was dominant and had to be registered R in order to have any say in local elections. I saw the party begin to move away from me in the 70′s (at least in PA) and finally changed my registration to reflect how I have been voting for the past 30 years. I did vote for John Anderson for President and would love to see a viable third party, but it’s not going to happen in my lifetime.
.
The observation that these commenters are Repubs whose party has left them sounds true. It may have been less easy to tell outside of the east coast. I left Arlen Specter over Anita Hill, but then super right wingers keep running against him. I hope this is the time he is finally out.

PNNTO, the reason Arlen is such a weasel, is that he will say one thing and then vote the other. Remember that all his political life he has been strongly pro-choice, but suddenly he was threatened with losing the chair of the Judiciary Committee if he supported any pro-choice judges and he made a pact with the devil. He made an early statement on his web page opposing the last FISA, but gosh, voted for it. He spoke strongly in support of habeas corpus, but voted for the Bush version which eliminated it. He deserves to lose. Toomey or any other super right will not win the GE.

Sorry Rose but I fail to see your point. This is not about having your party leave you behind because despite the tonal change they are spewing the same basic principles and are divorced from the same basic reality. They are a stealth force designed to infiltrate and see what mischief they care foster when our guards are down. If they hadn’t approached this thing with deception “I know I’m going to be pegged a Bush fan but really…” I wouldn’t be so strident now, but if you weren’t up to no good why would you need subterfuge?

Dee, the point I was trying to add is that the party changed a very long time ago and these folks seem not to have noticed until the last election.
.
My father was a contractor and didn’t want a union in his small business, so he thought the way to keep one out was to pay his workers more than the prevailing wage. Of course he’s been dead for nearly 60 years!

No question Ivy. If anyone needs an example of Arlen’s weaselness beyond yours I will point them to “Guilty not proven”

This is not about having your party leave you behind because despite the tonal change they are spewing the same basic principles and are divorced from the same basic reality.
.
Dee, sorry but I really can’t see how they are advocating the same principles as Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. They are conservatives. Not progressives, and not radical right-wingers. You just recently talked about the differences between GOP policies and conservatism. Balanced budgets, small governments – Sure Republican politicians talk about those things but they don’t actually believe in them or implement those policies when they have power.
.
As for the reality disconnect, undoubtedly they share some of the same blind spots as Republicans. The need for universal health care is probably one of those shared blind spots. And other ones they don’t share.
.
I’m not denying they’re closer to the Republican party than the Democratic party. But people like apollyon07 cannot be adequately defined in a binary political model that only includes Republicans and Democrats.
.
Dee, the point I was trying to add is that the party changed a very long time ago and these folks seem not to have noticed until the last election.
.
Ivy_B, that’s definitely true although the counter example is the contrast between Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. on Iraq. Basically, the Republican party has been extreme and estranged from conservative principles for decades, and then it somehow managed to decline even more about 15 years ago.
.
We’ll probably only know when the GOP arrives at rock bottom in retrospect. Right now it’s still going in the wrong direction.

As long as we’re apologizing…Mom, I’m sorry for the years 1966 through 1975. I’m sorry about the cat. I really didn’t see it in time to avoid it. I’m sorry you had to meet with the principal so many times. I’m sorry about mooning the neighbors. Now mom…is there anything you’d like to apologize for? LIKE BURNING MY WHOLE STASH 3 DAYS BEFORE I GOT MY OWN PLACE?

Encouraging developments
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/03/hemp-bill-introduced-in-c_n_182880.html

53_3: I did not steal the car, I just borrowed it. Is it my fault she didn’t hear me ask her because she was outside mowing the lawn? But I did tell her she must not have screwed the cap on tight enough and the gas evaporated when she wondered why it was almost out of gas the next day – so I apologize.

sacredh: Mom bogarts the pipe, huh? Bummer.

Okay guys. I was dead-wrong on the 50-70 an hour for line workers. I was wrong, I clearly made a mistake. I should’ve done more than spewed out a short mention that I heard on CNN one day (no, I didn’t hear it from Captain Limbaugh or Lt. Hannity). For that, I deserve correction and some berating.

What is unfair is to use this one mistake to pigeon-hole me into a single, narrow viewpoint (Bush-apologist, etc). I think it’s absolutely hilarious that I made a snarky, sarcastic remark at the very beginning of this predicting that I’d end up being labeled a Bushie just because I disagree with Obama’s budget, and this is apparently exactly what happened.

Now sgwhite, on a major point, you completely misinterpreted what I said. When I said “400 billion deficits,” I meant just that. Note the “s”. MULTIPLE multi-hundred billion dollar defecits. Not “a 400 bn defecit” as you misquoted me as saying. That doesn’t even make sense purely on economic definitions, since a singular defecit is only for a single year. The NATIONAL DEBT is an aggregate. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just mis-read/misinterpreted what I said.

And advice for the Republicans that the economy continues to tank? I just noted that this is one route they could go, I DID NOT even imply that this was morally right thing to do, I just said they could do that (as some of them already are). I think it’s completely deplorable to wish your country harm in order for political gain.

1. Deflation: I realize that’s the current fear, that’s why I said “inflation, hear we go!”, implying that it’s likely to happen in the future. Inflation can certainly be caused by massive debt and spending.
2.Addressed above
3. SS: I don’t think it should’ve been created in the first place, and when they created it they did not adequately address the obvious future problem of the recipients (retirees) increasing in numbers towards an unsustainable amount. A common response they give is “there was no way of knowing!” Sorry, when you create something like this long term, you HAVE to anticipate things like this. By the way, the “no way of knowing” argument was thrown out by the politicians after 9/11, and Katrina. See a pattern here? Since I would rather not have my money flushed away, I think I should be given the option to opt out.
4. Spending: Yes, I think defense spending should be cut, along with other forms of spending, since we are heading toward winding down in Iraq (don’t you dare assume I think we should’ve gone in the first place), and are not making a big enough increase in Afghanistan to offset it. This only makes sense. Plus, there is loads of wasteful spending in the military, just like any other government program, it just gets swept under the rug easier in this form. I am opposed to universal healthcare, just as I was opposed to Bush’s Medicare prescription drug benefit. I’m not comfortable with the government moving in in that department. This is not a non-mainstream position, lots of Americans think this way.
5. Past R’s: Yes they did. Did I say they didn’t?

And sg again, so you’re saying if I told you who I voted for you’d ignore anything I’d ever say/said and just refer to that, and assume I agreed with every issue the person I voted for ran/governed on/etc? WOW. Do you realize it’s possible to vote for a person and not agree with all their policies, and that this can continue while they’re in office? See, “Reagan, Entire Presidency of” for more on this.

I enjoy open discourse like this, but please refrain from making quick assumptions of people like is going on here. It’s close-minded and destructive. Be open to the possibility that someone can have strong disagreements with both establishments. I understand that it’s easy to misinterpret things in an online format like this (and I sympathize, because I’ve done the same thing) but I’ve got to draw the line somewhere.

Okay guys. I was dead-wrong on the 50-70 an hour for line workers. I was wrong, I clearly made a mistake. I should’ve done more than spewed out a short mention that I heard on CNN one day (no, I didn’t hear it from Captain Limbaugh or Lt. Hannity). For that, I deserve prompt correction.

What is unfair is to use this one mistake to pigeon-hole me into a single, narrow viewpoint (Bush-apologist, etc). I think it’s absolutely hilarious that I made a snarky, sarcastic remark at the very beginning of this predicting that I’d end up being labeled a Bushie just because I disagree with Obama’s budget, and this is apparently exactly what happened.

Now sgwhite, on a major point, you completely misinterpreted what I said. When I said “400 billion deficits,” I meant just that. Note the “s”. MULTIPLE multi-hundred billion dollar deficits. Not “a 400 bn deficit” as you misquoted me as saying. That doesn’t even make sense purely on economic definitions, since a singular deficit is only for a single year. The NATIONAL DEBT is an aggregate. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just mis-read/misinterpreted what I said.

And advice for the Republicans that the economy continues to tank? I just noted that this is one route they could go, I DID NOT even imply that this was morally right thing to do, I just said they could do that (as some of them already are). I think it’s completely deplorable to wish your country harm in order for political gain.

1. Deflation: I realize that’s the current fear, that’s why I said “inflation, hear we go!”, implying that it’s likely to happen in the future. Inflation can certainly be caused by massive debt and spending.
2.Addressed above
3. SS: I don’t think it should’ve been created in the first place (I don’t think the govt. should be able to force you to save for retirement, that should be an individual decision), and when they created it they did not adequately address the obvious future problem of the recipients (retirees) increasing in numbers towards an unsustainable amount. A common response given in situations like these is “there was no way of knowing!” Sorry, when you create something like this for the long term, you HAVE to anticipate things like this. By the way, the “no way of knowing” argument was thrown out by the politicians after 9/11, and Katrina. See a pattern here? Since I would rather not have my money flushed away, I think I should be given the option to opt out.
4. Spending: Yes, I think defense spending should be cut, along with other forms of spending, since we are heading toward winding down in Iraq (don’t you dare assume I think we should’ve gone in the first place), and are not making a big enough increase in Afghanistan to offset it. This only makes sense. Plus, there is loads of wasteful spending in the military, just like any other government program, it just gets swept under the rug more easily in this form. I am opposed to universal healthcare, just as I was opposed to Bush’s Medicare prescription drug benefit. I’m not comfortable with the government moving in in that department (I’m consistent with this, note opposition to this no matter which party proposes it). This is not a non-mainstream position, lots of Americans think this way.
5. Past R’s: Yes they did. Did I say they didn’t?

And sg again, so you’re saying if I told you whom I voted for you’d ignore anything I’d ever say/said and just refer to that, and assume I agreed with every issue the person I voted for ran/governed on/etc? WOW. Do you realize it’s possible to vote for a person and not agree with all their policies, and that this can continue while they’re in office? See, “Reagan, Entire Presidency of” for more on this. That is a great example with the general public.

I enjoy open discourse like this, but please refrain from making quick assumptions of people like is going on here. It’s close-minded and destructive. Be open to the possibility that someone can have strong disagreements with both establishments. I understand that it’s easy to misinterpret things in an online format like this (and I sympathize, because I’ve done the same thing) but I’ve got to draw the line somewhere.

apollyon7
.
Ok explain to me then since I misunderstood you (even though evidently I wasn’t the only one) why you used the number $400 billion at all since as you say it goes from year to year? Besides that you pointed out that it would be 1.2trillion in 2010 without noting that that figure would actually be $100 billion LESS than the deficit was when President Obama took office.
.
Secondly when have you known there to be inflation because of massive debt and spending in this country?
.
Third SS is not in anyway in jeopardy for the next 35-40 years. There is plenty of time to adjust either the benefits and or the contributions to keep SS sustainable. On the other hand if you had opted out of SS right now you would be walking around with the gas face. Thats one of the most secure things about SS and that is that you can’t flush your money down the toilet and then have to start all the way over. Now you say you don’t trust the governement to send anything in the mail but thats not true. You trust the government to deliver your mail everyday. You trust the government to run the military and have them ready to fight on a moment’s notice. You trust the government to direct your airplane safely past all of the rest of them in the air….
.
And that also applies to your statement about universal healthcare. Right now the government runs medicaid, medicare, and tricare for the military. You want to know if the government can handle healthcare, try to take that from any of its recipients and see the fight you have on your hands. Universal healthcare doesn’t have anything to do with the cannard of “some bureaucrat between you and your doctor”. Hell that happens everyday no matter what kind of health insurance you have. You don’t ever just walk up in any doctor’s office and get treated. They have to be in your network and then they have to get preapproval for some exams etc etc etc. People who are afraid of universal healthcare just haven’t studied up on it much in my opinion.
.
Now its interesting that you recoilded about me saying they should ask who you voted for but its interesting to me that in this day and age so many people who claim to “not trust either party” invariably end up being people who vote Republican. Kinda like Lou Dobbs or Bill O’Reilly who claim not to be partisans. So uhmmm who did you vote for apollyon? I voted for Barack H. Obama

apollyon07:
.
Please see my comments at 12:15 that directly questions your dislike for the government, and what to do about the current situation.
.
Dee and SG are right. There have been many “stealth” Republican right wingers who try to pose as something their not, but while sounding so, so reasonable, continue to spout inanely contrafactual sources and information.
.
Ergo, the reaction you got. Even I was guilty, and I won’t deny it.
.
However, your uncompromising hatred* of the government leaves one with little to work with as the government is the only angency with enough resources to address the economic collapse.
.
Read my 12:15 comments and also remember that a inaction such as doing nothing constitutes vast experiment involving some 175,000,000 Americans, many of whom would face certain disaster if we don’t do something.
.
And, I might point out, the two budgets issued by the Republicans are not even viable options. We could debate that, but if your hatred* of the government is that severe, what would be the use.
.
*This is your term for how you feel about government in general

“its interesting to me that in this day and age so many people who claim to “not trust either party” invariably end up being people who vote Republican.”
.
I wasn’t sure where you were going with your question SG but now I see. That’s an astute observation.

apollyon07:
.
Also, on the ‘Counting’ thread, I explained the ‘fence’ metaphor.

Social Security is called the 3rd rail for a reason. You touch it and you die. I believe the government should be able to force you to save for your retirement via SS. If it was left up to the individual we would have an enormous number of people who wouldn’t save anything if it was optional. The viability of the system requires that everyone pay into it. It’s currently projected to be a deficit program several years from now IF it isn’t fixed. The fixes are going to be politically unpopular and won’t be addressed until there isn’t another option. The cap is going to be raised and there will probably be some sort of means testing applied to benefits. These fixes are going to cause some people to howl. IMO, SS will never be optional because the government doesn’t want millions or tens of millions of people that are old and no longer able to work to be without any source of income at all. They know that they’d be on the hook because of the public outcry about how could we let grandma live under a bridge. The elderly would get taken care of even if they’d never paid a dime into the system. The governmemt knows it would be political suicide to let grandmas and grandpas be homeless and starve with no shot at medical care. There are homeless now, but the sight of millions upon millions of them everywhere is something that Washington isn’t going to risk.

billiecat: Imagine you had a dream where mom tossed a kilo into the woodburner and half the people on the block were standing outside pointing at the smoke billowing out of your chimney and sniffing the air.

sacredh:
.
That is absolutely the most cogent argument for involuntary participation in SS I have ever seen. I’ve always looked at FDR’s actions as standing between the US as the US and the US as India, but this aspect of Social Security?
.
I never considered it. Thanks!

Trusting the government… Okay, now we have a serious ideological disagreement!
.
apollyon07, were you a Ron Paul supporter? Just curious. And yes, I noticed the plural of deficits. But $400 billion is not the largest Bush deficit so I’m still unclear on why you cited that number.

53_3: Thanks. I was just venturing an opinion but I’d lay odds on that being a substantial part of it.

I’m really interested to see the fate of healthcare. The Democrats MUST pass that, or really they have failed. That is THE most important issue for the Democrats for Obama’s first term as President. If he fails that, then you can basically consider that he failed to pass the Democratic agenda at a time of overwhelming Democratic political power.

I’d be interested to know if they would be willing to ram it through with reconciliation.

As for cap and trade, well I think the support for that is far lower than it is for health care. As someone who is pretty pro-green policies, I’m still not that big on cap and trade given that it’s a really bad time to be weakening the fundamentals of the economy during a quasi-depression.

I used 400 billion a year as a general figure, of course it fluctuated. I should have been more clear on that, you’re right.

Let me again restate that I think the deficit is a pressing problem and should be addressed ASAP. And I assume I’m going to pay for this, but to suggest that Obama’s current and future budget plans will not be as bad as Bush is absolutely ludicrous. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if we continue on the predicted path Obama seeks to set us on, we will add 9.3 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. That’s not from Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, or any other right wing figure. It’s from the CBO. I know Obama’s is much more optimistic. Of course it is. He’d have to be a political incompetent to not over estimate the positive results of his policies. For the record, I don’t think there’s anything too wrong with this, a little optimism can be good. It’s just important to realize it when you see it. OF COURSE, this all changes if either: something completely unforeseen happens (unlikely to be enough to fix this, but that’s why I called it unforeseen), or we see a change in policies after this year or the next.

And on inflation? What do you think causes it? It is the broad, general, accepted consensus among economists that inflation is caused by the money supply/spending increasing quicker than the rate of economic growth. Stagflation in the 70s was different though, since a huge part of that was caused by the increase in oil, and thus fuel prices. Carter really gets drug through the mud for that one but that’s simply unfair, he couldn’t control the global oil prices. Not saying stagflation couldn’t happen, but I think what’s more likely is that as we start to get out of the recession, near-past decisions will cause a spike in inflation as unemployment goes down.

As for SS, the only thing I can think of is that we are looking at different numbers. When the Baby Boomers start to retire in 2011 is when it’ll all start. The estimated amount of people receiving SS benefits will grow from approx. 47 million today to 68 million in 2020. Over the next 25 years, SS spending will grow faster than the economy, possibly up to 150% after inflation. Now, the claims like the one you made that SS is sound is founded in the belief in the Social Security Trust Funds. These are, simply, IOUs that the government writes to itself. This would be like if I put 50 dollars at the beginning of each week in a jar to save up for a new television, and at the end of each week, take out 50 dollars and put in an IOU for 50 dollars. These “trust funds” that many people bank their sound predictions about SS on is simply funding that the government owes itself. President Bush himself said that these are represented by certificates in a filing cabinet in West Virginia. So, in the not too distant future, when SS starts to take in less money then it gives out (at least they’re consistent with this practice, with the exception of Clinton), there will be no real “trust funds” to draw, and it will start to go broke. Remember this when they all say “we couldn’t have ever seen this coming!” Yes, we could try to offset this with a hefty combination of mammoth tax increases and equally mammoth decreased in government spending. Besides being politically unrealistic, this would have a devastating effect on the economy. So no, I wouldn’t walk around with a “gas face” if I opted out of it. It’s not like the benefits given are nearly enough to live on anyway. Retirement is and should be an individual responsibility (unless you truly are unable to, which is a different story).

And no, I don’t trust the government for everything, but do I have much of a choice? Sometimes I do, when I choose UPS over USPS. But more often than not I don’t. Trust the military? Bang up job they did in Iraq, following a policy that most military guys were whispering would not work. Maybe they should’ve whispered louder. And airplane safety? It took an unacceptable amount of time to implement 9/11 commission recommendations. How long was it before they even SCREENED BAGS THAT GET STOWED UNDER THE AIRPLANE? How about increasing cockpit security?

As for healthcare, it’s pretty much agreed upon that Medicare has been a disaster, I don’t see how increasing it’s size will improve it. This is partly based on principle. Also, I just don’t think that the government could feasibly have 300+ million people covered. I mean, if they made significant changes, looked at things I have not foreseen, I’m not saying it’s not possible, I just at the moment do not think it’s feasible. And I don’t disagree that if I tried to take away benefits from people they’d be upset. That’s why they are called entitlements.

And finally, I don’t like to readily broadcast whom I voted for to people I don’t know personally (ie, HERE) because it inevitably leads to vast amounts of assumptions being made. Want to know whom I voted for? Fine. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary (for God’s sakes don’t assume I’m as extreme as he is or agree with all what he said, I’m sure you don’t agree with Obama 100%). I was attracted to his message about more freedom, less government, without the typical govt. smokescreen and sweet-talk. I did not vote in the general election because I did not agree with either candidate enough to confidently vote for either (especially given how many times they changed their positions on issues). I think it’s stupid to think that you automatically have to vote no matter what, especially since so many Americans are uninformed. I’m sure you all are ready to lay it on me for voting for Paul, go ahead then.

And I don’t hate the idea of government, just the one we have now. Again, should have been more clear, my fault. Obviously a certain amount of government is necessary due to human nature. Where we disagree is simply in the appropriate amount of government.

Now, this last exchange we had I thought was nice, nothing wrong with disagreeing, everyone is different. Open-mindedness, lack of personal assumptions and assumptions in general makes this much better.

I used 400 billion a year as a general figure, of course it fluctuated. I should have been more clear on that, you’re right.

Let me again restate that I think the deficit is a pressing problem and should be addressed ASAP. And I assume I’m going to pay for this, but to suggest that Obama’s current and future budget plans will not be as bad as Bush is absolutely ludicrous. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if we continue on the predicted path Obama seeks to set us on, we will add 9.3 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. That’s not from Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, or any other right wing figure. It’s from the CBO. I know Obama’s is much more optimistic. Of course it is. He’d have to be a political incompetent to not over estimate the positive results of his policies. For the record, I don’t think there’s anything too wrong with this, a little optimism can be good. It’s just important to realize it when you see it. OF COURSE, this all changes if either: something completely unforeseen happens (unlikely to be enough to fix this, but that’s why I called it unforeseen), or we see a change in policies after this year or the next.

And on inflation? What do you think causes it? It is the broad, general, accepted consensus among economists that inflation is caused by the money supply/spending increasing quicker than the rate of economic growth. Stagflation in the 70s was different though, since a huge part of that was caused by the increase in oil, and thus fuel prices. Carter really gets drug through the mud for that one but that’s simply unfair, he couldn’t control the global oil prices. Not saying stagflation couldn’t happen, but I think what’s more likely is that as we start to get out of the recession, near-past decisions will cause a spike in inflation as unemployment goes down.

As for SS, the only thing I can think of is that we are looking at different numbers. When the Baby Boomers start to retire in 2011 is when it’ll all start. The estimated amount of people receiving SS benefits will grow from approx. 47 million today to 68 million in 2020. Over the next 25 years, SS spending will grow faster than the economy, possibly up to 150% after inflation. Now, the claims like the one you made that SS is sound is founded in the belief in the Social Security Trust Funds. These are, simply, IOUs that the government writes to itself. This would be like if I put 50 dollars at the beginning of each week in a jar to save up for a new television, and at the end of each week, take out 50 dollars and put in an IOU for 50 dollars. These “trust funds” that many people bank their sound predictions about SS on is simply funding that the government owes itself. President Bush himself said that these are represented by certificates in a filing cabinet in West Virginia. So, in the not too distant future, when SS starts to take in less money then it gives out (at least they’re consistent with this practice, with the exception of Clinton), there will be no real “trust funds” to draw, and it will start to go broke. Remember this when they all say “we couldn’t have ever seen this coming!” Yes, we could try to offset this with a hefty combination of mammoth tax increases and equally mammoth decreased in government spending. Besides being politically unrealistic, this would have a devastating effect on the economy. So no, I wouldn’t walk around with a “gas face” if I opted out of it. It’s not like the benefits given are nearly enough to live on anyway. Retirement is and should be an individual responsibility (unless you truly are unable to, which is a different story).

And no, I don’t trust the government for everything, but do I have much of a choice? Sometimes I do, when I choose UPS over USPS. But more often than not I don’t. Trust the military? Bang up job they did in Iraq, following a policy that most military guys were whispering would not work. Maybe they should’ve whispered louder. And airplane safety? It took an unacceptable amount of time to implement 9/11 commission recommendations. How long was it before they even SCREENED BAGS THAT GET STOWED UNDER THE AIRPLANE? How about increasing cockpit security?

As for healthcare, it’s pretty much agreed upon that Medicare has been a disaster, I don’t see how increasing it’s size will improve it. This is partly based on principle. Also, I just don’t think that the government could feasibly have 300+ million people covered. I mean, if they made significant changes, looked at things I have not foreseen, I’m not saying it’s not possible, I just at the moment do not think it’s feasible. And I don’t disagree that if I tried to take away benefits from people they’d be upset. That’s why they are called entitlements.

And finally, I don’t like to readily broadcast whom I voted for to people I don’t know personally (ie, HERE) because it inevitably leads to vast amounts of assumptions being made. Want to know whom I voted for? Fine. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary (for God’s sakes don’t assume I’m as extreme as he is or agree with all what he said, I’m sure you don’t agree with Obama 100%). I was attracted to his message about more freedom, less government, without the typical govt. smokescreen and sweet-talk. I did not vote in the general election because I did not agree with either candidate enough to confidently vote for either (especially given how many times they changed their positions on issues). I think it’s stupid to think that you automatically have to vote no matter what, especially since so many Americans are uninformed. I’m sure you all are ready to lay it on me for voting for Paul, go ahead then.

Now, this last exchange we had I thought was nice, nothing wrong with disagreeing, everyone is different. Open-mindedness, lack of personal assumptions and assumptions in general makes this much better.

Didn’t see any posts after sgwhite’s post at 3:36 before posting. I typed and was about to send but got in the middle of something and couldn’t. And I apologize for the double posts, my internet connection is being unreliable today and makes it seem like my comment didnt’ get submitted when it did, hence the double posts.

And I don’t have a hatred for the idea of government, just the one we have had for a while. I should have been more clear on that, my fault. Of course some amount of government is necessary due to human nature, where we disagree is in the appropriate amount. This is really our fundamental disagreement.

apollyon07:
.
That is a very dense post (by dense I mean difficult to read).
.
However, you still havn’t elaborated on what government should do (or not do).
.
I’ve talked to a few people who are Libertarian leaning, one I work with, but one thing that comes clearly to mind is the ideology they carry (totally free market, no govt interference) isn’t a viable solution.
.
Basically, then, how, if that is not your ideology, do you propose that this be handled?
.
On SS, I find sacredh’s args compelling besides the ones I know already. I have massive problems with this ideology as it is both socially and economically Darwinian in nature.
.
If you don’t believe that way, state how, please.

apollyon7
.
First rule of fight club is don’t trust a damn thing George Bush said.
.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/72xx/doc7289/06-14-LongTermProjections.pdf
.

At the present time, Social Security revenues are greater than outlays, but as the baby-boom generation continues to age, outlays will grow substantially faster than revenues. CBO projects that outlays will begin to exceed revenues in 2019 and that the Social Security trust funds will be exhausted in 2046. (All years referred to in this report are calendar years.) SSA would then no longer have the legal authority to pay full benefits. In the years following trust fund exhaustion, payable benefits would be substantially lower than scheduled benefits because annual outlays would be constrained to equal annual revenues.

.
Those certificates Bush was talking about are actually Treasury bills. Definitely not worthless paper. The reason he wanted to concern troll SS is because every year Presidents take loans against the SS Trust fund which they are obligated to pay back and he wanted to use as much of that money as he could get his hands on for his own aims. Now this is from the Congressional Budget Office, the same outfit that scores the deficit for budgets. Somehow I don’t think they are just making sh*t up.
.
As for who you voted for I don’t really care as much to totally prejudge you but it is a pretty good predictor of what your thought process is and what kind of information you value and believe in. For all I know you voted for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul is batsh*t crazy in a lot of ways, especially when it comes to economic policy, but I realize lots of people were attracted to his rhetoric. Still the things you are saying are not main stream thought as most Americans actually want universal health care and a solid majority support the President’s budget.

And finally, I don’t like to readily broadcast whom I voted for to people I don’t know personally (ie, HERE) because it inevitably leads to vast amounts of assumptions being made. Want to know whom I voted for? Fine. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary (for God’s sakes don’t assume I’m as extreme as he is or agree with all what he said, I’m sure you don’t agree with Obama 100%).
.
apollyon07, sorry if I offended you with my question. I wouldn’t have minded at all if you had simply refused to answer. I just find it interesting to see how commenters’ ideological principles inform their electoral choices. There was no agenda behind my question.
.
BTW, Ron Paul is significantly more popular in progressive circles than any of the other Republican primary candidates. If I were trying to attack you I would have accused you of voting for Huckabee!
.
Ron Paul is batsh*t crazy in a lot of ways, especially when it comes to economic policy, but I realize lots of people were attracted to his rhetoric.
.
SG, I liked Paul’s policy more than his rhetoric. Unless you’re referring to his refreshing honesty… It was nice to see someone talk about the costs and reality of military imperialism. I can’t stand him personally though because of his ties to racists.
.
Still the things you are saying are not main stream thought as most Americans actually want universal health care and a solid majority support the President’s budget.
.
That’s undoubtedly true, but I’m not sure it’s relevant. Sure, apollyon07′s views are not mainstream. But so what?

rose83
.
So you want to abolish the fed and freeze spending? You want to stop funding education and leave it up to the states? You want ALL drugs legalized?
.
Hey more power to you if you do, but I consider those Ron Paul policy positions bat sh*t crazy and I don’t mind saying so.
.
As for why I pointed out that being against universal healthcare and against the President’s budget are not mainstream positions I was referring to this statement from apollyon in a different comment at 3:16.
.
This is not a non-mainstream position, lots of Americans think this way.
.
I am sure apollyon can take up for themselves though.

So you want to abolish the fed and freeze spending? You want to stop funding education and leave it up to the states? You want ALL drugs legalized?
.
LOL. No, of course not! Apparently you missed the “more” in this sentence: “I liked Paul’s policy more than his rhetoric.” Of course given how much I disliked his history of embracing racist rhetoric, it would be difficult for me to dislike his policies more than his rhetoric.
.
About “mainstream,” it really depends on how you define the word. What’s mainstream? Policies that attract 20% support? 35%? 40%? I don’t know. It’s an interesting question.

Just got back from the pub. Is it too late to apologize to my now-adult daughter for telling her to fork herself when she was fifteen.
.
I am starting to warm up to apollyon. A tip — notice the periods we insert to make new paragraphs, and our posts are usually shortish. Except for Stuart Zechman’s, but he’s sick with strep right now. (We should send him a card.)

joyomama: Unless the party in question is deceased, it’s never to late to apologize. You can do it after also, but then you’re bringing religion into it and you know how we get when that gets brought up.