1 the liberals have won the war on things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

Yeah, uh, well.....

2 The fact is, conservatives are fighting an up hill battle (to say the least) to get people to accept the idea that the federal government was never meant to be this large and intrusive.

Yeah, so let's not even try.

3 I like the cut of this Ryan fellow's jib.  Can you see his pants?

4 I like Ryan. I find his Road Map intriguing. My real problem with it is that changing things like pushing back the retirement age to 70 is just putting some tape on a mortal wound. For our economy to survive we need to end social security. One could make the argument that abolishing social security incrementally is the only way to go. Maybe. But do we have enough time? I'm even against private accounts for these social welfare programs because at the end of the day the government is still taking your money. The government forcing you to do something good is still the government forcing you. So can Ryan's Road Map do enough good to heal the economic woes quickly enough to make more drastic changes later on? I don't know but we can sure try.

5

Still, it's sad to think this is what conservatism might be reduced to...fighting with liberals to find a sustainable way to fund the welfare state. Amazingly, we may not even win that.

Given that conservative republicans aren't even asking, save Ryan, for the former, I'm beginning to think that the best case scenario is to not get the latter, either. The sooner we take the hard medicine, the sooner we return to a nation of free men, though I guess that medicine must be very hard indeed to be effective.

6 I was originally going to pair this with the Pete Stark video but someone named "Ace" showed up and stole my thunder.

You lost the quick draw to Ace? You were slogging through wet cement towing a boat anchor trying to reach your keyboard right?

7 It's difficult to defeat the Part of the Free Lunch.  Always has been.  That's just life for a conservative.

8 Whats Social Security?

9 O/T:  "A reasonable question, then, is: Now that politicians have broached the subject of eliminating Fed independence, is it still independent?"
wasn't there a bill or something, seem to recall everyone "piling on" and then nothing?

10

O/T

 

Its been revealed that Ali G in Illinois' bank loaned $23 million to Rezko.

And it was intentionally off the books.

So much for everyone caring about Kirk's fluffing.

Kirk trails Ali G by 2 in Rasmussen BEFORE this, with a 4 to 1 cash advantage he hasnt spent yet...

 

Guess its time again for a noun, a verb, and Broadway Bank...

11

Still, it's sad to think this is what conservatism might be reduced to...fighting with liberals to find a sustainable way to fund the welfare state. Amazingly, we may not even win that.

i said this when healthcare passed. We will now be the Tories of England, we won't be fighting for liberty, freedom and smaller government, but instead we will be fighting with the democrats over who can better run the welfare state.

I honestly think the best we can hope for is when everything collapses that we can rebuild on our model. not theirs.

12 I'm even against private accounts for these social welfare programs because at the end of the day the government is still taking your money. The government forcing you to do something good is still the government forcing you. Posted by: ChicagoJedi

Either they are private or they are not. If they are private, then you'd be able to drink your retirement plan. At worst it'll be a 'government encouraged' plan of which you could opt out.

Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good, people!

I come to conservatism because of pragmatism. It works. Socialism doesn't.

If government give-aways worked, if social-engineering didn't hinder an economy, if we could have all the goodies without cost we'd all be socialists.

13

I say go full moron and let the chips fall where they may ...  Chris Christie went full moron and look how he not only won but is actually implementing the vision ...

I would rather lose on pricipal than win on moderation ...  liberals only moderate to get elected  ...  they run on full moron every year in the primaries and then shift to moderate in the general ...

14 Paraphrasing a Robert Jordan Wheel of Time moment:

"Cut.  Or you will be cut."

That is the choice that we face.  We're broke, folks.  You cannot spend your way out of debt and you can't tax your way out of a depression.  Ryan knows and all others will have to acknowledge those realities...sooner or later.

15 The ultimate problem, IMO, is that politically correct conservatives want to link this all back to FDR because they're afraid to confront the ultimate federal power-grab that occurred when the Northern states declared war on the Southern states for their refusal to adopt federal policy.  No matter how you feel about slavery, if you agree that it was the federal government's duty to go to war against the Southern states over it then you really have no argument against any of the federal usurpations occurring today.

16 Its either the Roadmap for America or the Road to Serfdom.

Crossroads. Pick. yada yada.

17 They'll just spend 2 years getting smacked down by Obama so that by the time '12 comes around Democrats will run on 'failed and extreme budget plans of the GOP' and some of that will stick

The squishy middle can hardly be bothered with even knowing who is in charge of congress from session to session, as observed by how many thought Repubs still had it running up to the 08 election.

If Obama doesn't triangulate, the deadlock between him and Congress (should we be lucky enough to take it) will hang around his neck like an albatross. He will undoubtedly try and point to Congress as the problem, but that's an excuse, while most of the time very true, that the American people do not care to hear. They hear that excuse, they hear a whiny child saying the other kids wouldn't play with him.

Also the American people just got a strong reminder of why, if a Democrat holds the Presidency, they don't like Democrats to control Congress.

18 Definitely a great fan of Ryan & the Roadmap. I've read that the Republican leadership is afraid of it, as tampering with sacred cows often leads to election losses, but sometimes difficult decisions must be made to save the nation. Europe & the UK are currently being faced with the choice of cutting spending or drowning in debt, but they were only able to do that once their backs were up against the wall. Will we listen to men like Ryan, or wait until there's a chance we won't survive?

19
peanut, was slavery Constitutional?

20

Still, it's sad to think this is what conservatism might be reduced to...fighting with liberals to find a sustainable way to fund the welfare state. Amazingly, we may not even win that.

So the question is reduced to How many ticks an old hound can support and still be able to hunt? Answer: Not very Goddamned many.

21 You're asking if the current crop of Republicans can act all CONSERVATIVE?

Lindsey Fucking Graham.

'nuff said.

22 "peanut, was slavery Constitutional?"

If it wasn't, you'd think the Constitution would have stopped it.

23 We have to start somewhere.  I think more people are ready to tell the Feds to STFD and STFU than people think.

24 they're afraid to confront the ultimate federal power-grab that occurred when the Northern states declared war on the Southern states for their refusal to adopt federal policy.  No matter how you feel about slavery, if you agree that it was the federal government's duty to go to war against the Southern states over it then you really have no argument against any of the federal usurpations occurring today.

Posted by: the peanut gallery

 

Yup, that was it. nobody ever decided to open fire on me AFTER a guy named Col. Anderson told them that we was running out of food. Don't mind me; I'll just sit out here in the harbor.

25 Social Security needs a far more radical solution then means-testing and a retirement age increase. We need a sliding retirement age based on life expectancy and a dramatically reduced payout plan for those who have time to fix their finances to deal with it.

26 Last night the lib writers for Madmen had two old guys say, "if we pass medicare, the country will turn communist (or like)." It was supposed to be a lib dig, but I'm guessing a lot of us out there thought...Yep.

27 Posted by: Garbonzo the Garrulous at August 02, 2010 01:21 PM (oL8lS) There's a world of difference between private, in which I decide when and if to invest my money, and privatized, in which the government takes my money and forces me to invest. I already said that privatized is better than regular social security. It actual saves money for people and it stimulates the economy with a giant influx of investment money. But let's not bullshit each other here: privatizing social security is still just the GOP arguing with the DNC over how to spend our money.

28 Just going after Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid only puts a huge bullseye on his back. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are 100% of current Federal revenue - the rest of the budget, DoD, DoE, NASA, etc. is being bought on credit.

29 Excellent post and analysis.

30 Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at August 02, 2010 01:22 PM (NvFZs) +2160 for the WoT quote

31 We are going to war after the elections this year with the army we got.

The important thing is not to lose focus on purging the RINOs  in the following election cycles.

32 Ft. Sumter I do not deny that little bit of history but it wouldn't have evolved into a full-scale war if there weren't ideologies at stale.

33 *at stake

34

peanut, was slavery Constitutional?"

If it wasn't, you'd think the Constitution would have stopped it.

enforcement of the constitution would have? It is the fact that the south ignored the fact that blacks were humans and not property. That and the supreme court declared black property.

35 running on something other than "Democrats suck!"

.. but they do it so well.

36 Ft. Sumter I do not deny that little bit of history but it wouldn't have evolved into a full-scale war if there weren't ideologies at stale.

Posted by: the peanut gallery

 

Firing upon an active milittary installation = "little bit of history"

or

Firing upon an active milittary installation =  act of war

 

I will note that President Lincoln was very careful to head off all calls for declaring open rebellion until after Ft. Sumter was attacked.

 

Avenge me!!

37
The Republicans would be wise to let Paul Ryan lead.  But then, the real electoral disaster will come when the Republicans let us down again with their "democrat lite" scardey-cat wimp-out. 

Paul Ryan is right.  We must stop the train wreck entitlements.    He's right about Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.  & The democrats just layered more crap on top.

Repeal ObamaCare first, then adopt Paul Ryan's strategy - that is the only hope for a vibrant American future. 

38 Nutcase gallery:

No matter how you feel about slavery, if you agree that it was the federal government's duty to go to war against the Southern states over it then you really have no argument against any of the federal usurpations occurring today.

The US government did not go to war with the south over slavery.

39 peanut, was slavery Constitutional?

Posted by: your fickle friend, the summer wind at August 02, 2010 01:25 PM (uFokq)

Absolutely.  Provisions allowed for the counting of slaves at 3/5 for purposes of congressional determination.  And, of course, the Dred Scott decision clearly upheld the legality of slavery. 

40

The welfare state grew out of First Bull Run-Manassas?  How does that work?

1. Civil War

2. ???

(a hundred and fifty years passes)

3. Welfare state going broke 

Actually the present situation is that famous unattributed quote finally coming to pass throughout the advanced (as in decrepit) democracies.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of governement. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

-- usually attributed to deToqueville  

41

O/T But got this FOX News flash in email.

Virginia AG rules police can check immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested

42 39 Thankyou

43

27 It would be spify if the writers took on The 'Great' Society.

Who's the douche always walking around with the gross mangled beard and the pipe? Can't you see that guy getting some dialogue about how twenty years from now we'll see no blight or poverty in the ghettos!!!

Snort.

 

44 "Slap the words 'Under the authority granted to the Congress by the Constitution's Commerce Clause...' on just about any piece of legislation and the geniuses in black robes yawn and say OK."

Seeing how this is true, isn't the fact that if one is even employed, one is impacting Commerce? Your mere existence utilizes Federal currency which is exchanged beyond State lines. Your labor affects the flow of that currency into and out of your State whether directly as a single operator or indirectly via your employer. Your life impacts - even if trivially so - the exchange of goods and services that are required to sustain it. Hell, by breathing I'm using a shared resource, and Congress puts a price on breathable air as it fines institutions for polluting it or seeks to fine them for warming it.

There really is no end to the abuse of the Commerce Clause should those governing without our consent continue thrashing it.

No wonder Congress' approval rating is on par with the clap or a stick in the eye.

45 Nutcase gallery:

No matter how you feel about slavery, if you agree that it was the federal government's duty to go to war against the Southern states over it then you really have no argument against any of the federal usurpations occurring today.

The US government did not go to war with the south over slavery.

Posted by: Rob Crawford

 

Gee, you guys really do care. A bit late, as these people shot the shit outta me, but I'll take it.

46 I feel like the Chicken.

47 As I said in my earlier comment, excellent analysis. It definately shows one what we're up against and how probably impossible the hill will be to climb and the probable end result for this country if we don't climb it. Virtually all of the entitlement programs are unsustainable and all of them have become sacred cows that invoke accusations of evil hardheartedness for any who would even dare suggest that they be reformed. Unfortunately, the only way to even attempt to make them sustainable would be to apply market solutions to them and that term has become another in the glossary of evil - like "top 2 percent". It would be good, imo, if Mr. Ryan's proposals met with more enthusiastic support and they were able to kick the can backwards down the road for awhile. Unfortunately, I don't believe incremental steps will solve much. They probably will only make the pain of decline only slightly less painful to bear.

48 What we need is a roadmap for the colonization of the moon.

Then when we get there, throw any leftards out the airlock, and tell the rest of the earth to go fuck itself.  Otherwise we will fire asteroids at Paris, and Los Angeles.

BTW, that would make a great book.

49 No wonder Congress' approval rating is on par with the clap or a stick in the eye.

I think clap is more popular.  At least then it's highly likely you enjoyed how you got it. 

50 Good point, #39, the federal government did not specifically go to war with the South over slavery.    They went to war to ensure federal supremacy over the sovereign states.  That was exactly my point - they could do the same thing today over medical care, immigration, taxation, whatever... but if you endorse that original military action you really have no grounds upon which to oppose these others...

51 Until we get a flat tax, which is never, I don't think we can stop any of this stuff.  A flat tax would make sense philosophically, economically, and politically, so it won't happen.  The 70,000 page tax code is a major reason why we are in this situation.  It causes spending.

52 The macro and long term view for Conservatives, I think, should not be to immediately tear it all down (eradicate Dept of Ed, Energy, PBS, whatever).  It should be to clearly demonstrate how the growth of these agencies have exceeded in every case what they were originally established for, that there is a self-interested pattern in government (and all powerful organizations) to grow without limits, and that we have reached that moment of running out of other people's money.  Make a clear, reasoned case that it is time to begin a careful and neccesary roll-back in the size of government through a roll-back in its agencies and entitlements...just as we have had to do with public companies and organizations.  You must make the case that it is neccesary, and then make the case that you have the best plan to achieve the roll back.  As part of the case, you must present a clear picture of where this country is headed if we don't, and the great potential of America to roar back if we do.

53 I feel like the Chicken.

Posted by: Fort Wagner

 

Ya know, when Ft. Moultrie (which recently underwent a change in management) asked if I wanted a good hot 12 inches, I failed to realize that it was referring to diameter. My bad.

54 One effective way to fix the budget is to destroy agencies. The best way to destroy agencies is to fire people, lots of them, so they don't spend money and create regulations. The only way to do that is to trash the civil service system. Send block grants to the states, eliminate the agencies that were designed to spend that money, and keep repeating until things start to improve.

55 Southern states for their refusal to adopt federal policy.

To describe the decision to protect the involuntary servitude of human beings by law as "policy" crosses the line of whitewashing into the realm of a lie. Reworded as

when the Northern states declared war on the Southern states for their refusal to stop treating human beings as property.

get's you far less support, and rightly so. No institution of law which protects such a heinous crime against humanity can lay claim any legitimacy under the precepts of a free society. In the absence of  a legitimate sovereign authority, what right can the Southern States claim was violated? Their right to enslave as they wish? Laughable.

56 What I would like to see the Republicans run on is a "return to 2005".  The Dems took control of congress in 2006 and everything in 2008.

They should run on a platform of restore federal spending to 2005 budget levels and then keep the Bush tax cuts as permanent to give business more confidence so that they will start back hiring.

Also run on a promise of NO MORE bailouts and elimination of the bogus "too big to fail".

That will cut the deficit and turn the economy around.

57
in b4 the ad hominens

58

While there may be few, if any, political or legal checks on the growth of the federal government we have reached the point Margaret Thatcher identified as a major problem for socialists...eventually they run out of other people's money.

America ran out of other peoples' money decades ago as politicians looted the Social Security "trust fund" *cough* to paper over huge deficits.  That didn't change anything.

59 "Of the 178 Republicans in the House, 13 have signed on with Ryan as co-sponsors."

Um, yeah, that is a problem. It also explains why the GOP retains its high favorability ratings just like the Democrats.

If Americans want skittle-shitting unicorns, then OK, let 'em vote for it; but let's at least start providing the real world antidote to such illusions.

60 What we need is a roadmap for the colonization of the moon.

Then when we get there, throw any leftards out the airlock, and tell the rest of the earth to go fuck itself.  Otherwise we will fire asteroids at Paris, and Los Angeles.

BTW, that would make a great book.

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack

What a ludicrous notion.

61 Obama to declare mission accomplished in Iraq on August 31. Get ready for articles claiming he won the Iraq War single handedly against all odds.

62
btw, who else thinks if Louisiana had a Democrat governor s/he'd be getting a lot more puffy coverage and even a nomination for a silly profile in courage award for the handling of the spill?

But since Jindal is a Republican, Obama's media ignores him.

63

Of the 178 Republicans in the House, 13 have signed on with Ryan as co-sponsors."

Um, yeah, that is a problem. It also explains why the GOP retains its high favorability ratings just like the Democrats.

If Americans want skittle-shitting unicorns, then OK, let 'em vote for it; but let's at least start providing the real world antidote to such illusions.

I hate the republicans almost as much as the democrats, if simply for the fact that they should know better.

64

But since Jindal is a  dark skinned Republican, Obama's media ignores him.

FIFY

65 If conservatives turn the Civil War and slavery into litmus tests on the scope of government power, we deserve to be relegated to the dustbin of history.

I know it's only one idiot but please don't feed him.

66 Get ready for articles claiming he won the Iraq War single handedly against all odds. despite the Republican's Cut and Run strategy.

FTFY

67 On one level I don't think that's a very bad thing at this point. Even if the Republicans win the House and the Senate (still a long shot), it will be hard for them to really do anything with Obama in the White House.

The one thing they can do, is what they started against Clinton, but didn't have the cojones (heard that word somewhere - sounded kinda good) to stick with - and that is deny Lord Zero the budget he craves.  Funding needs the approval of Congress - both houses.  And that's a pretty big stick.  Even Lord Zero can't do much without funding.

But it will take courage to pull it off - being recalcitrant and willing to "shut down" Government.  The Gingrich House couldn't pull it off; we'll see about the next one.

68 Then there are the things that give me false hope: Raz poll says 56% of New Yorkers want Obamacare repealed.

69 Jindal is dark?

70 but if you endorse that original military action you really have no grounds upon which to oppose these others...

Bullshit.

You're simply wrong, on all counts. What had the federal government done to kick off the secessions? NOTHING. Lincoln hadn't even been inaugurated!

More importantly, ending slavery was the right thing to do. Considering the end state of what the left wishes to do is, itself, slavery, there's no incompatibility to supporting the destruction of that horrid institution and resisting its re-imposition.

You're either a Moby or a lunatic.

71
I know it's only one idiot but please don't feed him.

Why, we feed you.

He's just making a point. Valid or not, it's just a comment for discussion. But here you are doing what you do best -- calling someone stupid or an idiot.

72 "If conservatives turn the Civil War and slavery into litmus tests on the scope of government power, we deserve to be relegated to the dustbin of history."

So you're saying it's okay for the federal government to turn their army loose on the states as long as it's an issue as horrible as SLAVERY?

Because I guarantee you a majority of progressives are as passionate about their "social justice" ideas as the abolitionists were about slavery.  So maybe it's you who will be relegated to the dustbin of history after your town is annihilated for resisting "social justice".

73 If conservatives turn the Civil War and slavery into litmus tests on the scope of government power, we deserve to be relegated to the dustbin of history.

I know it's only one idiot but please don't feed him.

Posted by: DrewM

 

Very well, I'll comply. But I thought that this was the go to place for Civil War fortifications pron?

74 So you're saying it's okay for the federal government to turn their army loose on the states as long as it's an issue as horrible as SLAVERY?

Posted by: the peanut gallery at August 02, 2010 01:54 PM (NurK6)

Yes.

FYNQ.

75 I know it's only one idiot but please don't feed him.

Can we talk about longbows?

76

The Republican Party is a club.  The purpose of the club is to get it's members elected to public office.  Let's not pretend their goal is to limit government or to revere the Constitution or whatever.

Those are tactics in support of the overall goal of getting elected.

There is nothing inherently conservative about the GOP; those members of the GOP who are conservatives are supported in the party structure inasmuch as it is judged that conservatism is a pretty good way to convince people to vote and give money.

Expecting the GOP to fight for things we believe in is sheer folly; however, seeing that some GOP members are also by coincidence conservative and supporting those people is not a winning strategy either, since there are so few of them. 

I don't have an answer, other than to make a lot of noise and hope to trick some politicians into thinking that trying to pass conservative legislation would be good for their vote totals and donations.  Supporting Paul Ryan and a few others (by his count, 13) is a good start.

77 Downsized Upscale: "Just going after Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid only puts a huge bullseye on his back."

Actually, I think I remember Ryan endorsing across-the-board cuts. The media punditry focuses on SS and Medicare/aid to the exclusion of others because it's looking for the third rail to whack the Conservative with.

78

I know it's only one idiot but please don't feed him.

Posted by: DrewM

Let's talk about the Bilderberg consipiracy instead.  I'll go get my hat.

79 No one ever get heated about me anymore.

80 _{O/T:  "With Iran And Afghanistan Heating Up, Here Are The Threats The U.S. Air Force Is Really Worried About""THE RADAR: 10 Emerging Stories You Must Start Watching Right Now"}"

81 Posted by: Downsized Upscale at August 02, 2010 01:26 PM

This is the problem and solution, all in one.

No one wants to cut spending (how many community centers, city-owned cars, "outreach" and midnight-basketball programs does E. St. Louis have?) but gubmint drones will go for cutting taxes if it seems politically popular and doesn't interfere with their pet projects and personal high living.

The first order of business is for Congress (and the elected thugs at the local level) to cut the waste, both in uncontrolled spending and in pork. This could lower the cost of government by at least 30-40%, I'd say. Then, cut useless bureaucracy, and end programs that government should not be involved in, such as affirmative action, micromanagement of private business. Reduce all perks, staffing and office space for elected greedheads to a minimal level, certainly no higher than that accorded to mid-level executives.

Then, figure out how much tax money is needed to keep the actual functional government running, decide how long it should take to get public debt down to a reasonable level -- zero would be about right -- and then set tax rates that fairly apportion the load.

Anyone in D.C. going to take that road? None I can think of.

82 Thanks, #73... I hope I don't come off as a proponent of slavery because I'm absolutely not, but I object to federal control of the states especially when its cost is a million lives...  The people here don't seem to understand how easily their arguments can be turned on them.

83

The Republican Party is a club.  The purpose of the club is to get it's members elected to public office. 

Posted by: Truman North at August 02, 2010 01:56 PM (e8YaH)

Gaining power for the sake of power.  Expect real principles and you'll be disappointed.

84 but if you endorse that original military action you really have no grounds upon which to oppose these others

Let me remind a few on history whom have forgotten. The federal government essentially took an anti slavery policy route which would have lead to the natural death of slavery after a time. The south feeling the economic pressure resulting from a change in their labor structure susceeded to protect it, regardless of how immoral their "policy" of slavery was. The North then went to war with them over the stated intent to preserve the union, however, with the practical intent to end slavery.

You cannot unscramble scrambled eggs. If you defend the Southern States you claim they had a right to enslave people which they did not. If you think you can limit either in argument or scope, the North's attack on the South to a simple act of federal dominance, that would be the same regardless of what the instigating issue was you would be incorrect. Without such a morally charged issue the North would not have been able to get the support needed for the war.

In short, if any adjacent sovereign, practiced slavery as the south did, would we be justified in using military force to stop it? If your answer is no, then I ask, is there any level of immorality a sovereign can visit upon it's people before another sovereign is morally justified in intervening?

85 51 Good point, #39, the federal government did not specifically go to war with the South over slavery.    They went to war to ensure federal supremacy over the sovereign states.  That was exactly my point - they could do the same thing today over medical care, immigration, taxation, whatever... but if you endorse that original military action you really have no grounds upon which to oppose these others...

Posted by: the peanut gallery at August 02, 2010 01:44 PM (NurK6)

Your premise is wrong. The Civil War was entirely about slavery. Without that one issue in play, it never would have happened.

86 Ryan and his 13 co-sponsors are the only people worthy of support in this election cycle.

87 If conservatives turn the Civil War and slavery into litmus tests on the scope of government power, we deserve to be relegated to the dustbin of history.

I know it's only one idiot but please don't feed him.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 02, 2010 01:50 PM (X/Lqh)

We need to get off the slavery and civil war kick here. Most of the Morons haven't studied it enough to argue sensibly on it and all it does is start flame wars.

Nobody wins.

88
Why would we want to abolish the Dept of Education?
I agree the public education system in the nation is broken.  But I'm not against the entire Dept.  We must fix public education without throwing more money at it.  Fix it by ending the reign of the Teachers Union and making sure tax payers get a choice in where they send their children to school.  Via programs like the DC voucher program (that was scrapped by Obama for disgusting political reasons)

Parents must be able to have choices - competition and vouchers are the only way.

We must paint the democrats as wealthy hypocrites who send their children to private schools (they have the choice).  Because that's what they are!
But these same democrats force everyone else into a systme controlled by the corrupt Teachers Union.  The Teachers Union is pure poison.

89 The people here don't seem to understand how easily their arguments can be turned on them.
Posted by: the peanut gallery at August 02, 2010 01:58 PM (NurK6)

Just because liberals don't have the intellectual capacity/honesty to differentiate between things like slavery and say, health care, doesn't mean conservatives have to be as dogmatically stupid in the other direction.

And I never said nor thought you supported slavery. It's just a ridiculous place to go.

90 I feel like the goat.

91
Do you happen to have the names of Ryan's thirteen cohorts?

92 Why would we want to abolish the Dept of Education?

Test scores have been in continuous decline since its creation.  Objectively, it's not helping and appears to be actually damaging to public education.

93

Posted by: the peanut gallery at August 02, 2010 01:44 PM (NurK6)

Your premise is wrong. The Civil War was entirely about slavery. Without that one issue in play, it never would have happened.

Posted by: Jim in San Diego

 

Drew, please note that I didn't start this. I was caught in the middle of it all. Literally.

94 OT:  Over at Hot Air, there is a Dem civil war brewing about the Rangel and Waters ethics investigations.  James Clyburn blames it on the tea partiers.  Really.  And there is a great quote by an un-named CBC member:  “It looks as if there is somebody out there who understands what the rules (are) and sends names to the ethics committee with the goal of going after the (CBC).”  Understanding the rules is racist and nobody can accuse the CBC of that.  And don't even get me started on the grammar.

Tee hee.  Pass the popcorn.

95

I have a feeling the American experiment has about 50 or so years left. I can't imagine we will be able to hold the supreme court forever, and as soon as there are five liberals on the court, they will open the flood gates of international law and our constitution will be completely defunct.

Here is hoping our second Republic is better than France's Second Repbulic, and that i am dead by that point.

96 Paul Ryan has NOT signed up for REPEAL of Obamacare, (as of July 17...please correct if this has changed)

Is he talking about it?  Shouting it to the rooftops?

If not, he should not be taken seriously. 

97 #89 We need to get off the slavery and civil war kick here. Most of the Morons haven't studied it enough to argue sensibly on it and all it does is start flame wars.
Nobody wins.

Agreed.  It's a waste of energy too.  The fight is out there, out there!

98 Why would we want to abolish the Dept of Education?

Test scores have been in continuous decline since its creation.  Objectively, it's not helping and appears to be actually damaging to public education.

Posted by: caltrops at August 02, 2010 02:03 PM (8/oOq)

If the Dep't of Ed isn't a failure, then there is no such thing as failure.  Ditto the Dep't of Energy.

99 I will max out contributions to the first politician to propose a Constitutional amendment to outlaw public sector unions.

100 "Just because liberals don't have the intellectual capacity/honesty to differentiate between things like slavery and say, health care, doesn't mean conservatives have to be as dogmatically stupid in the other direction."

We're talking about ideas 150 years removed from each other.  You think the average person today can comprehend what slavery was like in the mid-19th century versus what it's like to be without medical insurance today?  Do you think that even you and I can comprehend it?

101 51 Good point, #39, the federal government did not specifically go to war with the South over slavery.    They went to war to ensure federal supremacy over the sovereign states.  That was exactly my point - they could do the same thing today over medical care, immigration, taxation, whatever... but if you endorse that original military action you really have no grounds upon which to oppose these others...

Posted by: the peanut gallery at August 02, 2010 01:44 PM (NurK6)

I seem to recall a Mr. A. Lincoln saying something about doing anything to preserve the Union regardless of the slavery issue.

102

Lemon Kitten:  Education is a local issue.  A neighborhood issue.  A family issue.

As soon as you have one person in Washington deciding the right curriculum for both Alaska and Florida, you are looking at both systemic waste, and misunderstanding.

103 We need to abolish the Dept of Education for major reason and one minor reason:

Major: Its is unconstitutional

Minor: Its was put in place by a Dem congress and Jimmy Peanut

and also, because it is like all Democrap socialist programs, a massive failure.  

104 Hmm. Tools for reigning in government: 1. Ban public-sector unions 2. Balanced-budget amendment 3. Line-item veto 4. Radically alter civil service system 5. Devolve power to the states

105 Why would we want to abolish the Dept of Education?

Because education is not a national issue.  It is a local one.  And the Constitution does not count education as a matter for federal purview.

106 Damn, don't know why my stupid fingers kept typing "its".

107 Because I guarantee you a majority of progressives are as passionate about their "social justice" ideas as the abolitionists were about slavery.  So maybe it's you who will be relegated to the dustbin of history after your town is annihilated for resisting "social justice".

True and untrue. There are differences between slavery and other "policies" with which liberals might disagree. Their is a line, and it is easy to find. Litmus, if Canada was doing it would we be justified in bombing their ass until they stopped?

Slavery yes.
All other libtard bullshit no.

Libtards don't believe in war for any purpose anyway. So regardless of how "passionate" they may be, all of their bull sh*t falls well short of the "crime against humanity" standard of making war against another sovereign; which Slavery clearly was beyond, and then justified military action to remedy.

So no, you're argument of Civil War slippery slope I reject. The line is bright, and only ever crossed once in this country.

108
sounds like the CBC is thisclose to saying they're the victims of a high-tech lynching

109 "

Just going after Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid only puts a huge bullseye on his back.

Posted by: Downsized Upscale at August 02, 2010 01:26 PM (IhHdM)"

A) he's not "just" going after SS and Medicaid and Medicaire.

b) he's SAVING them, not going after them

C) We cannot afford them. Entitlements are a huge component in our spending, and the one that needs the most cutting.  Cutting ten percent of each department is not going to amount to and long lasting reform.

If you're opposed to Ryan's reforms and don't have anything specific that will reform our entitlement culture, you are on the wrong side of this one.  And a lot of Republicans are on the wrong side.  Everyone wants 'their' benefits that they are so stupid they think they actually paid for.  They think they should get all this money (from the next generation) and everything else should be vaguely cut somehow.  No, that's not going to succeed. 

D) you didn't pay for any Social Security benefits.  None of us have.  It's a con game.  We tolerated a government that went deeply into debt.  We owe the next generation, not vice versa, and we knew they were stealing from social security to keep income taxes artificially low.  We didn't really pay social security at all.  It's like paying half your credit card debt and pretending you can specify what you paid for.

None of us are entitled to social security benefits.  Paul Ryan doesn't go this far, and I don't blame him, because people are too greedy.  But we need to completely overhaul these entitlements if we have any hope of persisting as a nation.  We need to cut our agencies, too, of course... lots of pork out there and we should go ahead and make pork and earmarks illegal.  but it's the entitlements that need the cuts the most.

Until this country realizes it, we're screwed.  And too many conservatives fight reality and they are to blame more than the left for the failure to embrace reality.

110

Nobody but 'radical' abolitionist Republicans thought the war was about ending slavery until 1863.  The South, full of "King Cotton" propaganda, wanted to expand slavery into the territories and beyond.  They seceded and attacked Sumter thinking England would run to help them. 

Big miscalculation leading to the deadliest war in our history.

Lincoln calling up 70,000 troops angered Virginians or whatever, but the process leading to war was already well under way. 

Secession was/is not constitutional.  There is no provision for it.  Lincoln wanted to - say it with me - preserve the Union.  

       

111 Cutting spending is the hard way - cut the revenues, starve the beast. Tax cuts are always going to be more popular then spending cuts. At some point China won't lend us anymore money, and the pie will have to get smaller. The bureaucracy will fight cuts like a cornered cat, make the whole pie smaller and they will have to fight each other.

112

If not, he should not be taken seriously. 

who should then?

I see this a lot here at AoS. That we need to stop following this guy or that girl.

Can someone point me to the perfect Republican, or perfect candidate. I hear a lot about how this person or that person isn't good enough for this or that reason.

Well, who is the right person?

 

113

OT

This is yet another example of a jackass totally and completely missing the point, or another entry into the Most Obtuse Headline in History award contest:

http://tinyurl.com/2cgc52p

I don't believe that the greatest antipathy toward the auto bailout was that it was saving the auto makers.  I believe that people objected to it because it was keeping the UAW's head above water.  This bridge will be crossed again and in the mean time, the UAW will seek help from us to sustain their unsustainable retirement and compensation programs.  It wasn't that the industry or the jobs survived, it was because the union who should have been slapped down, wasn't and the voting block behind the dems was all the more solidified.  More bullshit, imo.

HotAir headlines.

114 Yikes:

All told, the president's budget includes $49.7 billion for the Department of Education's discretionary programs, an increase of $3.5 billion over fiscal year 2010. The budget also includes $173 billion in loans, grants, tax credits and work-study programs to help students go to college.

115 DrewM.: "If conservatives turn the Civil War and slavery into litmus tests on the scope of government power, we deserve to be relegated to the dustbin of history."

The thing is you cannot disregard that historical period as the turning point of our nation from decentralized, sovereign but united States to a centralized, Federal State. Centalized planning began as a consequence of that war whatever the accumulated interests for fighting it. When slavery alone overshadows the history, we lose perhaps the biggest lesson impacting us today. State-ists would like to perpetuate that amnesia and reintroduce a new reincarnation of slavery, the degree to be determined only by our fight against it and the Natural Rights we're willing to concede.

116

 Why would we want to abolish the Dept of Education?

Because education is not a national issue.  It is a local one.  And the Constitution does not count education as a matter for federal purview.

good work my friend.

Besides, our students have become teh dumb since the Dep of Education came into being.

117 does this thread count as a civil war re-enactment?

118 We're talking about ideas 150 years removed from each other.
Posted by: the peanut gallery at August 02, 2010 02:08 PM (NurK6)


Let us not forget it was you who connected ideas 150 years removed from each other initially.

I'm pretty sure my point all along has been there's no upside to that (oh and that you're initial litmus test was pretty morally repugnant).

119 "I seem to recall a Mr. A. Lincoln saying something about doing anything to preserve the Union regardless of the slavery issue."

Yeah, bingo.  The point and end result of the war was only to ensure federal supremacy over the sovereign states.  Ending slavery was, sadly, a tangential issue.

120 Here's the thing: arguing over the causes of the Civil War sure as hell ain't going to win any elections, but it goddam well might lose a couple.  Folks like "peanut gallery" might as well send money to the DNCC.

121 "you're initial litmus test"

It should be "your".

122 122 does this thread count as a civil war re-enactment? Posted by: Ben at August 02, 2010 02:14 PM (wuv1c) No, first everybody would have to grow a beard and turn into a 40-ish white guy. And I like our moronettes just the way they are.

123 hard and unpopular

Heh, he said hard, but spending cuts are very very popular with Mr Galt.  Not just popular, more like mandatory.

124

Posted by: toby928 at August 02, 2010 02:13 PM (8/oOq)

I needs me some o' dat scratch.

125 They seceded and attacked Sumter thinking England would run to help them. 

     Posted by: Beagle (in Florida)

 

But I'm okay with this now. I was hurt, yes, then felt a little flat. But that's all behind me now. Although every now and again I like to drop a brick on a Brit tourist, just because.

126
This is why we lose elections. Because talking about the Civil War and Slavery and the Constitution are third-rail issues.

Holder is right. We are a nation of cowards.
Let's all go back to chewing our fingernails worrying if Rand Paul is going to discuss the awful parts of the CRA.

127 122 does this thread count as a civil war re-enactment?
Posted by: Ben at August 02, 2010 02:14 PM (wuv1c)

No, first everybody would have to grow a beard and turn into a 40-ish white guy. And I like our moronettes just the way they are.

Posted by: joncelli

 

But I thought that that describes some of our Moronettes, or at least LauraW, or at least her hump.......never mind.

128 The US government did not go to war with the south over slavery.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at August 02, 2010 01:36 PM (ZJ/un)

The national government went to war to defend its supremacy over state sovereignty and specifically to prevent the spread of slavery to the western territories.  The Civil War was NOT fought to end slavery.

Obama himself likes Civil War and Lincoln analogies;  He apparently believes that national government supremacy is now near-total control, with state nothing more that the 88 'departments' of France.

129 No, first everybody would have to grow a beard and turn into a 40-ish white guy.

Yo.

130 Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at August 02, 2010 02:13 PM (swuwV)

Yes, the Civil War and the duly enacted Reconstruction Amendments changed the nature of the relationship between the states and the federal government but it didn't inevitably lead to the gigantic government we have today.

Remember there were about 70 years between the end of the Civil War and the New Deal.

Even if one did lead directly to the other, you know what? I still make that trade. Slavery was an unconscionable evil and blemish on America. I don't think everything that's happened in America since 1932 has been awful, in fact, I rather like America in the 20th century, faults and all.

So while I don't think it was an either/or choice, even if it was, I'll take the America government we had over some theoretical one, no matter how small, that tolerated slavery for a day longer than we did.

131

Posted by: toby928 at August 02, 2010 02:13 PM (8/oOq)

Well that's mighty... eh... grayish brick colored of you, Sumt.

132 I seem to recall a Mr. A. Lincoln saying something about doing anything to preserve the Union regardless of the slavery issue.

A. Lincoln had a difficult sell. He had a segment of the population who hated slavery and would fight to end it, and needed no additional encouragement, and another which couldn't give a f*ck about slavery and needed another reason to fight.

Note following the Civil War how quickly slavery was ended, by amending the Constitution of all things. Do you really want to try a public argument that, that was not the intent and try and sway opinion about how wrong we were based on that alone? The very best outcome for such an ill thought argument would be sure we did it for the wrong reason, but we were still justified. And there you would be, having lost the argument or ready to argue that black people should still be slaves.

133 Total comment fail at 137. 

134 Well we can always wait for the economy to totally collapse.  Maybe we'll listen to Ryan then.

135 Remember there were about 70 years between the end of the Civil War and the New Deal.

And 70 years between the New Deal and the Big Fuckin' Deal.  Coincidence?  I think not.

136 ..........oh, and I want Paul Ryan to be POTUS and would be willing to......

( remaining text deleted in the interests of not sounding Dark or muttering about revolution )

137 Via WeaselZippers: President Barack Obama says Republican leaders haven’t come up with “a single, solitary new idea” to help the American people recover from the economic recession. http://tinyurl.com/28q6z68

138

Let's be honest, the liberals have won the war on things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc

There is no war, but only neverending battles. Perhaps a battle is won, to seeming hopelessness.

139

We need to abolish the Dept of Education for major reason and one minor reason:

Major: Its is unconstitutional

Minor: Its was put in place by a Dem congress and Jimmy Peanut

and also, because it is like all Democrap socialist programs, a massive failure.  

Major:  It is the financial lever by which Washington controls the curricula of local schools.  You want more of that sweet federal money?  Toe the line!

140
We cannot tear down every entitlement.  that's crazy.  but we must make sure that our entitlement programs are paid for before we heap on more.
 *cough PelosiCare*
 We must make sure that entitlement programs are for those who need them, and not abused by people who do not need them.   The democrats cheat the CBO by giving them false information.  This must end. The democrat6 ponzi scheme must end.   The democrats desire every American be on the government dole, and therefore slaves of the state.  The democrats want every American to be strangled by government intrusion and regulation.  Democrats do not trust people to run their own lives.  The democrats are the party of liberty-kill. We must end Democrat welfare (like this) and insist that everything is paid for first.

141

Posted by: DrewM. at August 02, 2010 02:21 PM (X/Lqh)

Please don't take this off the res - please?

142 Getting rid of Cabinet departments can happen, but it is a two step process. First, transfer all of the stuff that is cheap and popular to the Commerce Dept., then kill off the big agency.

143 We cannot tear down every entitlement.  that's crazy.

Not only can we.  We must.  Or we become Argentina at best.  Those programs are destroying us.

144 Total comment fail at 137. 

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber

 

And they tell me that I'm bombed.

145 Getting rid of Cabinet departments can happen, but it is a two step word process.: you're fired!

146

And they tell me that I'm bombed.

Posted by: Ft. Sumter at August 02, 2010 02:27 PM (R2fpr)

If you would just stand up and defend yourself one in a while, people would not walk all over you.

147

And they tell me that I'm bombed.

Posted by: Ft. Sumter at August 02, 2010 02:27 PM (R2fpr)

I blame it on my mother. 

148 Cuccinelli for President? Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued the legal opinion Friday extending that authority to Virginia police in response to an inquiry over whether his state could mirror the policies passed into law in Arizona. (Again via WeaselZippers)

149 The biggest problem with the Republican party nowadays (as I see it) is that they are enthralled to the Media.  They want to be treated nicely on television, and they will throw principles aside for that purpose.  They also want to be reelected for all eternity, and they need positive press coverage (or at least not openly hostile).  The easiest way for good coverage is not to attack Liberal ideology, ie, not attack the Media's core beliefs. 

I applaud Paul Ryan for his principled stands on most issues.    I seriously doubt he will get many Republicans onboard. 

150
Those programs are destroying us.

No problem. We'll just build more casinos!

151

you're initial litmus test"

It should be "your".

and it devolves further.

Can we stop the re-enactment?

152 There hasn't been a 're-aligning' election since 1932 ( which shifted control of the Dems to a progressive-dominated coalition with a Silent Southern Segregationist partner ). 

Too many people suck the government teat:  Too many voters vote themselves the store, as the saying goes, because everyone else is taking their cut--so why hold out on some sort of high-horsey moral grounds?

Why turn down Government Cheese?

We're not slouching towards Jerusalem; we're cartwheeling towards Greece ( circa 2010 ):  Bankrupt and Stupid with public employees willing to riot in the streets to keep their bennies.

Pater noster...........

153 -->I honestly would be in favor of the conservative bait and switch in '12 and pay the price in '14 if we got anywhere near the results the Democrats have gotten in the last year and a half.

This is why I have said that the damage done by The Precedent and his lunatic junta is irreparable.  It drives the other side to need to do the same, and thus we end up with a race to the bottom.  When the reaction to the dems destroying every sense of American tradition and law and the answer seems to be - 'we have to destroy American tradition and law, too' - then it's over.  Anyone with a brain saw this coming.

-->Somehow though, the Republicans never seem to pull the trigger.

Because we don't have someone in the Oval Office whoi isn't really an American and who holds every bit of America and our institutions in utter contempt.  What you want, Drew, is your own ineligible person to sit in the White House, because, as you might realize some time, it is only the non-American quality of The Precedent that allowed him to push our procedures and institutions past the breaking point.  The Precedent did that because he wanted to break those institutions and didn't care if his legislation got passed, or not.  And now, you have been reduced to wanting the same thing from a Republican.  No nation can survive that sort of shit. 

But ... we warned you about this problem with letting ineligible people in the White House ... and now you have been forced into a place where you are championing the sort of America-destroying tactics that the left has just used.

Great.  Really. ... Yep.  Race to the bottom with our nation.  Beautiful. ...

154 All this talk about Social Security, et al, being sacred cows. How come I- an individual private citizen, my life, liberty, and property are not sacred cows? It's maddening. A slow-motion strangulation for all to see but which we can't prevent.

155

We must make sure that entitlement programs are for those who need them, and not abused by people who do not need them.

Entitlements .... the government is to protect its people. Entitling its people to anything but physical protection by means of war, if necessary, or the upholding of the constitution is slavery.

156
Not only can we.  We must.  Or we become Argentina at best.  Those programs are destroying us.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz

Sure!  But it's never going to happen.

157

And they tell me that I'm bombed.

Posted by: Ft. Sumter at August 02, 2010 02:27 PM (R2fpr)

If you would just stand up and defend yourself one in a while, people would not walk all over you.

Posted by: Jim in San Diego

 

Well, I tried ducking, but it didn't seem to help.

158 We cannot tear down every entitlement.  that's crazy.

Unsound argument:  No one is arguing to tear them all down:  Just reduce the size of and slow the growth of all of them--while consolidating most of them to effectively eliminate some of the Cabinet posts and their mutant-zombie bureaucracies

Slow everything; give everything slow!

( in re Major ______ de Coverely:  "Gimme eat; give everybody eat"

159

you're initial litmus test"

It should be "your".

and it devolves further.

Can we stop the re-enactment?

Posted by: Ben

 

Can't. We still have some powder left to shoot off (I used to be a re-enactor. Old, old joke)

160

Can't. We still have some powder left to shoot off (I used to be a re-enactor. Old, old joke)

Posted by: Ft. Sumter

 

Begone sock.

161 DrewM.: "So while I don't think it was an either/or choice, even if it was, I'll take the America government we had over some theoretical one, no matter how small, that tolerated slavery for a day longer than we did."

My point is that we learn all the lessons from the Civil War, not just some of them. Polynikes mentioned the Federalists which predated the Civil War, but the most profound shift of authority was a direct consequence post-War. That means that we've had an incremental ratcheting of centralized power usurping the States and, ultimately, the individual. Much of the apparatus that's been created in the interim based on that shifting of authority has harmed our Liberty. We probably ought to address it particularly in view of the collapse in our midst.

162 Related and quite good .

163 We must make sure that entitlement programs are for those who need them, and not abused by people who do not need them.

Your confusion of words is at the Heart of the Matter:  Needing something is fundamentally different from being entitled to something ( regardless of 'need' ).  Entitled people do not need to 'need'; they Get because they Are

164
Paul Ryan isn't suggesting we tear down every entitlement,He's suggesting we get a handle on the cost and remove the debt.  & He's not getting much support!  You think promoting the complete removal of every government entitlement is going to be a winner? 

Remove Social Security - all of it.
Remove Medicare and Medicaid and all public education. for starters...
Lets just remove all of it!  weee.  Libertarians aren't even that crazy, folks.

165
No one is arguing to tear them all down: 

Oh really?

166 Medicare saps the paychecks of the producers and distorts the medical market by paying below cost to health care providers.  That is THE major reason your insurance premiums are so high.  You pay for the fucking twice.  Major drag on the economy.  FAIL

Social Security takes 15% of your production and funnels it to the general fund where it is pissed away.  Is it any wonder half the country has less than $2000 socked away for retirement?  FAIL

The Department of Education is a union boondoggle.  Those unions have taken the best educated people in the world and turned them into illiterate dunces in two generations, all the while maintaining a jobs program for the dregs of society and creating massive state universities whose sole purpose appears to be to rape their customers of hundreds of thousands of dollars and create fifth columns in society.  FAIL

Shall I move on to Energy, Agriculture, and Commerce, or so I make my point?

167 -->We must make sure that entitlement programs are for those who need them, and not abused by people who do not need them.

The federal government has NO BUSINESS with any individual social expenditures beyond those very few that were explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.  Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, health care, ... are all STATE responsibilities. 

Social expenditures are bottomless pits of spending.  You'd have to be a super-retard to put that spending at the level of government where money is created, since that is a recipe for sure disaster.  THis is why those expenditures are to take place at ONLY the state level, since states cannot create money and cannot destroy the United States with their own bankruptcies, but the federal government can take EVERYTHING down with its ability to print the money to spend.

168 Oh really?

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at August 02, 2010 02:39 PM (0fzs

I love the internets.  Just keep wanking,,,,,,,,,,,,

169
I'm not disagreeing with you, Stan  - other than your contention that people aren't arguing to repeal the entire federal government. 

170 I'm not disagreeing with you, Stan  - other than your contention that people aren't arguing to repeal the entire federal government. 

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at August 02, 2010 02:52 PM (0fzsA)

No one is arguing to "repeal the entire federal government".  Just the feral parts.  The federal government has very limited responsibilities and dealing with individuals is not part of that.  That's what state governments are for.

171

I think I get it - you're the anti-Obama, instead of spreading the wealth around, you're in favor of spreading the pain* around?

Feel the burn.

172 Posted by: Downsized Upscale at August 02, 2010 02:58 PM (IhHdM)

I'm not understanding you, obviously.  What the hell do business cycles have to do with this?  And how can you honestly say that downturns in the economy don't affect government budgets?

173 I think I get it - you're the anti-Obama, instead of spreading the wealth around, you're in favor of spreading the pain* around?

^{* the pain being of business cycles that impact individuals and families yet leave government budgets relatively unscathed}

Posted by: Downsized Upscale at August 02, 2010 02:58 PM (IhHdM)

Huh?  What the hell are you trying to say?  Other people's wealth does not belong to you, looter.  You have to go create your own.  If you feel bad for someone in a poor situation, then no one stops you from giving them all of YOUR money.

You must have cried all year after the USSR fell.  Such a blow to your world.

174

Any planned spending cuts are going to have to be across the board. Personally, I think 10% SSI retirement and and Medicare and 20% for everything else.

 And that's just for a start.

175 What does any of this have to do with eliminating entitlements and my wish to "spread the pain"?

176 Posted by: Downsized Upscale at August 02, 2010 03:20 PM (IhHdM)

Oops.  I misinterpreted your original post, Downsized.  Very sorry.

177 Posted by: Downsized Upscale at August 02, 2010 03:20 PM (IhHdM)

OK.  I totally misread your post then.  Sorry about that.  That makes sense.

I don't particularly want those parts of the government to feel pain.  Dead bodies feel no pain.  Medicare and SS and the proliferation of government agencies and the various leeches that attach themselves to the taxpayer through them just need to be eliminated.  There is basically no middle class, now.  Living standards have declined over the last 30 years due to inflation and stagnant wages.  And they are intent on taking more and more and more and there just isn't anything left.  A wholesale rethinking needs done.

178 I'll give you twenty bucks for peanut cracker gallery.

179

Who do I contact to get that done?  

Posted by: polynikes at August 02, 2010 03:35 PM (m2CN7)

Don't worry.  Homeland Security will be contacting you after processing this radical, right-wing terroristic comment (as per the DHS review of domestic terrorism) that you posted expressing your desire to leave the SSI program.

180

If I'm going to fight I've got to believe I can win.

Or just really hate the other guy.

181 Republicans should just focus on fraud and waste, vocally and publicly. Make it the Dems' "culture of waste". everyone hates it, it's at least 30% of every entitlement program and it's a shitpot of money. The problem is that one man's waste is another man's pork.

182

So if we get as many as possible of the SSI and welfare recipients on the death panel review roll, and cancel benefits and treatments for all of them, slowly the tide turns in our direction.

Yeah, that's the plan. I like it!!!

My parents were addicted to the entitlement society, and they had a right to be. They raised 8 kids in a good home, no, we did not eat foie gras, we ate a lot of potatoes and bread, on a carpenters salary. But the financially independent  people in this country, that don't need the SSI benefits, will continue to suck on the teat because they think they deserve it. And all they do with the SSI benefits, is spend it at casinos and on lottery tickets.

We need to get rid of SSI. It is a Ponzi scheme!!

183 The system is not fixable. Anyone with a calculator can see that.  We'll just have to wait for it to collapse and hope we win the battle to rebuild it.

184 Opinion is so much easier than knowledge. As Francis Bacon observed 400 years ago, two reasons for people telling lies are (1) it is difficult to discover the truth, and (2) believing the truth limits our freedom to have whatever opinion we might like.

We have the Internet now, but it has so much misinformation that perhaps truth is still a bit difficult to find. As for opinion, I think an awful lot of people have their minds made up and don't wish to be confused with the facts.

Here's a bit of help -- referencing comments by number.

52, The complete Internal Revenue Code is more than 24 megabytes in length, and contains more than 3.4 million words; printed 60 lines to the page, it would fill more than 7500 letter-size pages. - (source: US Tax Code On-Line) It isn't 70,000 pages, although that does sound more impressive. As I recall the 1986 Tax Reform bill ran to about 2,000 pages -- enough to include lots of goodies for contributors and lobbyists.

40. Not de Tocqueville. "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." -- Alexander Tytler

55 -- the civil service has already been trashed. It has returned to the good old days of patronage -- with political appointees running everything and the hiring below freed from any discipline (once offered by the Federal Service Entrance Examination and the Office of Personnel Management). Now bureaucrats hire whoever they wish.

54, 56, 72, 134, Peanut Gallery et al -- The US Constitution enshrined slavery and the Supreme Court approved the Fugitive Slave laws (requiring slaves to be caught by the police in every state and returned to their owners). Lincoln promised to uphold this injustice (so much for the Great Emancipator) in his First Inaugural Address (read it -- it isn't long or difficult to follow). The South seceded because it didn't trust "Honest Abe" to follow the Constitution -- his newly formed Republican Party had been created six years earlier as an anti-slavery coalition. The North went to war because it viewed the South as having no legal right to secede -- it was in rebellion against the duly constituted authority. The states aren't sovereign -- (possessing supreme or ultimate power) -- the Constitution subordinated them (it wasn't created or approved by the state legislatures). This wasn't a war about morality or power, although it can be portrayed as either or both. Read much more US history before discussing it or basing opinions on it.

57. Bush was running large deficits in 2005 before the bailouts and with the tax cuts. Not to mention that this is not 2005. Hardly a plan.

67. Well said.

76. I would guess the solution to the problem which you correctly describe is the formation of a new party around a single issue -- much as the Republican Party was once formed by remnants of several parties who all agreed about one thing: slavery was immoral.

116. Cut the revenues, starve the beast -- this was Reagan's strategy, leading to no change in spending, but a dramatic recession and record deficits which continued for a decade. In case you haven't noticed, the government isn't running on revenues -- it is running on credit (or debt, if you prefer).

117. Me.

121 et al. The idea that because scores have declined since the creation of the Department of Education shows it is a failure is a logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc). Reasoning here is lacking. And in what sense, exactly, is education a local issue? The state sets standards (for millions of people in California), local government may provide leadership (poor in the case of Denver, which was flimflammed into a financial gimmick). Why should my neighbors be forced to pay for a government-run school system and then force me into it? You may be assuming that because Uncle Sam shouldn't do it, Joe the Plumber should. Why?

176. Who says so? State governments are an anachronism. They have been minor players for about two centuries. The Constitution set in motion their inevitable trivialization -- and when they had real power (under the Articles of Confederation) things were screwed up, too. Saying they are what they aren't doesn't make them what you wish they were. And why you think the dimwits at the state level are better than the halfwits at the federal level?

Entertaining comments, but more heat than light.

185 Hey I love your style I will subscribe for your feed please keep posting!