Originally Posted by The Rani

...When I figured it out, many years ago, that's why I said adios.

With the months of exposure to the personal vendetta since the "great reveal," I, for one, can only conclude that you are having a very difficult time with moving on. Some possible options -

1. Leave KIA, shallow your pride, and beg Brian for forgiveness;

2. Invite them both for what I am sure will be an interesting threesome (even if KIA always insists on being the one sandwiched); or

3. If Brian's lack of interest continues, you and KIA start a unique thread under "Special Topics" - a couple of us will look in on it on occasion to toss in a praise or two of Brian so you both can have some fresh red meat (left alone without your personal MacGuffin, I would be concerned about KIA's ongoing survival).

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I didn't get your point about society being an organism either. Something tells me, I would have to drop a little acid to enter the proper frame of mind to discuss and understand your point. If you want to explain, I'll try to understand.

I'm providing this response not so much for Exile but for those that continue to engage with him in this regard.

Essentially, Exile truly believes that his microcosm will continue regardless of the macro.

For Exile, a simple analogy -



And for those trying to bring enlightenment, just know what you get when you pull him out of the sand -

Originally Posted by btl2283

I think that the Democrats view the battle over the budget as a replay of the Social Security privatization fight in the middle part of the past decade and their fight with the Republicans over budgeting in the mid 90's. In other words, business as usual for them, like you said. The difference, as you point out, is with the Republicans, who truly appear to be going all in this time. In a way, their strategy makes sense. The Republicans were already heading into an election that was going to be more difficult for them than 2010 due to the demographics of the voters that come out during presidential election years. Add to that their difficulties in the mid-west over their attacks on organized labor, public anger over budget cuts (people always seem to like the theory of "fiscal discipline" better than the reality), and the general anger over incumbents that always accompanies bad economic times, and Republicans were already skating on thin ice before their plan to basically end medicare blew up in their face.

Right now, to me, their best strategy seems to be to try to get Democrats to provide political cover for their cuts to medicare by getting the Democrats to agree to cuts of their own as part of a compromise to raise the debt ceiling or as part of next years budget. That way, the issue becomes at least somewhat of a wash with voters.

I'm beginning to think that events might come to a head as early as this summer when the deadline to raise the debt ceiling finally comes. I agree that neither party wants economic collapse, but the Republicans, as a political party, certainly have an interest in holding the debt ceiling hostage for as long as possible in order to try to get Democrats to agree to cuts to medicare if for no other reason than to save themselves.

The big question is if Democrats hold to their current position of compromise. On the one hand, agreeing to cuts in Medicare would hurt the chances of the Democratic party to retake the house and keep the Senate. On the other hand, incumbent Democrats might see an advantage in compromise because raising the debt ceiling is unpopular with voters, so agreeing to a compromise with the GOP would provide them cover while also averting a possible economic disaster. In addition they also might not fear voters in their districts abandoning them over their compromise because they represent solidly Democratic districts to the point that even if Democratic enthusiasm were depressed, they would still retain their seats.

I hope I am wrong, and that the Democrats can get through to the next election without being forced into compromising with the Republicans, but right now it seems like the path of least resistance for everyone involved is for the Democrats to cave. Like you said, the Republicans are behaving like a 4T political party. In most ways, the Ryan budget represents the culmination of the efforts of modern conservatism to roll back the New Deal that began almost with the movement's inception. It goes much farther than anything the Republicans attempted in 1994 or under Bush. Democrats still seem like they are stuck in a 3T mode. It will be interesting to see if they remain that way.

Nice to find an insightful post, particularly one on the thread's actual topic!

Here's an interesting recent poll -




Looking back to polling on the generic congressional just before the 2010 elections that saw the GOP capture the House and, at the time, huge momentum -



One can only conclude that the GOP risks losing nearly all indys and even a big junk of 'conservatives' if they pursue destroying entitlements. The Dems only need to keep framing it for what it is - dismantling the social safety net.

They need to talk constantly that simply doing nothing (allowing the Bush 35% top tax rate to automatically, and modestly, return to Clinton's 39% rate) will solve the federal deficit problem, solve the SS, Medicare and Medicaid shortfalls, and maintain our defense even at its current on-steroid levels. Oh, and they also need to allow the Affordable Health Care law to extend health insurance to millions of people resulting in 100s of billions of dollars being shaved off the federal deficit.. and gee, doing it without throwing grandma off the cliff.

I can't fathom why the Dems are not on a full-scale attack on this. Or, more troubling, how Americans have become such idiots so as not to understand these simple truths.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I am aware of that, which is how I know that you are prejudiced.

Prejudiced, my ass. There is no one who has given us more data upon which to make a reasoned judgment about herself than the Rani.

I'm increasingly sanguine about the future. All I really look forward to is a day when sanity and reality return to the way American society thinks and functions. It will, one way or the other. Either because people wake up before we hit the wall, or because we hit the wall and the whole thing shatters in a million pieces. Either way, we're speeding towards the wall.

People have been warned, repeatedly now about where we're headed. If they keep buying into what the Democrats are selling, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Some one wrote a few pages ago:

"The Tea Party Movement now looks more analogous to the Know-Nothing movement of the 1850s or the America First movement of the 1930s."

The Tea Party now controls the Republican House majority. It can rush literally anything through the House of Representatives. Its philosophy also animates state governments from Michigan to Ohio to Florida and a lot of places in between. Now the Know-Nothing Party did control one or two state governments briefly, including, would you believe, the government of Massachusetts in the 1850s, where it founded, if I am not mistaken, the nation's first integrated public schools. But neither the Know-Nothings nor America First ever disposed of anything remotely resembling the power the Tea Party exercises right now.

I understand that it is difficult for smart people to realize how powerful insanity can get in this country. Oddly, I remember having a related argument half a century ago, when my father and older brother were saying Goldwater was too right wing to be nominated by the Republicans. Somehow, and I have no idea how, I thought that clearly was not the case.

But the important point is that there is nothing on the Left in Congress remotely resembling the Tea Party in strength or enthusiasm. Boomer Democrats are wimps. I nearly lost it two years ago at a town hall where both my Senators were present, and I walked up to one of them and lamented that all the passion on health care was on the other side. "That's why we've missed Teddy so much," he said. I did not reply.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

What she said.

Thanks, Kiff.

You are very welcome.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm providing this response not so much for Exile but for those that continue to engage with him in this regard.

Essentially, Exile truly believes that his microcosm will continue regardless of the macro.

Yeah, you're right, PW. But there seem to be an awful lot of people who think that way, and it's hard not to take up the rhetorical sword against all that horsecrap.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I get the point. If rich people don't really "own" their stuff, then poor people have the right to take it.
I'm sure Exile gets it too, only he doesn't happen to agree with it.
Wonk is correct; we are all prejudiced. Maybe if I had no education or money, I'd want rich folks to support me too.
Or maybe not. Some prejudices are stronger than others.

But DO read my "Taxation != theft" post. Please!

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'm increasingly sanguine about the future. All I really look forward to is a day when sanity and reality return to the way American society thinks and functions. It will, one way or the other. Either because people wake up before we hit the wall, or because we hit the wall and the whole thing shatters in a million pieces. Either way, we're speeding towards the wall.

People have been warned, repeatedly now about where we're headed. If they keep buying into what the Democrats are selling, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Ditto, with only a change of party. Sad, isn't it?

Originally Posted by The Rani

The King of the Ignore List presents himself as an authority on prejudice. Will wonders never cease.

From Merriam Webster:

Prejudice: a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics [emphasis added.]

No one has gone on my ignore list before I had read several thousand words of theirs. You don't like me. It's not because you don't know enough about me. The same is true of the people here who don't particularly care for you.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I get the point. If rich people don't really "own" their stuff, then poor people have the right to take it.
I'm sure Exile gets it too, only he doesn't happen to agree with it.
Wonk is correct; we are all prejudiced. Maybe if I had no education or money, I'd want rich folks to support me too.
Or maybe not. Some prejudices are stronger than others.

The point is that nothing we have "earned" is from our own labor alone, NOTHING. There is a social context to everything we do.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

But DO read my "Taxation != theft" post. Please!

I get the impression, you would be willing to hand over all your wealth to the government to keep your social security check and your medicare and sustain your superior sense of goodness.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

But DO read my "Taxation != theft" post. Please!

I am getting tired of the stale meme that those of us who support a significant role in the government want to steal the hard earned dollars of working people. I think this is where much of the reaction to some posters comes from. We can have a legitimate argument about the proper role of government, but to characterize those of us who support higher taxes to pay for more government services as supporting theft and parasites gets old.

I view taxes as the price for the government services that are required for a complex society. And as for the safety net -- yes, people make stupid choices. If you are an 18-year-old from a middle class family, the consequences of your stupid choices probably can be overcome without too much difficulty -- you might have to go to the community college and then transfer to the 4-year-college, for example. If you are on the edge, a stupid choice can be devastating. Also, some people just have bad luck -- born into a disfunctional family, getting disabled, working hard at a low-paying job and then breaking a leg and losing your job, etc... I prefer a society that helps one another.

Originally Posted by Odin

The point is that nothing we have "earned" is from our own labor alone, NOTHING. There is a social context to everything we do.

So, in other words, you think you're entitled our investment earnings and you have a right to financially tap into our individual abilities to use our natural instincts, individual talents and superior minds to make more money.

Originally Posted by The Rani

A society that helps one another is a great idea ... but it does not equal higher taxes and more government services.

In fact, it quite often seems that those two things are in direct opposition, as manifested in reality.

People either recognize their personal responsibility and interconnectedness with their society, or they pay simply obeisance to an external structure which -- so the idea goes -- assumes that responsibility for them.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If people had to do a little community service before they got their welfare checks, to reinforce that point, it would be a great idea.

Why don't we invest in public works so these folks have jobs?

Here's a little Wisdom concerning "Promises" that was passed-down to me from my Ancestors.

The Lollipop Guy from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang(...and all..."Free"!)

Here's another one showing what happens to you if you take away the Revenue Sources(ie: Hansel and Gretel) for their Utopian Visions! Bewitched Bunny.(Me and my generous impulses!)

Prince

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

So, in other words, you think you're entitled our investment earnings and you have a right to financially tap into our individual abilities to use our natural instincts, individual talents and superior minds to make more money.

There you go again, thinking you are oh-so superior. I know plenty of smart, clever people that don't get anywhere. Why? Because THERE ARE NO DAMN JOBS, that is why. And the jobs that exist pay diddly squat. Also, as Playwrite as posted in several threads, technology is going to make unemployment an even greater problem as time goes on.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Here's a little Wisdom concerning "Promises" that was passed-down to me from my Ancestors.

The Lollipop-Guy from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang(...and all..."Free"!)

Here's another one showing what happens to you if you take away the Revenue Sources(ie: Hansel and Gretel) for their Utopian Visions! Bewitched Bunny.(Me and my generous impulses!)

Prince

Not sure I understand the connection. Will you share your thoughts on your interpretation of these cartoons?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I am getting tired of the stale meme that those of us who support a significant role in the government want to steal the hard earned dollars of working people. I think this is where much of the reaction to some posters comes from. We can have a legitimate argument about the proper role of government, but to characterize those of us who support higher taxes to pay for more government services as supporting theft and parasites gets old.

I view taxes as the price for the government services that are required for a complex society. And as for the safety net -- yes, people make stupid choices. If you are an 18-year-old from a middle class family, the consequences of your stupid choices probably can be overcome without too much difficulty -- you might have to go to the community college and then transfer to the 4-year-college, for example. If you are on the edge, a stupid choice can be devastating. Also, some people just have bad luck -- born into a disfunctional family, getting disabled, working hard at a low-paying job and then breaking a leg and losing your job, etc... I prefer a society that helps one another.

What you don't see is that there is a point when people begin to say or feel that enough is enough. For people like you, enough is never enough which requires more and more from us. The government itself represents an economic cluster fuck with a majority of whom are viewed as crooks. You're a college, dial down your emotions and start using your brain. Would you willingly invest in a large group of socially disconnected, looney tunes and fancey dressed fuck ups? You probably would if you could keep that paycheck coming, keep your retirement intact and live a decent life. But, if your not in that position your view would be very different. Hell, might even be able to reach the point of understanding. Eventually, the government issues are going to be resolved. The question is, how harsh do you want it resolved and at what point do you want it resolved. Do you want resolved after its face hits the ground or would you prefer we start resolving it before it hits the ground?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

In fact, it quite often seems that those two things are in direct opposition, as manifested in reality.

People either recognize their personal responsibility and interconnectedness with their society, or they pay simply obeisance to an external structure which -- so the idea goes -- assumes that responsibility for them.

Maybe it has to do with the culture of the Upper Midwest, but I have never thought in such a dichotomy. In the mindset of Upper-Midwesterners Government is merely the apparatus of society, nothing more, we don't consider it as something "other".

Originally Posted by The Rani

I was talking about people who can't (or won't) work.

If they can't work they would be on SSDI, if they can work to some extent but not on a fully "normal" way they they would be, like me, on SSI. The number who can work and don't is extremely small. NEARLY ALL people WANT to work, people don't like to feel like they are useless. When I work at the new thrift store here it makes me feel good.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Ummm ... Exile and you are close neighbors. You might need to get out more.

People with KIA's attitudes are relative odd-balls here. Even conservatives I know are caring and compassionate people for the most part and suport social safety nets.

Originally Posted by Odin

Maybe it has to do with the culture of the Upper Midwest, but I have never thought in such a dichotomy. In the mindset of Upper-Midwesterners Government is merely the apparatus of society, nothing more, we don't consider it as something "other".

Don't go getting too Uniquey-Special, Odin. Americans do propaganda better than anyone in the world; the fact that you have been raised to perceive an antagonistic other as being just another one of your guys -- to confuse the ideal theoretical of governance with the reality of the class that rules your lives -- is no more than a testament to that. Every successful-to-any-degree ruler, everywhere, aims to teach his subjects to think the same thing. We just do it really, really well here.

TL;DR -- read yer Orwell, sonny.