Originally Posted by playwrite

The majority of Americans want two of the three primary functions of the federal government - big insurance program and a huge army. I would guess once they see the consequences of not extending the debt ceiling, they will also want that third function of consistent debt payer.

These three primary functions make up over 4/5's of what the federal government does and what our federal taxes pay for. The vast majority of Americans either wants hands-off or some relative minor tinkering. If you, on the other hand, want to dismantle these things, or call it socialistic, fascist, or red pinko communism destroying freedom fries - well, then, it is you who are in a tiny minority.

Perhaps you should consider leaving because whether the GOP regroups and again pulls the wool over your eyes that we can pay for these things and lower our taxes at the same time, the magic ponies are eventually going to go away.

Your taxes will be going up. Imagine, all the way up from 35% to 38%, oh, the horror!

But, poor baby, the real killer for you is that the federal deficit problem will be solved, the Medicare/ Medicaid/ SS shortfalls will be solved, we'll still have a more-than-sufficient standing army, and we will continue to pay our debts.


What will you then have to whine about?

Don't worry, with all the attention that can then be turned to the real problem of getting the economy going again and unemployment/under-employment/wage stagnation, I'm sure you'll find some commie-facist-hippy-thingee to whine about.

Idiot America speaks up again. If Idiot America cares to look around, Idiot America will find no reference to me advocating, favoring or supporting the complete dismantle of Social Security and Medicare. I would accept some tinkering here or there. I'd also accept letting the younger generation off the hook abit. However, if they were to eventually become in insolvent and fail, I would continue to work and survive. I don't really plan on retiring anyway. I'll start a new business and sell porn on the internet or something. I don't think a million man army is really all that large for a nation with 300 million people. In my opinion, the ability to defend our nation from abroad makes sense as well. I agree, its impossible to pay for everything with low taxes. I also find it odd, your guys are still talking as if money grows on trees, proposing more spending, proposing cuts in spending, cutting taxes there, granting tax breaks here, Obamacare exemptions there, promising to do more here, starting a new conflict over there and pushing to raise debt ceilings with the low taxes. But, that's Idiot America. Nothing Idiot America says or does, ever makes sense to us.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If that is supposed to be Amy, she would and has. So has Deb, and so have plenty of others via PM, apparently.
Many others have simply left the forums, such as GB left the thread here.
But yes, it is a part of our political scene, and until we get past it we won't move forward. Which is why I find it encouraging that the outcome was a bit different this time around.

What am I going to do then? I won't have a purpose for being here anymore. I mean, my primary purpose has always been to keep the ostercizers in check. I've been a freedom fighter 5 1/2 years. Wow, time flies!

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Idiot America speaks up again. If Idiot America cares to look around, Idiot America will find no reference to me advocating, favoring or supporting the complete dismantle of Social Security and Medicare. I would accept some tinkering here or there. I'd also accept letting the younger generation off the hook abit. However, if they were to eventually become in insolvent and fail, I would continue to work and survive. I don't really plan on retiring anyway. I'll start a new business and sell porn on the internet or something. I don't think a million man army is really all that large for a nation with 300 million people. In my opinion, the ability to defend our nation from abroad makes sense as well. I agree, its impossible to pay for everything with low taxes. I also find it odd, your guys are still talking as if money grows on trees, proposing more spending, proposing cuts in spending, cutting taxes there, granting tax breaks here, Obamacare exemptions there, promising to do more here, starting a new conflict over there and pushing to raise debt ceilings with the low taxes. But, that's Idiot America. Nothing Idiot America says or does, ever makes sense to us.

Well, that's a good start, or a good clarification if you prefer.

What we're talking about is going back to tax rates and codes under Clinton before the Bush tax cuts. Remember that time? Booming economy, stock market, federal surplus? I'm not saying that it will necessarily be a repeat, but it certainly isn't going to be a massive government takeover, fascist sleeping with pinko commies, or cats mating with dogs. Nor, do we have to throw grandma off the cliff by taking her Medicare/Medicaid away or screwing Xers out of SS.

Now, if you could just get your hands around the FACT that Obamacare not only reduces the federal deficit (as projected by the non-partisan CBO), but has provisions in it that, so far, have offered the only new means to actually get health care costs down such as the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, standardized medical records, the state/regional exchanges, accountable care organizations, Medicare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, and a host of other measures lost in the alarms of individual mandate and government death panel bullshit as well as Progressives’ tears over the lost public option (how silly does 'Medicare for everyone ‘ now look when Paul Ryan is trying to dump grandma over the cliff?).

Accept some tax increases and the faux 'big issues' like the deficit and Medicare and Social Security shortfalls fall to the wayside. Then maybe we can move to the REAL problem of employment in this country -everything stems from that. We need to get demand going.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Well, that's a good start, or a good clarification if you prefer.

What we're talking about is going back to tax rates and codes under Clinton before the Bush tax cuts. Remember that time? Booming economy, stock market, federal surplus? I'm not saying that it will necessarily be a repeat, but it certainly isn't going to be a massive government takeover, fascist sleeping with pinko commies, or cats mating with dogs. Nor, do we have to throw grandma off the cliff by taking her Medicare/Medicaid away or screwing Xers out of SS.

Now, if you could just get your hands around the FACT that Obamacare not only reduces the federal deficit (as projected by the non-partisan CBO), but has provisions in it that, so far, have offered the only new means to actually get health care costs down such as the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, standardized medical records, the state/regional exchanges, accountable care organizations, Medicare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, and a host of other measures lost in the alarms of individual mandate and government death panel bullshit as well as Progressives’ tears over the lost public option (how silly does 'Medicare for everyone ‘ now look when Paul Ryan is trying to dump grandma over the cliff?).

Accept some tax increases and the faux 'big issues' like the deficit and Medicare and Social Security shortfalls fall to the wayside. Then maybe we can move to the REAL problem of employment in this country -everything stems from that. We need to get demand going.

Why should I trust the word of a Democrat? Does Pelosi truely represent my intersets? And, if or when, the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, what happens then as far as costs? I mean the deal was whatever million customers in exchange for price control. Obamacare was a fly by night, half assed bill. A smart person would have means tested the mandate first, but Idiot America don't think that way. My feeling on this is, pull the rug out from under him and watch as Obama falls flat on his face. Better judgement says, if he wins it's going happen on his watch. If he looses, he'll be paying the price for years.

I remember along time ago, you said something about having to put enough lipstick on the pig. I must admit, you are very good at putting enough lipstick on pigs. But, as one has seen his fair share of lipsticked pigs, I have the ability see right through it. I saw through all the lipstick put on Obama. I saw through all the hype. But, Idiot America bought into it. Come on, where would be without Idiot America. I have no more of an interest in Idiot America than you have an interest Smart America. Idiot America isn't going to listen to me. Smart America isn't going to listen to you. My view of politics is this, the liberals are to put it mildly are bunch of clowns and the conservatives don't really know what to do about the clowns. They're to serious. They were prepared for serious. They don't know anything but serious. No offense. This is just the way I see it.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Why should I trust the word of a Democrat? Does Pelosi truely represent my intersets? And, if or when, the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, what happens then as far as costs? I mean the deal was whatever million customers in exchange for price control. Obamacare was a fly by night, half assed bill. A smart person would have means tested the mandate first, but Idiot America don't think that way. My feeling on this is, pull the rug out from under him and watch as Obama falls flat on his face. Better judgement says, if he wins it's going happen on his watch. If he looses, he'll be paying the price for years.

I remember along time ago, you said something about having to put enough lipstick on the pig. I must admit, you are very good at putting enough lipstick on pigs. But, as one has seen his fair share of lipsticked pigs, I have the ability see right through it. I saw through all the lipstick put on Obama. I saw through all the hype. But, Idiot America bought into it. Come on, where would be without Idiot America. I have no more of an interest in Idiot America than you have an interest Smart America. Idiot America isn't going to listen to me. Smart America isn't going to listen to you. My view of politics is this, the liberals are to put it mildly are bunch of clowns and the conservatives don't really know what to do about the clowns. They're to serious. They were prepared for serious. They don't know anything but serious. No offense. This is just the way I see it.

I didn't ask you to believe me or anyone else. What I expect of you, as someone who believes that they are not part and parcel of Idiot America, is to do a little research and back up all that conjecture of yours that you take as grounded wisdom. If you did just a little leg work and actually thought for yourself, as opposed to mouthing the bullshit fed to you by the Right wing nut machine, there is no way you could hold the viewpoints that you do.

The one common thread between those of you on the Right on this forum (and it is a microcosm of the larger world), is that your posts are either devoid of any facts, data or analysis (you or JPT; admittedly, Justin and Rani have had some lucid moments ) or moronic repetition of stale old lies and misinformation that is easily discredited (Glick). Moreover, you all lack the self-awareness to even be slightly embarrassed by what you believe passes as thinking.

For at least just once, I wish one of you would actually give a half-hearted attempt to prove me wrong.

Let's start with any current issue where you believe current conservatives are offering anything serious. And don't just mouth the latest meme or other crap you've heard on Faux News or Rush or Savage or wherever you get your misinformation. Give me actual facts, data and analysis - make a thinking-man's argument for once.

Any subject, bro.

As Dirty Harry once said, make my day.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Why should I trust the word of a Democrat?

Just see whether the results are better than what the Republican offers.

Does Pelosi truly represent my interests?

Do you really trust Karl Rogue, the John Birch Society, Club for Growth, and the National Right-to-Work Committee? If so, then maybe you can see yourself winning three-card monte or the shell game.

And, if or when, the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, what happens then as far as costs?

It has yet to be ruled unconstitutional.

I mean the deal was whatever million customers in exchange for price control.

The Republicans filibustered so that there would be no price control even in allowing the government to negotiate costs for prescriptions.

Obamacare was a fly by night, half assed bill.

You may have missed that the GOP did everything possible to prevent the single-payer system best described as Medicare for All.

A smart person would have means tested the mandate first, but Idiot America don't think that way.

The Supreme Court does not rule on the Constitutionality of a law until the law or its sections undergo litigation.

My feeling on this is, pull the rug out from under him and watch as Obama falls flat on his face. Better judgement says, if he wins it's going happen on his watch. If he looses, he'll be paying the price for years.

CNN just showed the President with an approval rate of 54%, which, should it hold, implies that he would win by at least as large a margin of popular votes than he did in 2008, in which case your 'feeling' has no more relevance than your 'feeling' that Justin Morneau is about to hit a home run that will put your beloved Twins in the lead. In view of his talents, even if the President were defeated in 2012 he would be set for life making a fortune on the lecture circuit.

I remember along time ago, you said something about having to put enough lipstick on the pig. I must admit, you are very good at putting enough lipstick on pigs. But, as one has seen his fair share of lipsticked pigs, I have the ability see right through it. I saw through all the lipstick put on Obama.

You must not get around too much! Pigs are not animals to trifle with. They deliver a bad bite. Besides, pigs are smart.

I saw through all the hype. But, Idiot America bought into it.

Then why did President Obama do so well among well-educated people? No other President has ever been elected in anything near a close election in which income mattered so little in determining who would vote for him. Barack Obama did horribly among poor white people -- but he won the richest counties of America, as a rule. He won the vast majority of the PhD vote.

So much for 'idiots' electing him.

Come on, where would we be without Idiot America.

Check out your old copy of a book by Murray and Herrnstein for some idea. All in all America would be a happier place. Less crime, more involvement in formal organizations from unions to the PTA, lower unemployment, and probably even better politics.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I didn't ask you to believe me or anyone else. What I expect of you, as someone who believes that they are not part and parcel of Idiot America, is to do a little research and back up all that conjecture of yours that you take as grounded wisdom. If you did just a little leg work and actually thought for yourself, as opposed to mouthing the bullshit fed to you by the Right wing nut machine, there is no way you could hold the viewpoints that you do.

The one common thread between those of you on the Right on this forum (and it is a microcosm of the larger world), is that your posts are either devoid of any facts, data or analysis (you or JPT; admittedly, Justin and Rani have had some lucid moments ) or moronic repetition of stale old lies and misinformation that is easily discredited (Glick). Moreover, you all lack the self-awareness to even be slightly embarrassed by what you believe passes as thinking.

For at least just once, I wish one of you would actually give a half-hearted attempt to prove me wrong.

Let's start with any current issue where you believe current conservatives are offering anything serious. And don't just mouth the latest meme or other crap you've heard on Faux News or Rush or Savage or wherever you get your misinformation. Give me actual facts, data and analysis - make a thinking-man's argument for once.

Any subject, bro.

As Dirty Harry once said, make my day.

I can certainly pray in this church.

Unfortunately the problem is bordering on the universal, and the so-called liberal press is as much to blame as the rabid right. There has been a liberal concession that all opinions are equal and deserve equal favor, even though the conservatives simply don't believe this at all. In this case, the conservatives are right. Some opinions are simply not credible on any level, because they are based on underlying assumptions that are false ... and easily shown to be false. As such, they cease being opinions and become lies. Conversely, "opinions" that are merely a recitation of fact are not opinions either. Theey fall under the rubric of reportage, and should be dealt with as such.

For some reason, this has become a lost art.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I can certainly pray in this church.

Unfortunately the problem is bordering on the universal, and the so-called liberal press is as much to blame as the rabid right. There has been a liberal concession that all opinions are equal and deserve equal favor, even though the conservatives simply don't believe this at all. In this case, the conservatives are right. Some opinions are simply not credible on any level, because they are based on underlying assumptions that are false ... and easily shown to be false. As such, they cease being opinions and become lies. Conversely, "opinions" that are merely a recitation of fact are not opinions either. Theey fall under the rubric of reportage, and should be dealt with as such.

For some reason, this has become a lost art.

Well, this is one liberal who knows that not all opinions are equally valid.

But, you're right, we do have a tendency to be squishy-headed and try very hard not to "offend" people and to be "nice." It was impressed on me some 10-15 years ago that in order to be effective, liberals have to be hard-headed as well as soft-hearted. We can NOT be driven solely by emotional reactions.

This is probably why I'm so demanding on several posters here with whom I've clashed over the past year or so.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Uh, no, your personal clashes are entirely emotionally driven. I found the old post where Amy called you on your crap. The similarities between our experiences of you are remarkable.

I regret going after her about Bush vs. Gore in that thread. It started a chain that didn't do credit to either one of us. I apologize.

May I suggest that it might be time to start a thread, perhaps on Special Topics, entitled, "And here's what's wrong with you!". People are spending an awful lot of time on this, even to the point of researching posts, and I think it would elevate the rest of the forum to put those discussions in their own place.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

May I suggest that it might be time to start a thread, perhaps on Special Topics, entitled, "And here's what's wrong with you!". People are spending an awful lot of time on this, even to the point of researching posts, and I think it would elevate the rest of the forum to put those discussions in their own place.

We used to have a thread for Flame Wars, as a matter of fact. It eventually got shut down because the hostility still spilled over into the rest of the forum.

In any case, I've said my piece on the current metadiscussion.

I'm glad to see that at least Romney is polling ahead in Iowa, according to PPP

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot....n-surging.html

At least some measure of sanity there. I'm not a Republican, but the craziness of some of the GOP candidates right now is not good for anyone in this country.

Originally Posted by annla899

I'm glad to see that at least Romney is polling ahead in Iowa, according to PPP

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot....n-surging.html

At least some measure of sanity there. I'm not a Republican, but the craziness of some of the GOP candidates right now is not good for anyone in this country.

Actually, its the extreme right wing of the Republican party that has no candidate right now. No Palin, no Bachmann, no Huckabee. I don't know if it will stay that way as nature abhors a vacuum. Still, its remarkable the way some people on this forum always try to make the Republicans into extremists.

James50

Originally Posted by playwrite

The one common thread between those of you on the Right on this forum (and it is a microcosm of the larger world), is that your posts are either devoid of any facts, data or analysis.

Don't know if you include me, but I try to give facts fairly often. At least as often as you do.

Let's start with any current issue where you believe current conservatives are offering anything serious.

I think Ryan's plan for the budget is very serious. The democrats don't like it, but it is serious. As a matter of fact, the Ryan plan and Simpson/Bowles are about the only serious plans out there.

By comparison, I was disappointed today that Jake Carney, Obama's press person, said "we don't need another proposal out there." when asked about what Obama thought the budget should be. This is after the Congress refused to even pass a budget last year. I think it completely irresponsible, represents a total failure of leadership, and is totally political. Its certainly not what I voted for when I voted for Obama.

Here.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Actually, its the extreme right wing of the Republican party that has no candidate right now. No Palin, no Bachmann, no Huckabee. I don't know if it will stay that way as nature abhors a vacuum. Still, its silly the way people on this forum always try to make the Republicans into extremists.

James50

As a party, the GOP is no more extreme than the late-60s, early-70s Democrats were in their day. Every successful political movement eventually jumps the shark. Right now, it's the Republican's turn. In 40 years, the Democrats can have another go at it. I can say, though, that this cycle is a lot more extreme in the effects department. Emerging 2Ts can tear the social fabric to pieces, but they don't create the havoc of a Crisis Era. It's hard to find a functional equivalent to the GOP/Tea Party threat to let the country default on its debts.

Originally Posted by James50

I think Ryan's plan for the budget is very serious. The democrats don't like it, but it is serious. As a matter of fact, the Ryan plan and Simpson/Bowles are about the only serious plans out there.

By comparison, I was disappointed today that Jake Carney, Obama's press person, said "we don't need another proposal out there." when asked about what Obama thought the budget should be. This is after the Congress refused to even pass a budget last year. I think it completely irresponsible, represents a total failure of leadership, and is totally political. Its certainly not what I voted for when I voted for Obama.

Here.

James50

The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2012

Edit: I think Playwrite already addressed this elsewhere, but the idea of not panicking about the deficit seems to have caught on in some circles:

The overarching principle of the Do-Nothing Plan is this: Leave everything as is. Current law stands, and spending and revenue levels continue according to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline projections. Everyone walks away. Paul Ryan goes fishing. Sen. Harry Reid kicks back with a ginger ale. The rest of Congress gets back to bickering about mammograms. Miraculously, the budget just balances itself, in about a decade.

I just have to look at my home state. The so-called " budget crisis" was really a cover for dismantling the social safety net and busting unions.

Originally Posted by James50

Don't know if you include me, but I try to give facts fairly often. At least as often as you do.

FWIW, I wouldn't put you in PW's Pariah group either.

Originally Posted by James50 ...

I think Ryan's plan for the budget is very serious. The democrats don't like it, but it is serious. As a matter of fact, the Ryan plan and Simpson/Bowles are about the only serious plans out there.

By comparison, I was disappointed today that Jake Carney, Obama's press person, said "we don't need another proposal out there." when asked about what Obama thought the budget should be. This is after the Congress refused to even pass a budget last year. I think it completely irresponsible, represents a total failure of leadership, and is totally political. Its certainly not what I voted for when I voted for Obama.

Here.

James50

Ryan's plan is unworkable, which, by itself, makes it unserious. He has gotten the Very Serious People (as Paul Krugman calls them) to use his plan as the touchstone for negotiating. If it serves the function of being a discussion starter, it has value. If it blocks real solutions, then it's part of the problem.

Right now, it looks like it fails in the second category.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2012

That budget was good for about one news cycle and then forgotten. Even his media supporters thought it was not serious.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

That budget was good for about one news cycle and then forgotten. Even his media supporters thought it was not serious.

James50

If "serious" means slashing the safety net in the name of keeping taxes low on the rich, count me out.

No matter which party we support, the following site will be important in the upcoming political season.


Follow Lobbyists' Money With New Features on OpenSecrets.org

By Michael Beckel on June 1, 2011 3:35 PM

As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was running for re-election, about $1 out of every $20 he raised for his massive war chest came from a tiny but elite group of Washington insiders: federally registered lobbyists and their immediate family members, according to a new analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics of campaign finance data and lobbying reports.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

If "serious" means slashing the safety net in the name of keeping taxes low on the rich, count me out.

Serious means taking something other than a road to default at some point in the future. We are on an unsustainable path. What cannot go on, will not go on. There is no conceivable level of taxation alone that will bring us to balance. We will have safety nets until we don't.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Actually, its the extreme right wing of the Republican party that has no candidate right now. No Palin, no Bachmann, no Huckabee. I don't know if it will stay that way as nature abhors a vacuum. Still, its remarkable the way some people on this forum always try to make the Republicans into extremists.

James50

Well, there's Rep. Bachmann. But I don't think the GOP will run a crazy. It's just that the crazies are loudest in the media right now. It makes for "good" newsertainment.

Originally Posted by James50

Don't know if you include me, but I try to give facts fairly often. At least as often as you do.



I think Ryan's plan for the budget is very serious. The democrats don't like it, but it is serious. As a matter of fact, the Ryan plan and Simpson/Bowles are about the only serious plans out there.

By comparison, I was disappointed today that Jake Carney, Obama's press person, said "we don't need another proposal out there." when asked about what Obama thought the budget should be. This is after the Congress refused to even pass a budget last year. I think it completely irresponsible, represents a total failure of leadership, and is totally political. Its certainly not what I voted for when I voted for Obama.

Here.

James50

You do yourself an injustice, James. By today's standards you don't count as right winger, even if you may have too much tolerance for those who are.

I am at least as disappointed in the President as you. They have made a political decision not to make a proposal. It's irresponsible. He could courageously say that we're having no trouble funding the deficit, that much of it is recession-related and we should grow out of it, and that the Clinton tax rates (there I said it right this time) would take care of enough of it. But instead he says zilch. Very disappointing.

All I can say about Ryan here, James, is that he carefully excluded you from his Medicare slash, and it seems to have paid off for him.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

All I can say about Ryan here, James, is that he carefully excluded you from his Medicare slash, and it seems to have paid off for him.

True that. Not being eligible for an AARP card these days might as well be putting a bullseye on your chest to bear the brunt of tax hikes and benefit cuts while those older, already in a more secure and prosperous generation overall, skate by without being asked to make any sacrifice, not even Warren Buffett or any other geriatric billionaire.

Posted this in the Economy thread, but worth posting here. Despite all the political plotting and scheming, reality continues:

DJIA Takes a Plunge, Losing 279.65 Points

Housing Market Takes a Double-Dip

U.S. economy: Manufacturing slowdown the latest sign the recovery is faltering

ADP Data Suggests Stall in Job Growth

Companies created far fewer jobs than expected in May, as the economic recovery showed signs of losing momentum. According to ADP's May Employment Report, the private sector added 38,000 jobs in May on a seasonally adjusted basis. That was well below consensus estimates of 170,000.
The report also revised downwards the estimated change from March to April to 177,000 from 179,000.
"A deceleration in employment, while disappointing, is not entirely surprising," the report said. "In the first quarter, GDP grew at only a 1.8% rate and only about 2¼% over the last four quarters. This is below most economists' estimate of the economy's potential growth rate and normally would be associated with very weak growth of employment."