BoatBanter.com - Winning elections is not good enough

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Winning elections is not good enough (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/124747-winning-elections-not-good-enough.html)

Winning elections is not good enough

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:35:29 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:10:01 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:04:53 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:08:32 -0800, wrote:

Scroll down to the total spending section. The agencies you listed
would still have to be covered elsewhere. What you're suggesting
cutting would be miniscule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget

I agree. You just asked what we could do without.
The only thing that will make a dent in the deficit is defense and the
entitlements.

So, then why do you think we can do without the other areas? The nukes
are in the DoE, but I guess education isn't too important either.

We managed to build all the currently operating reactors before the
department of energy. If anything they have stifled the production of
carbon free energy.

And, you don't see to care if they're safe or not. Certainly, we don't
want any regulatory agency involved. What total nonsense.

The only serious nuclear accident we ever had was on the Department of
Energy's watch (Carter Administration)
We did a lot better when it was being watched by an agency that ONLY
regulated nukes, (the AEC) not the huge bureaucracy Carter invented.

Oops... Ford abolished the AEC. Nice try. FYI, Carter was a nuclear
engineer.

We also do not have a clue how we are going to handle the exploding
entitlements. That is what is going on in California and this week,
Wisconsin. They have thousands of government retirees with unfunded
pensions they can't cover. The problem with the federal government is
80 million boomers entering Social Security/Medicare who want the same
deal their parents got. It ain't gonna happen but we still won't tell
them.

Again and again... this is a LONG TERM problem not a short term
problem.

Taxing the rich sounds like an attractive idea and I hope they do it
but it is still chump change compared to the size of the problem.
If you took the total net worth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans it
would still barely cover the deficit next year and you would have
killed the goose that lays the eggs because you would have liquidated
all of their companies.

The top 400 people make as much as the bottom 50%... that's what 100M
people vs 400!

I understand what you are saying but if you add up their total net
worth it is about 1.5 trillion.

And, they shouldn't be taxed, certainly not an extra 4%!! That would
be too much to handle for them, apparently.

They should be taxed more but don't expect that to fix the deficit.

It would go a long way toward doing just that.

It might help a little but the rich don't really have that much money.
I already showed you the total net worth of the Forbes 400 would only
handle our current deficit for about 18 months. Bear in mind that is
their unrealized profit on securities that the can't really write a
check for.
Get a calculator, go to Forbes and add it up yourself if you are
bored.

Go get a calculator and figure out how much of an increase of 4% for
those making over $250K will have on deficit reduction.

That money is not real anyway. Bill Gates has 40 billion in Microsoft
stock but it he tried to sell it, the price would drop to zero pretty
fast. Most of their fortunes are funny money ... like the SS trust
fund or the crap that passed for money in the mortgage business a few
years ago. It is paper people call money, until you actually try to
get it out and spend it.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make. So what?

Our deficit is far beyond what 400 people can cover.

So, you think that completely eliminating the deficit is that
important? It isn't.

Nobody ever said "completely" but it is 40% of all spending right now
and things are not looking better in the out years without some
serious changes.

It's about 10% of GDP. Not good, but not terrible, esp. compared to
the 1940s.

In the 40s we were the engine of manufacturing for the world. Right
now we import a lot more than we make. 24% of our GDP is simply
reselling Chinese goods. Where is this new prosperity going to come
from?

So, you didn't address the question. We're not going back on any level
to 1940-something.

(that is from a study from Harry's alma mater Yale)

That is also the fatal flaw in privatizing Social Security. You could
certainly see big increases in apparent value but that would fall off
pretty fast as soon as you cashed it in.
We simply do not have enough money coming into the system to support
the boomers. It doesn't matter it is social security or your 401k. You
still have 2-3 kids supporting each old person.

Defense spending needs to be decreased. Some taxes (on the top
earners) needs to go up. SS/Medicare need to have changes over time.

I agree we need to raise taxes but that does not fix SS/Medicare. We
simply have a problem with the number of retired people vs the number
of workers.
The only thing that will fix this is raising the retirement age and
trimming benefits but that is still the 3d rail. Unfortunately
business has used their pension plans to balance their bottom line by
rolling employees into pension plans and getting them off the payroll,
lowering the effective retirement age to 55 or even 50 when the real
age should be closer to 75 if you look at life expectancy. These
people are also taking their SS at 62.

It would be 30 years before that's much of a problem. There are plenty
of things that can be done. You act like withdrawing money is somehow
damaging to the system. It isn't.

We are already in trouble.

We are NOT already in trouble with SS/Medicare. That's just right-wing
fear bs.

Oh you believe in the trust fund myth?
Very few economists agree with you.

Really? Unfortunately, for you, they do. Try again.

That also helps the employment problem, on paper, by removing the
number of people looking for a job. We just don't know how you pay for
it. Yes I am a perfect example of the problem. IBM pushed me out the
door, on full pension, at 49. It is very possible, even likely, that I
will be retired, longer than I worked.Since they are not putting money
into the pension plan, it is also likely that it will go broke,
throwing it back on the government.

I'd suggest putting your money where your mouth is. Sounds to me
you're well enough off to do without some of the benefits.

It wasn't my choice. I was laid off. They said I could keep coming in
if I wanted to but they were not going to pay me anymore.

So, you're bitter about it. Sorry for your loss, but leave the rest of
the country out of your paranoia.

OK I will take your word for it. Everything is fine.

Never said that, but you're not willing to look at anything but
absolutes. That's intellectually lazy.

Winning elections is not good enough

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:53:49 -0500, I am Perfect wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:21:48 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Feb 18, 2:17*pm, jps wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:11:29 -0800, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:26:17 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:23 -0800, jps wrote:

You think using a majority to supress the people and
votes of the opposition is fair play?

Oh like the 111th congress? You folks said the republicans should suck
it up and go along. When they didn't you said they were
obstructionists.
Aren't the Wisconsin democrats shutting down the government?
Where is your outrage?
I wonder what their constitution says about legislators who abandon
their jobs? Perhaps the governor can simply replace them. In real
life, I imagine all they have to do is walk through and spit in the
lobby to demonstrate that they are still working.

We are going to be entering uncharted territory though. Nobody really
knows what happens when a state files for bankruptcy. How do they
discharge their debts when they don't have the money and they can't
just print it like the federal government does. Will they try to print
some kind of scrip and see if people would take it? Are they just
going to tell their debtors to sue them?

We better get used to questions like this because the whole country
has a "Greece" moment coming. I doubt our protests will be as peaceful
as Egypt or even Greece. It might be more like Warsaw 1944 except the
populace is better armed. *;-)

There's no "Greece" or Egypt "moment" coming. That's a paranoid
fantasy.

For some it's a sexual fantasy involving their big guns.

A true liberal, jps wishes violence against those he disagrees with.
Do the Libs really want to incite violence against those who support
the constitution?

Ah, yes, wrap yourself in the flag and the constitution. You'd better
because you've got no clothes otherwise.

Accusing libs of wanting to incite violence is laughable. It's the
knee jerk wingers who resort to threats and violence when they can't
win. Who are the idiots who open carry when the president is coming
to visit? Are those liberals or "conservatives?"

Who marches with signs about blood being necessary to keep the tree of
freedom alive? Those are liberals? For someone with a brain, you
sure have some insane ideas. If you're an idiot savant, your gift is
surely not in understanding politics or people.

One guy with a long gun, compared to this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsn...layer_embedded

Here is another "brave" liberal, attacking old women...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVFdaz_VUJE

Here is another advocate of "free speech"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDqG...1&feature=fvwp

I wonder if our friend Donnie was in this crowd?

http://www.breitbart.tv/hate-rally-p...ca-with-trash-
left-behind/

Plonk away, but these are the facts. Liberals including the one in the
Whitehouse are doing everything you have suggested above. Here it is in
full color. The best you have is Pelosi lying about something she said
happened on the steps of congress and one guy with a long gun that saw a
rally and stopped by as far as you know.

You keep saying the conservatives are the ones pushing violence and
destruction yet the video shows just the opposite.

Please show what facts you have that Pelosi lied.

I sure hope that was a joke.

No, I'd like you to tell me how you know that Pelosi lied about
something happening on the steps of congress.

There was at least a dozen cameras rolling, the slurs never happened. A
group even offered 150,000 dollars to anybody who could produce proof
beyond what Pelosi made up as she was threatening the folks at the
Capitol with the huge mallet, trolling for "B" roll.

That's not proof that she lied and you know it.

It is as much proof as Pelosi and the known activists she was with have
to the initial accusation. In fact, I believe the video tape(s) are
clear proof that she lied. Her story was destroyed several ways from
daylight, when the tapes came out.

Because a camera wasn't on an incident is proof that it didn't
happen???? I guess that rules out a LOT of things in life. The creation
of the world, to start with.

There were nearly a dozen video angles of that particular point in time,
from many vantagepoints. It is clear that in this case, she lied.

Bull****. Like I said, because a camera didn't catch something doesn't
mean that it didn't happen. You have NO proof that she lied about that
incident and you know it, or you should know it.

Winning elections is not good enough