It's not that Social Security is in crisis, it's that it eats up a huge chunk of the deficit and my taxes.

Making medicare / medicaid more efficient requires a complete overhaul of our healthcare system to remove all the administrative overhead in providers getting paid. But are you going to chop out the hundreds of billions in cuts needed to bring things back in line?

Look, I posted the budget numbers back when Obama proposed his budget with the huge deficit in here that showed spending spiraling way out of control: budgets that spend 50-70% more than during the Clinton era. Going back to Clinton tax levels will NOT solve this problem, and won't even really come close. You're talking about needing to nearly double revenue to balance this budget. Cutting defense to ZERO won't balance it, it would just cut the deficit in half.

This is absurd.

It happens constantly. First, the amount of money put in to save banks, investment firms, hedge funds, etc is astronomical. More than any form of welfare we currently have in this country.

But it's not just the bailouts that went to our largest industries. We are constantly giving out corporate welfare. Look through all the tax breaks that certain companies receive that others don't. Or relationships/lobbying that causes an unfair playing field. I'm talking about no-bid contracts and such where we vastly overpay for things because of political connections. Just take a look at most construction projects or even the contractors we sent over to Iraq. Or when something like the Medicare bill states we can't negotiate with pharmaceuticals for the prices of drugs. That's welfare, plain and simple.

We give grants to companies so that they can profit off of what they built with our money. Take the telcos. They received billions to build much of our infrastructure for the internet. Oil companies receive grants for researching areas all the time. And when these companies do screw up, do commit crimes, nothing happens. They are truly above the law.

It's casino capitalism. If you want to argue that the middle to upper-middle class have been penalized, I'd probably agree with you. But when you get up to the wealthy, they have signifigantly benefited from our government more so than they deserved.

It has more to do with lobbying in Washington than anything. Changing to a system of high speed rails like the rest of the world means less reliance on oil. Too much money in Washington to lobbying against that and too many sheep willing to believe their rhetoric.

We couldn't disagree more re: "deserved", especially considering that (most of) what you're talking about simply helps tilt the scales back from the tax burden unjustly placed upon them.

The tax burden many of them have is thanks to unjustly earning money they don't deserve. You can't complain about the taxes you pay if you're not earning the money in a fair manner.

We disagree on what's "fair". Truth is, without them we're dead in the water. And exponentially more deserving of help than most of those who've gotten it over the years.

Without unnecessary tax breaks, handouts, no-bid contracts, etc, we're dead in the water? Or maybe we save a lot of money and give business to people who deserve it resulting in better results.

That's funny, given that the last bailout was $700 billion spread over several years, and that's basically just one year of the Social Security budget, let alone Medicare / Medicaid, let alone jobless benefits.

But yeah, I hated that bailout, too. For the same "punishing success" brought up here: failure was rewarded, by taking from the successful.

SS and Medicare are not welfare. They are pensions paid out after being paid into by individuals over the course of decades.

This.

Stop being disingenuous and referring to them as welfare.

SS taxes are basically at break even for 2011 budget year and have run a huge surplus for most of the past 25 years due to the "fix" from the Reagan era. None of the deficit or national debt is the fault of SS.

Now moving forward it is projected to run a deficit, but not a huge one. Even assuming the projected worst case scenario SS will pay out 78% of promised benefits in seventy-five years.

Now Medicare on the other hand is a disaster and nobody has a good answer on how to solve that with a politically viable program.

Not sure about medicare but studies show, on average, what a person pays in for SS does not come close to what is taken out. I don't disagree with SS (hey I'm going to benefit from it) but the reality is this is semi-welfare.

That's why it's also called corporate "welfare" when they get tax breaks and subsidies from the federal govt.

Talk about wasteful spending. China is going to make 16,000 miles of high-speed rail for $300B and Florida was supposed to make 85 miles for $2.4B?

This of course has nothing to do with China being able to pay workers near slave wages, making them work 18 hour days, and not having anywhere near the same safety standards we require out of our transportation system. Oh and that part about artificially devaluing their own currency. Otherwise the comparision works.

And I don't know if that is fair value or not. I know with government and companies involved, I feel safely that the company is getting major value out of the deal. More of that corporate welfare that no one seems to complain about.

Well, Daniels says he's not going to run for president. One by one, the moderates are dropping like flies.. (by moderates, I mean those who have a realistic shot at gaining independents.)

For the Republicans, this must be maddening. They'll still do well locally (the D's have so much more in play on the Senate election then the R's do) , but if they go hard right on the nominee, I think that independents stay away from them in droves (the Democratic advertising would write itself.. "Do you want the Tea Party to control all three legistlative/executive branches of government?") and that would have at least some down-ticket effect.

The two I truly think has the best chance of winning a general against Obama are Huntsman (who can appeal to moderates, since he actually worked with Obama, which is more then 90% of those in the party can claim with a straight face) and Romney.

I don't think either of them can win the nomination however. Romneycare is going to weigh him down like a millstone, too much flip flopping as well, and Huntsman is distrusted by the right of the right wing as too moderate, and the primary schedule means he'll be starting off with the equivalent of a 15 yard penalty in a 100 yard dash.

I don't know too much about Huntsman yet but he is a businessman and does seem to be a straight shooter which I like. It will be Ross Perot-like but hopefully a little more sedate, more professional communications, and without the "Admiral". He is a morman so that will work against him in the bible-belt.

I liked Romney also but specifically because of his orig stance on healthcare (e.g. I support availability of socialized medicine). Now that he seems to be backing away ...

I like Obama. He did away with "democrats are weak on defense" and he pushed through my #1 platform last year (healthcare). He doesn't get all the credit for the economy but at least it didn't tank again on his watch etc.

I can do without Palin for sure and other tea-baggers. I listen to Cain and he annoys me but he is a straight shooter.

As of right now, I think my burning platform is ensuring the health care reform moves on, so by default it will be Obama.

And to further backup the corporate welfare stuff, this is what I'm talking about. This shit goes on all the time.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos...federal_a.html

Panerd's reason #12,032 on why he is a libertarian...

Our state highway department just got done with a study about St. Louis traffic. Now I am sure in the grand scheme of things the cost of the study was not breaking the bank but the results will shock you...

-Travel times begin to slow down between 4 and 4:30 p.m.
-The worst time to travel is between 4:30 and 5:30 p.m.
-Travel times don't fully improve until after 6 p.m.

Next up a study to determine which months will produce the highest and lowest amounts of snow.

Except for the huge chunk of everyone's paycheck that goes to pay for it that could instead be used for some of these other programs. We can't look at one particular program and say "it breaks even because of special taxes". Heck, you get mad when we talk about the 50% who pay no taxes because we're ignoring payroll taxes.

We're looking at total government revenue vs total government expenditures. That discrepancy leads to debt, which leads to interest, which keeps compounding so it is starting to spiral out of control. So we have to look at all money that comes in along with all money that goes out. If we cut social security, we could also cut social security taxes, which would let you raise general income taxes, which could help shrink the deficit or pay for other programs.

And right now social security is a pretty big budget chunk.

Not very presidential, a little too casual but hey, I laughed at it.

Obama in Ireland: 'I've come home' - Politics - White House - msnbc.com

I can only hope he's dead. What a month. If Omar was in Pakistan, taking out OBL in Pakistan must have made him looking behind his back and around every corner.

Afghan agency: Taliban chief has disappeared - World news - South and Central Asia - Afghanistan - msnbc.com

I'm sure we can take the Pakistani's word for it.

And then you'd have no Social Security at retirement. And you'd have to realistically refund back to everyone what they've paid into it to-date in order to avoid the government getting their asses sued.

Short of that refund, getting sued would be the least of their worries. Being tarred, feathered, hung, drawn, and quartered would come long before any suit ever got to court.

This is true. As would the armed insurrection (omg...i have a feeling we'd agree on that. Fuck me sideways.)

Hey, it happens. Just because we disagree completely on proper means & worthy ends doesn't disqualify either of us from being competent observers of the world around us. And this ain't exactly a prediction that requires much more than an understanding of American psyche.

Hehe. And this is one case where I'd be there leading the insurrection, as would you I imagine.

Not a chance. We all know libs can't lead starving dogs to fresh meat. :D

Jokes aside, this conversation kind of points out why any abrupt change wouldn't fly. Truth is, there'd be plenty of both halves of the political spectrum preparing bags of feathers, boiling tar, and getting cocked, locked and ready to rock over anything that didn't involve at least a complete payback. It's that sort of broad reaction that makes it the third rail to end all third rails.

But it is different because the 12% tax was legislated specifically for Social Security first. It's the one program that has paid for itself and more over the past three decades. You can't say it's all the same when the law says it isn't. You can't take the FICA taxes and count them as a part of the general fund when the law says they aren't. Now if you want to change the law, go ahead and try.

SS isn't and has not been a part of the debt or deficit.

Isn't that the whole point of this entire discussion? How we're going to change the laws to fix the deficit?

And if we're going to stick to "realistic" fixes that people won't scream and moan about, aren't we doomed?

You originally said that SS was a big part of the deficit, and it simply isn't.

The last thing I read showed a 75 year projected SS deficit of 1.8% of GDP. Now that's not nothing, but it's pretty easily solved compared to the something like 7% of GDP needed to fix Medicare.

The shot term deficit can largely be fixed by returning to Clinton era tax levels and military spending. Unfortunately the Dems are too spineless to push for that and the GOP is more worried about remaking government. The long term deficit is almost all about medical costs, and that means restricting care or paying providers/suppliers less. The problem is that neither one of those are politically feasible.

Found the numbers in this article to be interesting. I certainly would be one that would like my representatives to vote down most of this aid and keep it at home.

It's All Your Money: Foreign Aid to Muslim/Arab nations - FoxNews.com

No more or less so than if we focus on those that are about as feasible as planting a grove of money trees. Plus, me & DT weren't talking about screaming & moaning ... unless you mean what Congresspeople would be doing after they're tarred & feathered.

I almost get a feeling that you thought he & I were engaging in random hyperbole. I'm pretty sure we were both fairly serious about the life expectancy of those who voted for (as the discussion somehow turned to) killing S.S. without giving the money back to those who put it in.

Indeed we were. And all of it back - in cash (well a check, but not some treasury bonds). With interest - figured at historical rates over time, rather than all at present-day rate (since AT A MINIMUM) it would have been sitting in the bank earning interest for me (realistically it would have been earning more, but there's no equitable way to assign what it would have been earning to different people, so I'm willing to accept a lowest-common-denominator).

Again, deficit = revenue - expenditures. I'm looking at totals here. But fine, we'll throw social security and its associated taxes completely out of the discussion here.

The last thing I read showed a 75 year projected SS deficit of 1.8% of GDP. Now that's not nothing, but it's pretty easily solved compared to the something like 7% of GDP needed to fix Medicare.


No it can't. The budget proposed was what, $3.8 trillion with a $1.6 trillion deficit? You are going to make up a $1.6 trillion revenue gap in one year by cutting military spending $400 billion and the Clinton tax levels are going to give you $1.2 trillion in extra revenue? That's 50% extra coming in from the people ($2.2 trillion in revenue INCLUDING social security taxes which we threw out above). I went through these numbers earlier (weeks/months ago when Obama first threw this budget out there), spending is increasing outrageously, cutting defense and going to Clinton tax numbers simply won't do it. They'll help, but they aren't going to cut the gap. The Dems are going to have to give on something, too. That's not saying the Repubs have been willing to budge on either one of your proposals, but still your fix is all about making the Repubs cave on their issues, no mention of a Dem specialty getting the ax.

I can't find your numbers, but I'd be almost certain that they include recovery spending. Once you take that out non-defense discretionary spending went from 496 billion in FY 2011 to 462 billion in FY 2012. In addition Obama has proposed a five year freeze on non-defense discretionary spending with a cap on increases at the rate of inflation after the freeze expires. That is estimated to save @400 billion over ten years.

Obama also cut 500 billion in Medicare over the next decade and the ACA is projected to cut the twenty year deficit by over two trillion. Reports say that the Dems on the Gang of Six were willing to agree to another 400 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade.

Obama and Senate Dems have also expressed a willingness to make modifications in SS. A small age increase and lowering the rate of growth in the COLA have both been discussed and seem to have support of a solid block of Dem Senators.

Now I'll throw the question back on you. What have Republicans either cut or shown a willingness to cut from their priorities?

I agree with Jon and DT. Cutting SS right now is not much different from having your bank come out and say "we decided this whole savings account thing just isn't working so we're going to just take that from you". Whatever your thoughts are on SS, how it's run, etc is irrelevant. The issue is people paid in lots of money over the course of decades expecting that money to be there. That's stealing from them and that leads to angry mobs.

I guess I just assumed that money would never actually be there when I retired, so I've always treated that as general money going to the government. The government steals money like that all the time (e.g. loterries that fund "education" really being used so they can send general funds elsewhere) that it's not something I've ever bothered with. I just figured everyone would be all upset that more "free government money" went away.

But then again I don't see any actual hope for any real reform and think we're just going to get driven right off this cliff.

Absolutely nothing. I was pissed off at how they handled the budget under Bush, and I think most Repubs on here were as well. I've said over and over again that I'm willing to give on defense and taxes, I still want to know what you're willing to give on. So far the answer is "nothing", or maybe "when healthcare gets fixed, it will all go away, as long as the Repubs have let defense shrink and taxes go up". Given that fixing healthcare also seems to remain a pipedream, I don't see you're actual solution working anywhere.

We have a $1.6 trillion deficit THIS YEAR. You re talking cuts over decades. So your numbers above saved:

$34 billion in FY 2012 on non-defense discretionary spending (averaging $40 billion / year over the decade)
$50 billion on Medicare (each year for a decade)
$100 billion on ACA (each year for 20 years)
$40 billion on Medicare (each year for 10 years)

Congratulations, we've cut $230 billion, only $1.37 trillion left to go! And yes, I'd love see Repubs agree to cut, say, $400 billion from defense. Now, what will tax increases do? We have $2.2 trillion in revenue now (including social security taxes), we want that to go to $3.1 trillion? 40% more revenue? I think we need a few more hundred billion here.

The numbers just don't add up without a major change.

Part of the massive deficit is due in part to the recession and extremely low tax revenues. That will change dramatically when the economy gets going.

Big +1.

This looks like a good chart:

File:Revenue and Expense to GDP Chart 1993 - 2008.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The huge spike on that chart is FY 2009 and that was under Bush.

Some of us realize that people of both parties do stupid things and that we're really tired of either side continuing to make a mess of the country. I could give a rat's ass who did what. It cannot continue.

I'm for tweaking SS to keep it solvent. I'm fine with the discretionary spending freeze. I'd love to eliminate farm subsidies. I'm sure there are a number of programs I could do without, but really the non-defense discretionary portion of the budget isn't where we need to make changes.

It really is all about healthcare. I'd love to add a public option and use the bargaining power of the government to reduce costs. That or limiting coverage are the only answers. While I have a preferred option, the problem is there isn't anywhere near a consensus with the public. The House GOP is going to get killed over the Ryan budget and the Dems already took a beating for the ACA.

Until that dynamic changes, yeah we are fucked.

But it does matter when the original argument was that Obama had gone crazy with spending.

It's totally depressing that regardless of political affiliation/desires, we'll all be paying taxes towards old people and financial promises we ourselves never made.

We can fight over the 20% of the budget or so that can actually be changed, but we're fucked on the 80%.

It's dangerous to make too much out of a three way special election, but it certainly seems like the GOP has lost a solid red district NY-26 due to the support of Medicare phase out. I bet there are a lot of panicky House members tomorrow.

When I'm making the point that any one (i.e. both you and the original poster) making it a partisan issue is totally missing the point, it doesn't matter. You and the original poster are both blinded by partisan politics. It's worthless and solves nothing. The time where politicians can make those arguments and get away with it is quickly drawing to a close.

Give me a break.

Of all people to claim to be free of partisanship.

He's an independent! Remember!

Some people realize the flaws in their argument and admit they might have previously been wrong. Some flog the same dead horse. Keep flogging that horse.

And some people are honest enough to admit to their leanings.

my thoughts on the special election:

It doesn't PROVE anything. There are several things that make it easier to decide this is not a bellweather event. (Tea Party Candidate, special election, Democrats have way more Senate seats "in play" then the Republicans in 2012)..

But just like the Scott Brown election here in MA, I think it's quite possibly an "uh-oh, we overreached" moment for the R's, and I think it could cost them next November (the fact that they keep doubling down on their plan that the public doesn't want doesn't help.. reminds me of that infamous Blackjack thread)

Recently, one Top Republican said "We have a message problem with the Ryan budget". It's my (possibly biased) opintion they do have a message problem. And that message is from the public "No, we don't want that"

Nate Silver notes that the Tea Party candidate had run as a Democrat recently and those that voted for him preferred the R by only a 2 to 1 margin. There was also a Green party candidate that grabbed another 1%. In a two way race, she would've likely cleared 51% in an R+6 district.

I cannot disagree. Wonder what is Musharraf's game ... doesn't he need us for asylum when 2 or 3 presidents down they go after thim?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapc...x.html?npt=NP1

A good sign I guess. Wonder what else they found.

Open Channel - CIA team searches bin Laden compound

I'm good with this, has there really been abuse of this recently?

Obama approves extension of expiring Patriot Act provisions - CNN.com

Wasn't it Musharraf that agreed to the US doing a unilateral raid if used against Bin Laden?

President Obama is validating quite a bit of the foreign policy/national defense work done by the Bush admin. This will reflect kindly from a historical standpoint, I suspect for both presidents.

He denied it when it first came out.

I think there's a lot of that with him - support and assist the U.S. privately, deny it and criticize them publically.

It's hard to imagine the U.S. would be so "whatever" about this if they had found Osama hiding in Syria or something next to a military compound.

I agree. He seems hellbent on revising history to make it seem like the U.S. did all these things without his permission when it was clear at the time that he didn't mind. Probably trying to save face with the Pakistani community.

And I sure don't see him turning down foreign aid from the U.S.

Wall Street’s Getting Nervous About a Default | FrumForum

They keep pushing the meme that it wouldn't be such a bad thing if we default.

Actually, I’m beginning to think this is a Machiavellian bit of strategy by the GOP.

Now, before you look at me like I’m suddenly spouting gibberish, or quoting the holy writ of the Tea Party, think of it this way…

There is one key issue in the 2012 election. Both sides agree, and that’s the economy. If the economy has recovered significantly by November 2012, Obama is pretty much unbeatable.

This is a bit of maneuvering specifically designed to slow down the recovery.. make Obama run “against the wind” instead of “with the wind”.
‘
They’ll stall, pontificate and threaten for every last moment of time, and hope that investors panic and send Wall Street into a fairly big drop (not enough to wipe out fortunes, but enough to take the wind out of the sails of the economic recovery). Suddenly hiring slows, large purchases and luxury items slow down.. at the last moment they sign a deal that has a little red meat they can sell to the Tea Party..

I know, it sounds ridiculous, and on the verge of “We can’t win in the current environment, so we’re going to change the environment even if it hurts the nation”.. but it could work. Stories like this are a sign of it.

For all the stock investors on the board, what are you predicting for the stock market and how would yo mitigate the effects?

Well, I'm not exactly Cramer from Mad Money, but.. here's the difference between a default (which basically sinks the US Economy, and basically sends the Stock Market into a crash) and the possible scares that we're running into

If I think there's going to be a default my thoughts are that I need to get money out of things that are volatile (like Stocks).

If I don't think there's going to be a default but I think they're going to scare Wall Street up until the last moment? Well, I may want to review my portfolio to see the level of risk I'm exposed to if there's a few "bad days" (and by bad days I mean multiple hundred point drops on the NYSE as we lead up to the "Drop dead date"), but that's always a good idea to be risk-aware).. but generally I think, unless the default happens, (or something similarly epic to wreck the economy), that the recovery will continue, albeit slower then it possibly could be.

(Obligatory disclaimer: I am not a licensed financial broker, and this is not financial advice, just as a CYA) :D

I wish the Dems were trying to educate the public on what the GOP is risking. If we get to the end of June without a deal things could get ugly quickly and it will all be caused gleefully by the GOP.

And if they "Educate the public" and cause the very panic they're trying to prevent?

I guess that's a risk, but something needs to happen to keep the GOP from driving the economy over the cliff.

They're wagering too, that the GOP is sane and won't actually cause a default.

And I assume any political bet made by the Dems is a loser.

I've heard a couple different things. One friend who is a Futures trader says things will be really bad. Will fall to 2008 levels and we'll see a trickle effect across the board for decades as our rating drops and we'll have to pay higher interest rates. The big fear being that we'll be dropped as the reserve currency of the world.

Still he didn't seem that worried and felt there were enough smart people around to avoid it from happening.

I still don't get how this would be a benefit for the GOP. There would be a pretty clear cause and effect between not raising the ceiling and the economy tanking again. You would see an immediate drop in the markets, perhaps a run on some banks/investments, and it would be all over the news. I think it would be political suicide. Which is why I think this is all just talk to appease a percent of the base that doesn't understand how any of this works.

It's not pushing over the edge, it's sowing FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) and pousing it to get every concession they can. Yes, it has backlash, bu I doubt they truly want a default.

Presidents vs Congress, I think we get the same story with every president regardless of party. For the Republicans on the board - is this really a big deal to you or just politics?

Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission - Washington Times

But my personal (right-wing) take on Libya is two-fold.

1.) I'm glad we support the effort to oust Ghaddafi, the age of Kings in the middle east is ending, so I support President Obama's willingess to support the "winning" side. While we may ultimately be supporting new regional caliphates to be set up in the old dictator's place, if that's the will of the people, than you can either support it or generate even more conflict with it. And with Libya being an oil producer, we need to pay attention to it, right? We've all basically agreed in principal that supporting our economy is the right reason to interdict...screw oiless Darfur and all that, right? At least, I haven't heard a peep about Darfur since Bush was in office...so I think we are all working from the same page. And I'll bet Republican's don't fault President Obama for moving in the right direction here.

2.) My problem is with the plan and on that basis, I agree with the congressional rebuff. A rebellion erupts in an oil rich state, we drop no-fly zones and wait. Eventually popular opinion turns against us and we fail to produce results or an exit strategy, global terror groups grow exponentially using our ineffective "policing" as a recruiting tool, and we have to put an end to the situation with a big "shock and awe" bang. Sound familiar? This happened in 1991 with the Shia and Kurd uprisings in Iraq. So far, the facts are that we just busted out that same gameplan to use with the Libyan uprisings. And the problem with the last presidency was "How is Bush, an ex-baseball club owner supposed to know how to act unilaterally?" And the current problem is "How is President Obama, experienced only as a small-time state senator, supposed to know how to act unilaterally?" Perhaps the will of the American people is such that we want more "buy-in" from Congress, particularly following the vastly unpopular executive powers implemented by President Bush just a few years ago?

I'll let you decide if what congress is saying is simply gamey or not...but what would you do if you were congress? Would you question Obama? Would you have questioned Bush? Or would you have wanted both of them to provide more answers and ask for more permission?

Congress is constitutionally mandated to declare war. It would be nice if they got involved.

To me this is business as usual - Congress always gripes about not getting notified when they don't support a war, and ignores notification requirements when they do.

Agreed, there certainly is a lot of business-as-usual crap going on, I just disagree heavily with the notion that this is somehow a new Republican-centric problem and the Democrat's are simply rising above it (at least the last few posts in this thread are certainly entertaining the notion).

That's certainly not what I'm saying. Congress long ago decided it was easier to let the President declare war so that they were free of responsibility and free to criticize without having to face repercussions.

Arab Spring still around. Looks like its only a matter of time (and NATO's will) that Gadhafi is a goner. Demonstrations still seem to be going strong in Syria, pretty interesting to see what plays out there. Yemen is coming to a conclusion/bloody climax now that Saleh has left the country. Let's hope Iran is next.

Power grab feared in absence of Yemen leader - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

I don't really know if we should be support Yemen's anti-government forces, they may be the same forces we are trying to take out.

Why we should care about Yemen - CNN.com

Sadly, I don't disagree. In addition to controlling the budget, I think the keys to the future are education and much increased immigration of the educated (which also acts as a brain drain for source country).

I've always wondered why we don't make immigration much easier for anyone getting higher education - PhD, Masters for sure. Its not as if they will be on welfare.

Decline and fall of the American empire | Business | The Guardian

Disagree with the point that porn=cultural decadence, but other than that there's nothing surprising in that article. We've long been in the "declining empire" phase (like Rome c. 200AD). Well not long, but...for the past say 15 years or so.

(My hypothesis) ... which coincides with the rise of the internet and offshoring of IT and services (and porn), allowing other countries to catch up much quicker.

D-Day was really all about ending Medicare?


Suck on that, Hitler!

I don't get why Obama doesn't get stronger on his support for what's happening in Syria. Its not as if Syria has nukes or is helping us in that part of the world. Is it primarily he doesn't want Syria to pull Israel into some sort of confrontation? This is probably the strongest opportunity to get rid of him and get rid of an Iranian ally.

Too delicate and inconsistent posturing right now. I think GWB would be much different.

Residents: Mutiny led to Syria security 'massacre' - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

I'm torn between staying and going but tend towards pullout. There will always be one reason or another to stay ... fairly stable, they have problems they need to work out amongst themselves now.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7584A020110609

President Obama would have more credibility if he had emphasized this two years ago instead of wasting political capital on some of the dubious legislation that he was pushing (health, climate, energy and Recovery).

Obama jobs council meets again - Jun. 13, 2011

BTW...Jeff Immelt is a f'n idiot. Train people for manufacturing jobs? As if qualifications are the problem there? If you formally train people, you are increasing their salary requirements (if they pay for it). If they do not pay for it...you are increasing the debt in order to train people to do jobs that can by in large be OJT & absorbed into the cost of the product(s) being manufactured (not to mention...using the government to hedge that bet...stupid).

Now, it isn't lost on me that he is talking about more complicated manufacturing than simply clipping refrigerator panels together...but first & foremost...we need a demand for it or else you might as well pay people to dig holes & fill them back in.

Despite my usually stance on government intervention...I firmly believe that world governments and the US money supply in particular is the only way to "correct" our economic issues at this point. Unfortunately...that requires inflation with the high likelihood of stagnant wages for an extended period imho. This is how we will all "feel" the debt burden. Purchasing power will decrease & people will need to make better choices. So long as there is public awareness of what this means...I see it being more manageable than we might usually believe of people.

Coinciding with this inflation, we'll likely need to do some things like roll back the Bush(now Bush/Obama) tax cuts as well as trim more fat from the budget and allow states to finance more social safety nets rather than an out of control & bloated central government which cannot be trusted AND cannot be easily corrected when oligarchy runs rampant (not that any level of government can be trusted..but local can be dealt with more expeditiously & does not destroy the entire country).

I've said it before a million times...but we are not going to solve our debt & economic problems without addressing energy independence. I'll spare everybody that speech but it is the first item on the checklist...and if we (the U.S.) addresses it boldly, other nations will follow. This will give us another 20 years of relative economic stability in the world while we figure out how to address the next economic disaster that will pop up at that time.

It won't happen with this Congress, but I'm a fan of a 3/1/1 plan. Over a decade cut three trillion in spending, spend one trillion on infrastructure/energy, and raise taxes by a trillion.

You're right that we're suffering a demand crisis and cutting trillions to quickly may only worsen the deficit. That's exactly what's happening in England.

I presume this is sarcasm??

I agree making cuts indiscriminately will cause unnecessary fallout. I think the key here is that you have to evaluate where to make those cuts, and even if you make cuts to services that we all might deem "necessary", that doesn't preclude a state from running a (hopefully) more efficient & targeted social safety net in its place. The difference here being that the state will need to balance this against the (presumably) new expendable household income due to the fed level cuts for such services.

Where I think everything gets lost is when we start talking about how to solve the "jobs" problem. Too many people in authority seem to believe that "a job is a job is a job"...and it simply isn't true. Building bridges & roads & railways, while certainly needed & worthwhile generally speaking, are not productive multipliers as they simply take money from 1 area (taxpayers) and use it to pay others (government contractors). They may end up being net-neutral (ideally...though not practically), but they haven't solved anything related to debt or essentially...the shortfall between export/import.

The multiplicative effect of making energy a net positive (or at least neutral) for the US is a good use of debt (and ultimately, quantitative easing so long as the dollar is the reserve currency). It not only cuts into the import/export deficit...which also helps to strengthen the dollar & offset the inflationary purchase power reduction; but it also reduces our need to engage in military operations around the world in the interests of stabilizing oil-producing regions...which reduces our debt as well.

So rather than fight over oil (and spend trillions doing so in the coming decades)...we spend that (monopoly) money on energy independence which the world will also strive for (if for no other reason but national security interest). But the world will not wait on us forever. Which is why I see the time to do such an initiative as being...oh, a few years back but at this points...ASAP.

I think we have to have both. Our infrastructure is crumbling and in many areas it's in desperate need of repair. There is a multiplier with infrastructure spending, too. The companies/people paid to do that work spend the money on other goods and services. I don't know the exact percentage of multiplier, but it isn't accurate to think a dollar of government infrastructure spending sees no multiplier. And that doesn't even get into the effect of quicker and smoother delivery of goods and services.

I'd also like to see a major push to repair schools and clean parks. There's just a hell of a lot of deferred maintainence out there that can get people working quickly. It won't fix unemployment, and most of the jobs should be temporary, but it will get money flowing and fix things that need fixing.

I'd like to put a lot of low skilled people to work doing that kind of stuff soon as well as build a more killed industry to keep people working long term.

Of course none of this will happen because no one in D.C. seems to give a shit about unemployment.

Didn't you just describe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...t_Act_of_2009?

I don't disagree with any of that...but I put those in the same perspective I put Health Care reform into. You have to solve the issue of excess outsourcing 1st & foremost...namely energy...before you will have the funds to do any of the other stuff effectively. Not that we don't do any conventional infrastructure spending short term, but it has to be more truly urgent-need type of stuff so that you can fund the things which will ultimately save us hundreds of billions a year. Once we're on that track...funding for conventional infrastructure will become more self-evident.

If only. There was too little direct work and too much in non-stimulative tax breaks. It was better than nothing, but it really didn't put enough people to work.

edit: Just to be clear, this was in reply to LS.

If you mean me? You are definitely mistaken. "Stimulus" should have been called an "Aid" package as it was primarily unemployment bene's, state funding shortfall aid, tax cuts, and "shovel-ready" (whatever that means) projects which have no strategic benefit to them long-term. The simple passage of "Stimulus" & the Health Care bill all but assured we would not be willing to do something so massive ever again...no matter who is controlling the House or Senate.

What I am talking about is a once in a generation initiative to make the US completely energy independent. That cost will make the Stimulus look like a waiter's tip. Which is why we will not have the funds for the more conventional infrastructure projects right away imo. It has strategic value to it, however, as we gradually reduce the outflow of funds (to pay for oil) and reduce our need to deploy militarily over foreign oil interests & stability.

I think we need to put people to work ASAP. We're @500 billion in tax losses due to the recession. Or to put another way, we lose each year more than was spent on stimulus in 2009. A critical component of any deficient reduction is getting people back to work to start making up the lost tax revenue.