The coming social disaster as best I can figure

SamIam • Aug 28, 2011 9:17 pm
House Speaker John Boehner’s budget proposal will change the face of the American social and political landscape - increasing poverty, putting hundreds of thousands of low income Americans out on the streets, denying medical assistance to the low income disabled and elderly, and eviscerating the SNAP or “food stamps” program. Boehner would have American Society regress to the era of the 30's as described by John Steinbeck in his great and tragic novel, “The Grapes of Wrath.”

Boehner’s plan can properly be called “class warfare,” and a significant consequence of this class warfare can't help but translate to racial warfare, as well.

As we all know by now, Boehner’s manifesto rejects all tax increases. A House GOP aide talking about the Republican members of the deficit reduction committee (“the gang of six”) said bluntly: “We appoint members to the committee, and we’re not appointing any Republicans who will vote for tax hikes.”

Instead, a $1.8 trillion reduction will come from “entitlement reforms and savings.”

This savings will be acquired over the next ten years by one of three possible methods – all equally draconian:

•Behind Door Number One: Cut Social Security and Medicare benefits heavily for current retirees - a form of political suicide that even extremists like Boehner will not actually contemplate.

•Door Number Two: Repeal the Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansions while retaining its strictures that cut Medicare payments and raise tax revenues. However, Republicans will seek to repeal many of those measures as well. (Yes, I am also confused by this last).

•Door Number Three: Completely obliterate the social safety net for low-income children, parents, senior citizens, and people with disabilities.

Absent any compromise on tax increases, there are simply no other ways to obtain $1.8 trillion in entitlement cuts within the next decade.

In addition (yes, it gets worse), House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s own plan would slash Medicaid and health reform by $2.2 trillion. Ryan would also cut $127 billion from SNAP and reduce Pell Grants and other student financial assistance by $126 billion. Looking for an education to get you a better job or pull you solidly into the middle class? Keep looking. And remember what happened to Oliver Twist when he asked for more soup.

Previously, core assistance programs for the poor were exempted from across the board cuts by the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law, enacted in 1985. Now, the “Cut, Cap, and Balance” bill will remove these exemptions. With an election coming up, which door are the Republicans likely to choose? Don’t all answer at once. The entitlement cuts will most heavily target the programs created for people of lesser means and, yes Virginia, less political power.

Meanwhile, the many lucrative tax breaks that benefit the wealthy and the powerful corporations have been pledged protection by Boehner who certainly shows great sympathy for the robber baron class if no one else.

Extra credit question: Who said, "This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community $60,000 during his lifetime. Fellow Countryman, that is your money, too."

a) Charles Darwin
b) Sarah Palin
c) Office of Social Policy’s “A New People”
(hint: “C” was translated from the German)

All of the above is written in my own words. My major source for the information came from the non partisan outfit, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: http://www.cbpp.org/files/7-25-11bud-stmt.pdf.

Piss poor attitude copped from Bill the Cat

PS This is NOT a diatribe directed at any member of the Cellar (unless John Boehner became a member when I wasn’t looking), but if thinking so helps you get through another night scrounging through the dumpsters, feel free.
Pico and ME • Aug 28, 2011 11:33 pm
I am simply amazed that this cold-hearted and altogether totally greedy mindset has taken hold.

It is really scary.

I just hope that once the masses have been totally downtrodden on, they will finally raise the fuck up and destroy all that the rich find valuable.
classicman • Aug 28, 2011 11:37 pm
Robert Greenspan is less than neutral. jus sayin'.

I don't know what the answers are though, so to comment further would be less than productive.
SamIam • Aug 28, 2011 11:53 pm
classicman;753221 wrote:
Robert Greenspan is less than neutral. jus sayin'.

I don't know what the answers are though, so to comment further would be less than productive.


*cough* That would be Robert GreenSTEIN *cough*
classicman • Aug 29, 2011 12:02 am
lol - thanks. I lost my original reply and retyped incorrectly. Freudian slip perhaps? Doh!
Trilby • Aug 29, 2011 6:29 am
Well, at least the uber rich will still have their yachts and diamond mines and foreign made cars. That will help me sleep at night - knowing they are safe.

:D

What is so amazing to me is that unless you are one of the uber-rich, you, too, could find yourself in need pretty damn quick. One illness like cancer or schizophrenia would wipe out most Americans (even with the recommended 6 months worth of salary savings) in pretty short order.
TheMercenary • Aug 29, 2011 9:03 am
Robert Greenstein is founder and executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a Washington, DC think tank that focuses on federal and state fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals. According to his CBPP bio, Greenstein is "an expert on the federal budget and in particular, the impact of tax and budget proposals on low-income people".
Greenstein was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship in 1996, and the 14th Annual Heinz Award in Public Policy in 2008.[1] In 1994, he was appointed by President Bill Clinton to serve on the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform.[2] Prior to founding the Center, Greenstein was Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service at the United States Department of Agriculture under President Jimmy Carter.[3]


According to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is funded by the Democracy Alliance.


The Democracy Alliance is a partnership of business and philanthropic leaders who commit to making make human and financial donations to organizations the Alliance has endorsed.

It was formed with major backing from George Soros


All from Wiki.

Democracy Alliance: Billionaires for Big Government
What’s Next for George Soros’s Democracy Alliance?

http://www.capitalresearch.org/news/news.html?id=551

The Democracy Alliance Does America The Soros-Founded Plutocrats

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/50576483/The-Democracy-Alliance-Does-America-The-Soros-Founded-Plutocrats

Quoting Greenstein is akin to quoting Glenn Beck as if it has validity to a political statement.
SamIam • Aug 29, 2011 10:07 am
TheMercenary;753276 wrote:
All from Wiki.

Democracy Alliance: Billionaires for Big Government
What’s Next for George Soros’s Democracy Alliance?

http://www.capitalresearch.org/news/news.html?id=551

The Democracy Alliance Does America The Soros-Founded Plutocrats

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/50576483/The-Democracy-Alliance-Does-America-The-Soros-Founded-Plutocrats

Quoting Greenstein is akin to quoting Glenn Beck as if it has validity to a political statement.


I had some trouble with your links, but here's what I discovered about your Capital Research outfit. In its own words:

wrote:
Since the launch of the Great Society programs by President Johnson and Congress in the 1960s, many thousands of nonprofit advocacy groups have emerged, often promoting more government welfare programs in areas once considered the domain of families, charities, neighborhood associations, and other voluntary organizations. The growth of government has increasingly supplanted the voluntary action and community-based problem solving that the great observer of early American society, Alexis de Tocqueville, recognized as a defining feature of our country.

Capital Research Center analyzes organizations that promote the growth of government and identifies viable private alternatives to government regulatory and entitlement programs. Our research forms the basis for a variety of publications.


It looks to me as if quoting Capital Research is akin to quoting Sarah Palin as if she had the validity of a brain.
TheMercenary • Aug 29, 2011 10:22 am
SamIam;753285 wrote:
It looks to me as if quoting Capital Research is akin to quoting Sarah Palin as if she had the validity of a brain.
Not nearly as bad as Greenstein and Beck... Palin is a figment of the left-wing nut media's imagination, she is no threat to anyone but her own future.
Spexxvet • Aug 29, 2011 10:28 am
While I dislike Boehner, the reports on the debt ceiling negotiations seemed to indicate that he was more willing to compromise than his tea party base. The problem ultimately lies with those who voted the tea partiers into office, IMHO.

SamIam;753188 wrote:
Meanwhile, the many lucrative tax breaks that benefit the wealthy and the powerful corporations have been pledged protection by Boehner who certainly shows great sympathy for the robber baron class if no one else.

You mean the corporations that pay little or no taxes, run by old white men who pay a lower tax rate than most middle class taxpayers? Where's the indignation? I bet those corporations have microwave ovens, refrigerators, and cell phones! Oh the hypocrisy.
TheMercenary • Aug 29, 2011 10:37 am
"General Electric is planning to move its 115-year-old X-ray division from
Waukesha , Wis. , to Beijing . In addition to moving the headquarters, the
company will invest $2 billion in China
and train more than 65 engineers and create six research centers. This is
the same GE that made $5.1 billion in the United States last year, but
paid no taxes-the same company that employs more people overseas than it does in the United States .
So let me get this straight. President Obama appointed GE Chairman Jeff
Immelt to head his commission on job creation (job czar). Immelt is supposed
to help create jobs.
I guess the President forgot to tell him in which country he was supposed
to be creating those jobs.
If this doesn't show you the total lack of leadership of this President, I
don't know what does."
SamIam • Aug 29, 2011 10:42 am
Spexxvet;753289 wrote:

You mean the corporations that pay little or no taxes, run by old white men who pay a lower tax rate than most middle class taxpayers? Where's the indignation? I bet those corporations have microwave ovens, refrigerators, and cell phones! Oh the hypocrisy.


:lol: Don't forget the air conditioning. The bastards have air conditioning!
Spexxvet • Aug 29, 2011 10:43 am
Brianna;753261 wrote:
Well, at least the uber rich will still have their yachts and diamond mines and foreign made cars. That will help me sleep at night - knowing they are safe.

And bejewelled

Tiffany & Company’s net income rose 30 percent in the second quarter, propelled by strong growth across all regions as high-income shoppers continued to be drawn to its jewelry and other goods.
TheMercenary • Aug 29, 2011 10:46 am
SamIam;753295 wrote:
:lol: Don't forget the air conditioning. The bastards have air conditioning!
Dan Rather once wrote in his book that the South only gained power as a voting block because it allowed more people to live in the heat. There may be something to it.
Spexxvet • Aug 29, 2011 1:30 pm
Interesting

http://acivilamericandebate.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/the-30-year-growth-of-income-inequality/
Undertoad • Aug 29, 2011 3:06 pm
SamIam;753188 wrote:
All of the above is written in my own words. My major source for the information came from the non partisan outfit, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: http://www.cbpp.org/files/7-25-11bud-stmt.pdf.


The Statement you linked to was released in July before the passage of the actual bill. Here is the Statement the CBPP released after passage:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3555

It didn't turn out like Mr. Greenstein anticipated, half the automatic cuts are in defense, and your original post is :yeldead: dead on arrival.

Also, "in my own words" doesn't mean barely rewriting the original and adding "grapes of wrath" hand-wringing.
SamIam • Aug 29, 2011 3:52 pm
Spexxvet;753334 wrote:
Interesting

http://acivilamericandebate.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/the-30-year-growth-of-income-inequality/


That is a GREAT link, Spexx! I can just see Merc's eyes popping out of his head should he happen to take a look at it.

Thanks for posting that! ;)
piercehawkeye45 • Aug 29, 2011 3:53 pm
TheMercenary;753293 wrote:
"General Electric is planning to move its 115-year-old X-ray division from
Waukesha , Wis. , to Beijing . In addition to moving the headquarters, the
company will invest $2 billion in China
and train more than 65 engineers and create six research centers. This is
the same GE that made $5.1 billion in the United States last year, but
paid no taxes-the same company that employs more people overseas than it does in the United States .
So let me get this straight. President Obama appointed GE Chairman Jeff
Immelt to head his commission on job creation (job czar). Immelt is supposed
to help create jobs.
I guess the President forgot to tell him in which country he was supposed
to be creating those jobs.
If this doesn't show you the total lack of leadership of this President, I
don't know what does."

The same can basically be said about Republicans who want to lower taxes to spur investment. Why would they invest in the USA over China or any other upcoming economy?
SamIam • Aug 29, 2011 4:44 pm
Undertoad;753339 wrote:
The Statement you linked to was released in July before the passage of the actual bill. Here is the Statement the CBPP released after passage:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3555


Thank you for pointing out an additional source of information that I had overlooked. I think both statements, the one On House Speaker Boehner's New Budget Proposal and the second on the New Debt Ceiling Agreement contain a great deal of vital information and policy proposals which Americans need to be aware of.

Undertoad;753339 wrote:
It didn't turn out like Mr. Greenstein anticipated, half the automatic cuts are in defense, and your original post is :yeldead: dead on arrival.


The OP remains very much alive. Here is what is stated in your link in regard to what can happen if the joint committe cannot come to an agreement:

wrote:
The joint committee could agree on a much smaller amount of savings without revenues, but nothing close to $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion. Thus, unless Republicans back off their refusal to consider any increase in revenues, the joint committee will fail to produce savings anywhere close to $1.2 trillion — triggering across-the-board cuts that are of unprecedented depth and will remain in place for nine years.

In key respects, then, this deal postpones the biggest battle over deficit reduction, creating an even more cataclysmic clash that would occur most likely in a lame-duck congressional session after the 2012 election. At that point, three huge events will loom: 1) across-the-board cuts in January 2013, with half of them coming from defense (amidst likely charges that they will jeopardize national security); 2) the scheduled expiration of President Bush's tax cuts at the end of 2012; and 3) the renewed specter of default if policymakers do not raise the debt ceiling quickly again by early 2013. Where all of that will lead policy debates and outcomes is impossible to predict at this point.


If anything, half the automated cuts going to defense only make the possible scenarios worse.

Undertoad;753339 wrote:
Also, "in my own words" doesn't mean barely rewriting the original and adding "grapes of wrath" hand-wringing.


Your critique of my writing skills is duely noted. What I was trying to do was to avoid a huge dump of cut and paste with never a word of personal comment added - a sin certain members here committ all too often.

And you don't have to like Grapes of Wrath if you don't want to, although I think its a shame to dismiss an American writer with the stature of John Steinbeck out of hand. :p:
TheMercenary • Aug 30, 2011 9:49 pm
piercehawkeye45;753355 wrote:
Why would they invest in the USA over China or any other upcoming economy?
How are they directly doing this?
TheMercenary • Aug 30, 2011 9:50 pm
SamIam;753354 wrote:
That is a GREAT link, Spexx! I can just see Merc's eyes popping out of his head should he happen to take a look at it.

Thanks for posting that! ;)
I never look at anything that tool posts, sorry.:D
classicman • Aug 31, 2011 12:17 am
This refutes EVERYTHING that spexxies link said.
TheMercenary • Aug 31, 2011 1:17 am
OH NO! it cunt be true!!!!!!!!! his holiness was wrong?!?!!??!?!? :lol2:
Trilby • Aug 31, 2011 8:03 am
I know how to solve this:

The Death Penalty for Parking Violations!

That'll fix your wagon.
HungLikeJesus • Aug 31, 2011 10:07 am
classicman;753643 wrote:
This refutes EVERYTHING that spexxies link said.


That was very worth reading. I would recommend it.
SamIam • Aug 31, 2011 11:22 am
classicman;753643 wrote:
This refutes EVERYTHING that spexxies link said.


And this refutes EVERYTHING: https://sites.google.com/site/icouldnotagreemore/
classicman • Aug 31, 2011 4:07 pm
That was just for you Sam.
SamIam • Aug 31, 2011 4:52 pm
classicman;753772 wrote:
That was just for you Sam.


Awww... Gee. I feel so special! :blush: :p:
DanaC • Aug 31, 2011 5:48 pm
That was a really interesting article. I admit my eyes slid over some of the numbers and graphs, but what I understood of it was fascinating :p

I don't know how else to look at that progression except as a result of the slow, quiet, and unnamed as such, class assault by the political and economic elite.
TheMercenary • Sep 2, 2011 11:36 am
DanaC;753793 wrote:
That was a really interesting article. I admit my eyes slid over some of the numbers and graphs, but what I understood of it was fascinating :p

I don't know how else to look at that progression except as a result of the slow, quiet, and unnamed as such, class assault by the political and economic elite.
Or the progression of class assault by the left who want to turn it into a class war. That is the only way they can win when the chips are down. How many times did we hear Obama and the Dems say that the Republickins want to take away SS? That is a bold faced lie. When in fact, no one ever said such a thing. What was said is everything is on the table. Sort of follows what his very own debt reduction commission published.
TheMercenary • Sep 2, 2011 12:11 pm
Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett triggered a major debate over taxes recently when he wrote in The New York Times that he should be paying more to the federal government. He called on Washington lawmakers to up tax rates on the rich.

But it turns out that Buffett’s own company, Berkshire Hathaway, has had every opportunity to pay more taxes over the last decade. Instead, it’s been mired in a protracted legal battle with the Internal Revenue Service over a bill that one analyst estimates may total $1 billion.

Yes, that’s right: while Warren Buffett complains that the rich aren’t paying their fair share his own company has been fighting tooth and nail to avoid paying a larger share.

The story of Berkshire's years-long tax battle, which is generally known in business circles, took on new life this week when a group called Americans for Limited Government (ALG) reported that, according to Berkshire Hathaway’s own annual report, the company is embroiled in an ongoing standoff over its tax bills.

That report, in turn, was cited in an editorial in The New York Post.

“Obvious question: If Buffett really thinks he and his 'mega-rich friends' should pay higher taxes, why doesn’t his firm fork over what it already owes under current rates?” the Post opined.

“Likely answer: He cares more about shilling for President Obama -- who’s practically made socking “millionaires and billionaires” his re-election theme song -- than about kicking in more himself.”

Using only publicly-available documents, a certified public accountant (CPA) detailed Berkshire Hathaway’s tax problems to ALG. AlG President Bill Wilson cites the company’s own 2010 annual report, which states at one point that “At December 31, 2010… net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million”, or about $1 billion.”

“Unrecognized tax benefits represent the company’s potential future obligation to the IRS and other taxing authorities,” ALG explained in its report. “They have to be recorded in the company’s financial statements.”

“The notation means that Berkshire Hathaway’s own auditors have probably said that $1 billion is more likely than not owed to the government,” the ALG report explained.

That $1 billion represents about 0.2 percent of the company’s $372 billion in total assets, according to ALG.

As Wilson points out, “On one hand Buffett advocates for paying more taxes, but when it comes to his own company’s taxes, he has gone through great lengths to pay less. That’s rich.”


http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520?s=al&promo_code=CF64-1#
BigV • Sep 2, 2011 5:49 pm
So the ALG's interpretation of the line in the Berkshire document is that Berkshire probably owes some taxes.

Are you suggesting that incorporated entities decline to take advantage of all the benefits of the tax laws available to it? Why would anyone voluntarily pay more taxes than the law obligates them to do so? Your citation says they had the chance to pay more but didn't. Ok, that makes them EXACTLY like every other person I know. I only pay what I have to, I take advantage of all the legal options available to me to minimize the taxes I pay, so do you.

And I'd like you to try to substantiate the assertion that Buffett advocates paying more taxes. What I've read is that Buffett advocates changing the tax laws so that those with more means pay more taxes. This story simply validates Buffett's point--the laws in place now make it legal and possible, indeed, compulsory for corporations to pay as little as possible (see fiduciary responsibility and corporate opportunity). Which, ironically, results in a lower percentage than some individuals pay.

Thanks for making Warren Buffett's point for him.
TheMercenary • Sep 2, 2011 8:05 pm
BigV;754152 wrote:
..... probably owes some taxes.....
... :lol:.... Dude you have to be kidding me?
BigV • Sep 3, 2011 8:59 pm
pretty selective quoting---

ALG's interpretation of the Berkshire document is __________


you kind of left that part out.

It's their interpretation. Sure, everybody's entitled to their opinion, you, me, everybody. In this situation the opinions that matter are the ones in the courtroom. My lawyers can beat up your lawyers, etc etc.

It's one article describing one outfit's opinion, and cited by one other outfit. Meh.
TheMercenary • Sep 4, 2011 10:55 pm
BigV;754346 wrote:
pretty selective quoting---



you kind of left that part out.

It's their interpretation. Sure, everybody's entitled to their opinion, you, me, everybody. In this situation the opinions that matter are the ones in the courtroom. My lawyers can beat up your lawyers, etc etc.

It's one article describing one outfit's opinion, and cited by one other outfit. Meh.
Absofuckinglutley...... So what's your point?
tw • Sep 5, 2011 10:45 am
TheMercenary;754174 wrote:
Dude you have to be kidding me?
A wacko extremist progapanda service pretending to be "Fair and Balanced" created half truths. So TheMercenary posts it here as if it was fact. Again to everyone outside America or too young to know an America where wackos were mostly silent (also called the KKK), TheMercenary represents the large numbers of Americans so easily brainwashed by soundbytes.

Why are wackos attacking Buffet? Because Buffet so accurately identified some of America's greatest problems. The rich are getting rich at the expense of all other people. Then these same 'rich' are buying those most responsible for their obscene wealth - wacko extremists Republicans.

One would think those who are not mega-rich would be furious. But some are that easily brainwashed by soundbytes. What is destructive to every American reading this is what TheMercenary has been told is good - by "Fair and Balanced" propaganda machines (and think tanks) masking as new services (and responsible researchers).

Deutche Welle featured a news report entitled "Why is the American Empire constantly at war?" Because so many Americans are now told how to think by soundbytes from Limbaugh and other "Fair and Balanced" extremist propaganda machines.

When do we find Saddam’s WMDs? Why did we all but protect bin Laden when wackos controlled the White House and Congress? At what point do the brainwashed discover history says they were obviously lied to – and still believe those lies.
TheMercenary • Sep 6, 2011 9:16 pm
You all need to remember now... this guy gave millions to Obama.
HungLikeJesus • Sep 7, 2011 12:07 am
tw gave millions to Obama?
BigV • Sep 7, 2011 2:22 pm
TheMercenary;754476 wrote:
Absofuckinglutley...... So what's your point?


My point is that a single hostile opposing voice does not a fact make. People talk shit all the time, as you well know. Doesn't make it true, just makes it talk.

You could look up tautology if you wanted to learn more.
TheMercenary • Sep 8, 2011 7:22 pm
Dude, if you ignore Buffet's failure to pay what is owed you have no hope in any conversation defending the liberal fools.....
BigV • Sep 11, 2011 4:37 pm
Dude.

Who's to say what is owed? There's a dispute. There's a question about the interpretation of the tax laws, such questions are resolved in court. Of course you know this already. It is the purpose of the court to decide which party's position is right. Until that judgement is rendered, the payment is pending.

You don't have the authority to say what Berkshire Hathaway owes in taxes, and neither does this Americans for Limited Government outfit. The court does. It's complicated because, surprise, surprise, the tax code is byzantine. The very kinds of things that complicate such points as "how much is owed" are the very things that provide the kinds of LEGAL opportunities to reduce Berkshire's tax liability. The very things that make it possible for a kabillion dollar corporation to pay a lower rate of taxes than, say, the secretary.

This story makes Buffet's very point that our laws are built in favor, OVERWHELMINGLY in favor, and to the tune of tons of money, in favor of the rich, and at the expense of our country. Thank you, TheMercenary, for highlighting Buffet's point that our laws need to be changed.
SamIam • Sep 11, 2011 6:31 pm
TheMercenary;755153 wrote:
Dude, if you ignore Buffet's failure to pay what is owed you have no hope in any conversation defending the liberal fools.....


Yeah, what BigV said.

And Buffet is only one person, albeit a rich one. His is only one voice in the debate.

And please explain to me why liberals are fools for wanting to protect the social safety net for the most vulnerable members of our society? Where is the wisdom in putting low income children, disabled, and elderly out on the street; depriving them of nutrition by taking their food stamps away; and refusing them medications and medical treatment by dismantling Medicaid?

The cruelty that will be unleashed on the poor if these cuts take place is indefensible. I would really like to know how you personally can defend such actions. And some cut and paste response is really not an acceptable response.
TheMercenary • Sep 13, 2011 3:38 pm
SamIam;755735 wrote:
Yeah, what BigV said.

And Buffet is only one person, albeit a rich one. His is only one voice in the debate.
Wait, where is all the wailing about "The Rich", the "Millionaires and Billionaires", the "Owners of the Private Jet Companies".... or were you just talking about the people who make more that 220k? Where is the outrage about Obama's relationships with Goldman Sachs, or GE and the jobs creation program they just announced in China, all the while the CEO sits on Obama's cabinet? The list goes on and on.... your outrage is misplaced.

And please explain to me why liberals are fools for wanting to protect the social safety net for the most vulnerable members of our society?
How are you going to pay for it? Oh, I know, redistribute wealth, take money away from people who busted their ass to live the dream and then just use the gobberment to snatch it away. What part of the US Constitution gives them that power?

Where is the wisdom in putting low income children, disabled, and elderly out on the street; depriving them of nutrition by taking their food stamps away; and refusing them medications and medical treatment by dismantling Medicaid?
Who says they are going to do any of these things so much as have a chance in hell of getting any such changes through Congress? Obama has been fear mongering Social Security on the population since the Debit debate. When he knows fully well that it is solvent for quite a few years. They only way any of this is going to change is if the people vote Republickins in lock stock and barrel. I don't think that will happen either.

The cruelty that will be unleashed on the poor if these cuts take place is indefensible. I would really like to know how you personally can defend such actions. And some cut and paste response is really not an acceptable response.
The thought that such cuts are looming is fantasy perpetrated by Obama and the fear mongering Leftists. I see it is working.
TheMercenary • Sep 13, 2011 3:39 pm
BigV;755728 wrote:
Thank you, TheMercenary, for highlighting Buffet's point that our laws need to be changed.
You are welcome.:)
TheMercenary • Sep 13, 2011 6:46 pm
Maybe Obama and his ilk can start by saving money here!:

U.S. Secret Service gets 2 new buses ahead of Obama tour

The U.S. Secret Service has two new buses in its fleet for President Obama to use on his three-day, three-state Midwestern bus trip that kicked off Monday.

CBS News has learned the buses were purchased in recent months at a cost of just under $1.1-million each and will serve as part of the fleet of vehicles the Service uses for all of its protectees.

In the past, the Secret Service would lease buses as needed and outfit them with the security and communications equipment.

"We have not been satisfied with the level of protection offered by leased buses," said a Secret Service official.

Last year, the Secret Service placed an order for two buses with the Hemphill Brothers Coach Company of Whites Creek, Tennessee at a combined cost of $2,191,960.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20092460-503544.html

There are an easy 2 million plus in savings, for a three day trip.
Happy Monkey • Sep 13, 2011 6:59 pm
From "it's unconstitutional to fund the social safety net":
TheMercenary;756084 wrote:
How are you going to pay for it? Oh, I know, redistribute wealth, take money away from people who busted their ass to live the dream and then just use the gobberment to snatch it away. What part of the US Constitution gives them that power?

to "don't worry about all the politicians who want to defund the social safety net; they don't have enough votes":
Who says they are going to do any of these things so much as have a chance in hell of getting any such changes through Congress?

Don't worry about the crazy I promote because someone will probably stop it?
Obama has been fear mongering Social Security on the population since the Debit debate. When he knows fully well that it is solvent for quite a few years.
I don't think it's Obama calling it a Ponzi scheme or a monstrous lie or a fraud. The most "fear mongering" he's done is say that checks may not go out if we default on our treasury bonds, which form the bulk of the Social Security trust fund, and pay for the administration of much of the rest of government.

Social Security is fine for decades if left alone. It's not fine if we default on our debts.

There are plenty of things I don't like about Obama, but in all of them the Republicans are worse.
Happy Monkey • Sep 13, 2011 7:07 pm
TheMercenary;756104 wrote:
Maybe Obama and his ilk can start by saving money here!:
Save money by repeatedly leasing, converting, then downconverting and returning busses? I doubt that much, if any, money would be saved. Not to mention:
"We have not been satisfied with the level of protection offered by leased buses," said a Secret Service official.
SamIam • Sep 13, 2011 11:34 pm
TheMercenary;756084 wrote:
Wait, where is all the wailing about "The Rich", the "Millionaires and Billionaires", the "Owners of the Private Jet Companies".... or were you just talking about the people who make more that 220k? Where is the outrage about Obama's relationships with Goldman Sachs, or GE and the jobs creation program they just announced in China, all the while the CEO sits on Obama's cabinet? The list goes on and on.... your outrage is misplaced.


First of all, I have nothing against the rich in general. You want to cast me in the role of a foot soldier in the Great American War of Class Hatred. Sorry, but I already burned my draft card.

I have said repeatedly on this forum that my major objection to the national political situation as it now stands is the fact that the Congress is mainly interested in amassing wealth and power for its own members, and that if you are an individual or a corporation who has the bucks, you can buy yourself your very own version of American Government which almost always is not in the best interest of the American people.

This means I am certainly very angry at the wealthy who play this corrupt game, but I an not angry "just because" at anyone who happens to be rich. I have also stated repeatedly that I am against the out-sourcing of American jobs. And frankly, anyone who makes it to the National level in politics has sold his soul long ago, and yes, this includes the President, as well.

TheMercenary;756084 wrote:
How are you going to pay for it? Oh, I know, redistribute wealth, take money away from people who busted their ass to live the dream and then just use the gobberment to snatch it away. What part of the US Constitution gives them that power?


Get a grip, Merc. Saving the social safety net is not the equivalent of a communist revolution led by some American version of Lenin. I advise you to stop reading Ayn Rand until your mind clears. We are not living through a 21st century version of Atlas Shrugged.

All we have to do is allow the Bush era tax cuts to expire. Now, I actually do know (or did know) some fairly wealthy people back in the Clinton era. None of these people were selling their vacation homes in Aspen or firing the au pair or the gang of Mexican gardeners who groomed the grounds of their mansions.

I have nothing against someone who amassed a bunch of wealth and now wants to enjoy it. I do think these people shouldn't object to paying a little more in taxes to the government and the country whose policies may it possible for them to be so wildly successful. And don't forget the hard working American citizens who were employed by these individuals and whose work ethic helped make that business or company a profitable concern. Maybe some of them later got hit a few hard blows by fate. It is only humane to help these people when they need it.

TheMercenary;756084 wrote:
Who says they are going to do any of these things so much as have a chance in hell of getting any such changes through Congress? Obama has been fear mongering Social Security on the population since the Debit debate. When he knows fully well that it is solvent for quite a few years. They only way any of this is going to change is if the people vote Republickins in lock stock and barrel. I don't think that will happen either.


The conservative right wing of which you are a member, has stated in so many words that they will dismantle medicaid, cut housing vouchers for the seniors and the disabled by 70% and cut the food stamp program. I have given you chapter and verse on these things earlier in this thread and in other posts of mine. They are printed out as part of the Republican strategy and anyone who wants can read these things for themselves. The documents are readily available on the Internet.

I don't know what Obama's game is with Social Security, and frankly, I don't care. Neither party will dare to make cuts to Social Security for my generation. It would be political suicide. Younger folks can probably count on Social Security being a very different program for them then it is for my generation. I feel this is misguided at best and will cause much hardship at worst. But there is little I can do about it. I'll be dead, thank God.

To repeat for the 100th time the programs under attack which constitute our social safety net are: the various housing programs administered by HUD - ALL of them. Medicaid which is the ONLY source of medical care and prescriptions for many of the 15 percent of Americans living below the poverty line. SNAP or food stamps which provide food not only to unemployed workers or low income people in general, but most importantly, their children. If some rich asshole objects to paying a few percent more in taxes to help feed this country's children, he should be deported and never allowed to come back to this country.

You put off my question of how you would defend these actions by doing a tap dance and saying it won't happen anyway. There is a chance it could. All Congress has to do is retain its current balance of power and it will happen. Again, please tell me how your attitude can be morally defensible.

TheMercenary;756084 wrote:
The thought that such cuts are looming is fantasy perpetrated by Obama and the fear mongering Leftists. I see it is working.


Yeah, that Liberal/Left Wing outfit known as the Congressional Budget Office, reported the following:

wrote:
In contrast, under current law, all spending apart from that for Social Security, the major health care programs, and interest payments on the debt is projected to decline noticeably as a share of the economy. That broad collection of programs includes ... the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as Food Stamps), unemployment compensation, other income-security programs, veterans’ benefits, federal civilian and military retirement benefits, transportation, health research, education and training, and other programs. Expected improvement in the economy and the caps on discretionary spending instituted in the Budget Control Act are projected to reduce such spending to 7.7 percent of GDP in 2021, the lowest level as a share of GDP in the past 40 years.

Thus, according to CBO’s projections under current law, even with the new constraints on discretionary spending, federal spending excluding net interest will grow to 19.9 percent of GDP in 2021—compared with the 40-year average of 18.6 percent. And the composition of that spending will be noticeably different from what the nation has experienced in recent decades: Spending for Social Security and the major health care programs will be much higher, and spending for all other federal programs and activities, except for net interest payments, will be much lower. Alternatively, if the laws governing Social Security and the major health care programs were unchanged, and all other programs were operated in line with their average relationship to the size of the economy during the past 40 years, total federal spending excluding net interest would be much higher in 2021—nearly 24 percent of GDP. That amount exceeds the 40-year average for revenues as a share of GDP by nearly 6 percentage points—even before interest payments on the debt have been included...

What do those numbers imply about the choices that policymakers—and citizens—confront about future policies? Given the aging of the population and the rising costs for health care, attaining a sustainable budget for the federal government will require the United States to deviate from the policies of the past 40 years in at least one of the following ways:

Raise federal revenues significantly above their average share of GDP;
Make major changes to the sorts of benefits provided for Americans when they become older; or
Substantially reduce the role of the rest of the federal government relative to the size of the economy.
The nation cannot continue to sustain the spending programs and policies of the past with the tax revenues it has been accustomed to paying. Citizens will either have to pay more for their government, accept less in government services and benefits, or both.


http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12413

Just a suggestion. Take a look at the original documents instead of some op ed piece or a blog written by some highly partisen author. You might actually figure out what's going on.

(Jeez, my reply was as long as something by tw :eek: Good luck to anyone who tries to wade thru it!)
Clodfobble • Sep 13, 2011 11:41 pm
TheMercenary wrote:
There are an easy 2 million plus in savings, for a three day trip.


And after the trip, they're going to light the buses on fire to ensure they can never be used again.
TheMercenary • Sep 14, 2011 10:25 am
Clodfobble;756156 wrote:
And after the trip, they're going to light the buses on fire to ensure they can never be used again.
Wouldn't put it past them...:rolleyes:
TheMercenary • Sep 14, 2011 10:29 am
Happy Monkey;756109 wrote:
I don't think it's Obama calling it a Ponzi scheme or a monstrous lie or a fraud. The most "fear mongering" he's done is say that checks may not go out if we default on our treasury bonds, which form the bulk of the Social Security trust fund, and pay for the administration of much of the rest of government.
:lol:Because Perry calls it a "Ponzi scheme" does not mean squat. Obama is the one who is repeating at every stop how the Republickins are going after Social Security. It's horseshit.
TheMercenary • Sep 14, 2011 10:30 am
Happy Monkey;756111 wrote:
Save money by repeatedly leasing, converting, then downconverting and returning busses? I doubt that much, if any, money would be save.


The fool could ride in a cab for all I care. You miss the point. It is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars.... for a three day re-election campaign.
TheMercenary • Sep 14, 2011 10:54 am
SamIam;756154 wrote:
First of all, I have nothing against the rich in general. You want to cast me in the role of a foot soldier in the Great American War of Class Hatred. Sorry, but I already burned my draft card.
You certainly wave the banners every chance you get.

I have said repeatedly on this forum that my major objection to the national political situation as it now stands is the fact that the Congress is mainly interested in amassing wealth and power for its own members, and that if you are an individual or a corporation who has the bucks, you can buy yourself your very own version of American Government which almost always is not in the best interest of the American people.
Agreed. But there is a difference between the rhetoric out of the Obama re-election speeches he is giving now and where the problems lie for a real world long term solution.

This means I am certainly very angry at the wealthy who play this corrupt game, but I an not angry "just because" at anyone who happens to be rich. I have also stated repeatedly that I am against the out-sourcing of American jobs. And frankly, anyone who makes it to the National level in politics has sold his soul long ago, and yes, this includes the President, as well.
Define "wealthy". But again I agree.



We are not living through a 21st century version of Atlas Shrugged.
We are moving in that direction with this administrations policy and the Demoncratic attempts to spend our way into bankruptcy.

All we have to do is allow the Bush era tax cuts to expire.
That is not going to fix what ails us....

And don't forget the hard working American citizens who were employed by these individuals and whose work ethic helped make that business or company a profitable concern. Maybe some of them later got hit a few hard blows by fate. It is only humane to help these people when they need it.
I have no problem with that. We need a net, not a crutch. And what we have now is a crutch.

The conservative right wing of which you are a member....
False on so many levels... :rolleyes:

.... has stated in so many words that they will dismantle medicaid, cut housing vouchers for the seniors and the disabled by 70% and cut the food stamp program.
Change, not eliminate or "disable".

I don't know what Obama's game is with Social Security, and frankly, I don't care.
It is fearmongering and demonizing as an attempt to gain votes and get re-elected. It is a scam....

To repeat for the 100th time the programs under attack which constitute our social safety net are: the various housing programs administered by HUD - ALL of them. Medicaid which is the ONLY source of medical care and prescriptions for many of the 15 percent of Americans living below the poverty line. SNAP or food stamps which provide food not only to unemployed workers or low income people in general, but most importantly, their children.
Everything is on the table. They have all made this quite evident.

You put off my question of how you would defend these actions by doing a tap dance and saying it won't happen anyway. There is a chance it could. All Congress has to do is retain its current balance of power and it will happen. Again, please tell me how your attitude can be morally defensible.
Why should I defend something that I do not believe will happen?



Yeah, that Liberal/Left Wing outfit known as the Congressional Budget Office, reported the following:



http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12413
This is an inditement of the current administration.

Just a suggestion. Take a look at the original documents instead of some op ed piece or a blog written by some highly partisen author. You might actually figure out what's going on.

(Jeez, my reply was as long as something by tw :eek: Good luck to anyone who tries to wade thru it!)[/QUOTE]
DanaC • Sep 14, 2011 11:15 am
Not that she has, but I have no problem seeing a little worker flag waving. There's been plenty of right-wing, anti-poor flagwaving on this board.

You're always the first to throw out the 'class warfare' accusation Merc, but you appear to be an active fighter in that war.
classicman • Sep 14, 2011 11:46 am
TheMercenary;756227 wrote:
:lol:Because Perry calls it a "Ponzi scheme" does not mean squat.

Ah, but it does when he is running for President.
Obama is the one who is repeating at every stop how the Republickins are going after Social Security. It's horseshit.

Yet the R's ARE going after SS and there is little reason to do so. What the R's need to do is look at the military spending. Something they will never do because 99% of them are in bed with, owned or profit from the companies which benefit from it.
TheMercenary • Sep 14, 2011 11:48 am
DanaC;756240 wrote:
Not that she has, but I have no problem seeing a little worker flag waving. There's been plenty of right-wing, anti-poor flagwaving on this board.

You're always the first to throw out the 'class warfare' accusation Merc, but you appear to be an active fighter in that war.


Liberals want to make this a class war, it does not need to be that. Obama has been waging a class war since the day he took office. I am an active fighter in the war against their class war...
classicman • Sep 14, 2011 11:48 am
Everything is on the table. They have all made this quite evident.

Bullshit - The R's have repeatedly stated No tax increases - PERIOD. I think I'm safe inferring that would mean that they are "off the table."

What military/defense/pentagon spending cuts have they proposed? What has pissed me off the most about the R's is that they have not balanced one fucking thing they want to take away from the bottom with anything at the top.
Happy Monkey • Sep 14, 2011 11:49 am
TheMercenary;756227 wrote:
:lol:Because Perry calls it a "Ponzi scheme" does not mean squat. Obama is the one who is repeating at every stop how the Republickins are going after Social Security. It's horseshit.
They are.
TheMercenary • Sep 14, 2011 11:49 am
classicman;756247 wrote:
Ah, but it does when he is running for President.

Yet the R's ARE going after SS and there is little reason to do so. What the R's need to do is look at the military spending. Something they will never do because 99% of them are in bed with, owned or profit from the companies which benefit from it.


To early to tell... There is no way anyone can tell who will be at the top. And in the end the the President does not dictate fiscal policy, Congress does that.
TheMercenary • Sep 14, 2011 11:51 am
Another rebuke of this Administrations performance over the last few years...

During the first hearing held by the special bipartisan panel, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf painted a picture of worsening conditions from just a few weeks ago, when his agency last issued an economic outlook.

"Particularly important given the current state of the economy, immediate spending cuts or tax increases would represent an added drag on the weak economic expansion," Elmendorf told the panel.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-usa-debt-supercommittee-idUSTRE78C40O20110913
Happy Monkey • Sep 14, 2011 11:51 am
TheMercenary;756228 wrote:
...for a three day re-election campaign.
No, it's for the Secret Service fleet.
classicman • Sep 14, 2011 11:51 am
not even close to it. They have focused squarely at SS. They have no other ideas that do not directly impact THEIR income/power/cronies.
glatt • Sep 14, 2011 12:22 pm
Merc, It amuses me that in post 59 you say the President doesn't control fiscal policy, and then 2 minutes later in post 60, you blame the President again for the economy.
TheMercenary • Sep 14, 2011 1:07 pm
glatt;756265 wrote:
Merc, It amuses me that in post 59 you say the President doesn't control fiscal policy, and then 2 minutes later in post 60, you blame the President again for the economy.


The Demoncratic majority and a Demoncratic President had the opportunity to do pretty much anything they wanted. And it amuses me how they still want to blame thier failures on Bush. Pelosi, Reid, and Obama Rhammed a boondogle Stimulus Bill with the war cry of "Millions of Shovel Ready Jobs!"; how'd that work out for them? I don't just blame Obama, I blame all three of them.
TheMercenary • Sep 14, 2011 1:50 pm
classicman;756249 wrote:
Bullshit - The R's have repeatedly stated No tax increases - PERIOD. I think I'm safe inferring that would mean that they are "off the table."
I don't think they all think like that. I would hope that at least Obama would have considered the recommendations of HIS Debit Commission proposals.... He did not, and he has showed that he is no different from the Repbulickins.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/03/news/economy/fiscal_commission_plan_breakdown/index.htm



[quote]What military/defense/pentagon spending cuts have they proposed?
Not proposed, agreed to. $350 Billion in cuts agreed to in the latest round of the Debit reduction agreement.

http://www.businessinsider.com/defense-cuts-one-trillion-2011-8

[quote]What has pissed me off the most about the R's is that they have not balanced one fucking thing they want to take away from the bottom with anything at the top.
I agree there has to be a balanced approach. They can start by lowering the tax rates and elimination of the loopholes and deductions. Flaten the tax schedule out and make sure everyone pays thier share.
TheMercenary • Sep 14, 2011 2:23 pm
Obama proposes cuts to Medicare and Social Security...

WASHINGTON -- In his jobs speech before Congress Thursday night, President Barack Obama appeared to call on congressional Democrats to cut Medicare, a politically toxic proposal that undercuts a previous Democratic campaign strategy.

Obama pushed to cut Medicare during the debate over raising the federal debt ceiling, urging lawmakers from both parties to accept a "grand bargain" that involved cutting both Social Security and Medicare.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/08/obama-medicare-cuts-jobs-speech_n_954840.html
SamIam • Sep 14, 2011 2:54 pm
TheMercenary;756235 wrote:
You certainly wave the banners every chance you get.


If stating that the Bush era tax cuts be allowed to expire and that those in the upper income brackets pay more in taxes then they now do is "waving the banners of class warfare," so be it.

However, actual class welfare would consist of things like nationalizing all the big corporations, including agribusiness, confiscating the bank accounts of anyone above a certain income and so forth. Take a look at what happened under various communist regimes beginning with Russia and get real. :right:

TheMercenary;756235 wrote:
Agreed. But there is a difference between the rhetoric out of the Obama re-election speeches he is giving now and where the problems lie for a real world long term solution.


And the same is true of the various right wing candidates. The country is polarized and no would-be leader is offering a viable solution that I can see. America is suffering from an absence of leadership, imagination and innovation, and it couldn't be happening at a worse time for the country. Pouring all this vitriol on Obama while ignoring most of the sins of the right, is taking partisanship to the point of the absurd.

TheMercenary;756235 wrote:
Define "wealthy". But again I agree.


For the sake of the argument I was making, "wealthy" would mean any person or entity who can afford to make very generous donations to both sides of the aisle to ensure that their particular agenda will be carried out, regardless of election outcomes.

TheMercenary;756235 wrote:
I have no problem with that. We need a net, not a crutch. And what we have now is a crutch.


Oh, bullshit! What we have now allows those at 125% below the poverty level to barely scrape by. Most places have a two year or longer wait for housing vouchers. If you are homeless, you step to the end of the line like everyone else. In my county, elderly people whose income is less than $1000/mo from social security get a grand total of $10 a month in food stamps. County public transportation for seniors and disabled who need a ride to their doctor appointments has been cut by 40%.

With the continued cuts in Medicaid reimbursements, no doctor in my town any longer accepts new Medicaid patients. People are forced to travel 20 miles to the town of Dolores (well-named) to get treatment at a low income rural clinic. How they get to Dolores is beyond me - maybe they hitch hike. I could go on and on. You need to step out of your ivory tower and take a look at the real world.

TheMercenary;756235 wrote:
False on so many levels... :rolleyes:


Please read the report that I quoted from the CBO. "Spending will be at its lowest level in 40 years." :rtfm:


TheMercenary;756235 wrote:
Why should I defend something that I do not believe will happen?


This question is so disingenuous, it scarcely deserves a response. You have stated repeatedly that you are in favor of cuts to social programs. You need to stand up for this opinion or stop repeating it. I can say that I'm in favor of taxing the upper 5% in wealth at 99% and closing all their tax loop holes, but since that probably won't happen, I don't have to explain my reasoning.

Your reply is a cop out and you know it.

TheMercenary;756235 wrote:
This is an inditement of the current administration.


:dedhorse: Now, I have lost all patience with you. You wouldn't read any material that doesn't support your agenda if your life depended on it.
TheMercenary • Sep 14, 2011 5:39 pm
Good enough.
Happy Monkey • Sep 19, 2011 12:11 pm
TheMercenary;756084 wrote:
Who says they are going to do any of these things so much as have a chance in hell of getting any such changes through Congress?
.Image
TheMercenary • Sep 20, 2011 5:20 pm
Obama's plan.
Lamplighter • Sep 27, 2011 4:33 pm
Source: ModernHealthCare.com
Public doubtful on prospects for cutting deficit, Kaiser poll finds
By Jessica Zigmond
Posted: September 23, 2011 - 1:00 pm ET

The American public has considerable doubts that the
Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction will be able to draft a proposal
to cut $1.2 trillion from the federal deficit that Congress would pass,
according to a Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking Poll.

“When asked about specific areas where the supercommittee might recommend cuts,
more than half the public says they would not support any reductions to spending
on Social Security (58%) or Medicare (51%)
,” the report noted.
“Almost half (46%) say the same about Medicaid,
while 38% would support minor reductions and just 16% want major reductions in Medicaid spending.”


When GW Bush created the Medicare Part D Drugs program,
it was "not funded" and so is now a significant part of the US deficit.
Republicans are adamant they will not raise taxes.
Democrats are adamant they will not cut Medicare.

I have a proposal that just might pass muster in this present day Congress,
because it would not raise taxes, and would lower Medicare costs for years into the future.
I'm convinced this one "little" change could drop Medicare drug costs significantly:

Change that part of the Medicare Part D Drug program law that forbids
Medicare from negotiating prices with the drug manufacturers.


My wife and I use a non-profit Medicare provider (Kaiser Permanente)
We have seen the non-Part D drugs get lower in price,
but Part D drugs are being gouged.

For example...and these are Kaiser prices
' a vaccine that was 11 cents/dose is now $172
' an asthma inhaler that was $19 is now $132
' an hormone replacement that was $65 is now $215.90
classicman • Sep 27, 2011 5:04 pm
Wholeheartedly agree. Well said/written/posted.
Limiting the Gov't from negotiating is removing the largest advantage the largest purchaser has. How stupid is that? VERY.
BigV • Sep 27, 2011 8:08 pm
classicman;758933 wrote:
Wholeheartedly agree. Well said/written/posted.
Limiting the Gov't from negotiating is removing the largest advantage the largest purchaser has. How stupid is that? VERY.


Not if you are Big Pharma.

Putting your lobbying dollars to work benefits the companies, the law was written to specifically benefit the drug companies. Now, some will loudly protest that reducing their profits will stifle drug development, that changes like the one Lamplighter proposes will reduce their profits and everyone who owns a share of xyz pharmaceutical company will be (mis)informed that the government is trying to steal your money! Or, that the income redistribution revolution has begun, they're stealing YOUR MONEY!

I agree that the provision forbidding the government from negotiating is FUCKING STUPID. It is a gold plated invitation to abuse, just as the no-bid contracts were in the Iraq/Gulf war. More bullshit.
Pico and ME • Sep 27, 2011 8:48 pm
It is proof positive who actually runs our government, wouldn't you say?
BigV • Sep 27, 2011 9:56 pm
Pico and ME;758963 wrote:
It is proof positive who actually runs our government, wouldn't you say?


Well.

You bring up the very heart of the matter.

As class warfare-y as it sounds, "they" have the money and "we" have the votes.

Money buys influence, both on Capitol Hill and in the hearts and minds of the populace, especially in our media. Money can't invent truth, money can't create a different arithmetic. Money can, and often does, distract from the truth. Money can buy words, lots and lots and lots and lots of words. All kinds of words, true words and false words.

Make no mistake, false words can be just as effective as true words, sometimes more so. I read a lovely little story about LBJ today. As the story goes, during his election campaign, he told his staff to put the word out that his opponent has sex with barnyard animals. When his staffers pointed out that this wasn't true, LBJ was reported to have said "Make the bastard deny it." Words have power.

Words have power, but only so far as they cause our votes to move one way or another. Not just our votes but the votes of our lawmakers at every level. It is possible to vote in favor of one's interest, it is easy to vote against one's own interest. Voting's hard, and it is imprecise. And it's ongoing. These laws don't just get made every four or six or two years, they're happening all the time. But it's extremely difficult to keep track of what's going on, even the public stuff. I'm not even talking about actual corruption, which exists, but is... beyond my capacity to investigate, fact check, discuss, expose, etc. *sigh*.

But you do have your vote. You have your intelligence. You have your voice. You, and I, have our opportunity, nay, our obligation, to be informed citizens so that our elected representatives actually represent *US*.
classicman • Sep 27, 2011 9:59 pm
BigV;758958 wrote:
is FUCKING STUPID. It is a gold plated invitation to abuse,
just as the no-bid contracts STILL ARE in the Iraq/Gulf war. More bullshit.


ftfy
classicman • Sep 30, 2011 12:31 am
..
BigV • Sep 30, 2011 12:40 am
"Entitlement" is like "death tax". It's a misleading lie. I hate the lying behind the use of that word.
classicman • Sep 30, 2011 12:50 am
sigh
classicman • Oct 19, 2011 1:29 am
~~
Undertoad • Oct 19, 2011 10:25 am
Image
ZenGum • Oct 19, 2011 10:36 pm
But UT, the louder you say it, the truer it is!
TheMercenary • Oct 20, 2011 6:06 am
ZenGum;765417 wrote:
But UT, the louder you say it, the truer it is!


I can't hear you, can you make your text a little bigger and maybe put some color in it?:angel: