1 Great chart-fu.

2 Yes, we will have the looters as long as the looters can vote. If we made paying taxes a qualification for voting this shit would end.

3 Hey, this is great.  I wanted to comment on your article in the sidebar, but I was too cheap to sign up.


The answer to Hayes' assertion, that the welfare state is here to stay, is to note that what cannot continue, won't.

4

[Paul Ryan recognizes that those who see some middle path are crawling off a cliff after a mirage.]

Mitt Romney sees the middle path.

Mitt Romney would lead us off a cliff after the mirage.

5 I take a cold but distinct comfort in that.

6

The increase in 2001 is unfortunate but understandable.

The increase in 2007 is unwarranted and unforgivable.

Pelosi.

7 This guy is definitely no student of Reagan.  He forgets that Reagan was ALONE in the wilderness arguing against detente and propping up the Soviet economy.  All the academics said the same thing: Soviet Union is here to stay.  15 yrs later the Soviets landed on the ash heap of history. 

Reagan was also considered a heretic inside the GOP for saying that government was the problem.  How else to explain HW Bush's kinder, gentler campaign of 1988?  Reaganism is infused into the core GOP base.  A base that threw out the majority in 2006 by voting for Dems or not voting at all. 

Reagan's legacy is alive.  It is working.  Now more than ever voters are seeking leadership to lower the burden.  Contrast that to the 1980's when welfare reform was considered a racist policy.  Hayward is basically trying to negotiate just before the other side is about to lose and lose big. 

8 the entitlement state is here to stay. Get used to it and start negotiating. There's really nothing to negotiate. We either dispose of the entitlement state or it turns us into serfs. I don't want to see well intentioned center-right moderates administering the welfare state better than left-wing technocrats. I want the whole apparatus discarded as a failed experiment!

9 Except the GOP doesn't so much negotiate as surrender unconditionally.

10

Here is why Hayward is wrong.

Anything that can't be sustained, won't be.  Ronald Reagan believed that the welfare/entitlement state wasn't sustainable.  We KNOW now that it isn't.

There is no capitulation, only bankruptcy and penury if we fail to prune the welfare state and reform entitlements.  IT. IS. NOT. SUSTAINABLE.  There is no level of taxation that can accommodate the asymptotic spending line as decribed in that last chart. 

11

Whenever I think about the fact that we need to pay $15 trillion just to be broke (thanks for helping along my alcoholism Steyn!), I want to curl into a fetal ball and start chanting can't sleep deficit will eat me.   

Mitt Romney sees the middle path.

Mitt Romney would lead us off a cliff after the mirage.

Lord help me I'm defending Romney but name any other Presidential candidate (actual ones not space aliens) who has an actual plan that doesn't do the same thing. 

12 Gawd Damn -I'm gooood!

13 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

14 To be clear, it's taken 80 years to get to this point. I don't expect to undo it in one presidential term. But God Damn it we can start moving in the right direction!

15 If we made paying taxes a qualification for voting this shit would end.

Posted by: Vic at November 21, 2011 02:08 PM (YdQQY)

In most states, there isn't even a requirement for the presentation of a free ID card to vote, and you want the proof of paid taxes to be a qualification?  The poll tax didn't work too well either, even though the amount was exceeding small.

16 > 9 Except the GOP doesn't so much negotiate as surrender unconditionally. Posted by: andycanuck Vote Them Out.

17 What can't continue, won't. Said it again because it is important and true. All of the goodies promised by Uncle Sugar will come to an end rather abruptly.

18

[Mitt Romney sees the middle path.

Mitt Romney would lead us off a cliff after the mirage.

Lord help me I'm defending Romney but name any other Presidential candidate (actual ones not space aliens) who has an actual plan that doesn't do the same thing. ]

There isn't one.

Therefore I'm writing in Paul Ryan next November.

19 Whether he wins in the next election or loses, Boehner, as speaker must go.  Same goes for McConnell.  They are the negotiators destroying the Reagan ideal. 

20 Having a Republican in the white house and both the House and Senate both in the hands of the GOP won't stop the growth of this beast.  It might slow the growth, but it certainly won't stop it.

Eventually, this house of cards must fall.  I only hope this great nation survives that great fall.

"...all of the king's horses and all of the king's men couldn't put Ol' Humpty back together again..."

21 Hayward is right.  The reason is that people are fundamentally humane.  Some people - let's say the bottom 20% - are just incapable of supporting themselves in a modern, technologically-sophisticated economy.  The jobs they used to do - ditch digger, stable boy, village idiot - are no longer on offer.  Unless you are willing to see them starve to death on the streets (and most people would not let even cats or dogs do this) they will have to be provided for.   Some kind of welfare state is inevitable.

Perhaps it will be more oriented towards work fare where they are given subsidized jobs that are useful to society, but not worth enough to live on, by themselves.  Maybe we will have a Friedmanite negative income tax.

Capitalism is the best system for the top 80%.  The bottom 20% need some help however.   That is a simple fact of life and any party that does not recognize it will not get elected.

22

We are simply not going back to a system of "rugged individualism" in a minimalist "night watchman" state; there is not even a plurality in favor of this position.”

I disagree.  Mathematics guarantees we will go back to rugged individualism, when we run out of borrowed money.

23 I just picked up Hayek's "Constitution of Liberty" at my library (see? they're good for something) and he goes to a great deal of trouble to define Liberty as being as free as possible from coercion.  As he describes it, the powerful General who commands respect, along with his armies, may have less Liberty than a simple farmer or shepherd.

I think this bears mention, because basically anyone who just "accepts" the Entitlement State has given up on this "true" form of Liberty, and is willing to accept its pale shadow of "Liberty from..." in this case, Liberty from taking care of ones self.

24 Inflation is our future, currency collapse is our destiny.  The politicians, and the voters, will attempt the seemingly easier fix first, last, and always.  We won't accept the pain of actually trying to turn the ship while it's still doable.  We would rather collapse at some future date, a date that is not as far off as everyone wants to imagine.

25

Having a Republican in the white house and both the House and Senate both in the hands of the GOP won't stop the growth of this beast.  It might slow the growth, but it certainly won't stop it.

Oh oh oh that brings up my pet peeve, a slowing in the rate of growth IS NOT A CUT.  IT'S NOT.  IF YOU ARE SPENDING MORE, BUT LESS MORE THAN YOU ANTICIPATED, IT'S STILL MORE NOT LESS.  ARRRRGGGGHHHHH ALEXSMASH

Hmm.  It appears my caffeine has kicked in.

26 Oh, and DOOOOOMMMMMM.

27 I believe that that which is unsustainable cannot be sustained. Sooner or later, the welfare state will collapse simply because a mechanism that confiscates ever more from the productive segment of society and lavishes it on the unproductive simply cannot survive.

28

Whenever I think about the fact that we need to pay $15 trillion just to be broke (thanks for helping along my alcoholism Steyn!), I want to curl into a fetal ball and start chanting can't sleep deficit will eat me.   

Posted by: alexthechick at November 21, 2011 02:17 PM (VtjlW)

The $15 trillion is just the borrowed money.  Don't forget that on top of that, the unfunded obligations of SS and Medicare alone exceed $100 trillion.

29 Quoting TrueNorth: "Capitalism is the best system for the top 80%.  The bottom 20% need some help however.   That is a simple fact of life and any party that does not recognize it will not get elected."

Liberty works for 80% of the people, and doesn't work for 20% (the hard core left).  Capitalism is a part of the liberty formula, not the formula itself.

30 name any other Presidential candidate (actual ones not space aliens)

So Rick Perry (and Newt, if I understand his plan) is a space alien?  Well, that might explain some things.

Both of those candidates (again: I know Rick's plan does, if I understand Newt's correctly it does as well) cap spending at 18% of GDP, and at least attempt to tackle entitlement spending.  Both candidates seek to limit the size of government, and start cutting actual agencies and departments.

Paul Ryan is a fantasy candidate.  Stop pining over him (the same is true for those who still dream that St. Sarah will get in, or Chris Christie, or whoever else) and start backing someone to beat Romney.

31 Obama Administration Hardest Hit: It was to be a rare moment of camaraderie and celebration for India's marginalized eunuchs. Thousands had traveled to New Delhi to participate in a ceremony to honor deceased friends and to pray for the health of all children.  Then a fire erupted in a huge makeshift tent Sunday night. Panic broke out and 15 eunuchs were killed and 36 others were injured, fire officials said.  The fire was likely caused by an electrical short, fire officials and witnesses said.  Acrid smoke hung in the air Monday and small groups of eunuchs were allowed to enter the cordoned-off area to salvage what was left of their belongings. Hundreds of others gathered outside to gather news of their friends and console each other.

32

Capitalism is the best system for the top 80%.  The bottom 20% need some help however.   That is a simple fact of life and any party that does not recognize it will not get elected.

 

Bullshit. 

33

{The jobs they used to do - ditch digger, stable boy, village idiot - are no longer on offer. }

Bullshit.

Construction worker, roofer, bricklayer, plumber, janitor, delivery person, and yes, burger flipper... etc etc.

It actually takes very little to put a roof over your head and food in your stomach. I found that out when I moved out at age 18.

34 I hope Reagan gets on the "New Dollar" btw, rather than "Barry Bucks", but either way, the "New Dollar" is coming soon to a wallet near you.

35 Quoting alexthechick: "Oh oh oh that brings up my pet peeve, a slowing in the rate of growth IS NOT A CUT.  IT'S NOT.  IF YOU ARE SPENDING MORE, BUT LESS MORE THAN YOU ANTICIPATED, IT'S STILL MORE NOT LESS."

^ this!

36 The entitlement state reminds me of the tipping point analogy used in many other critical issues.  The rate of entitlement benefits can be increased for a remarkably long time (as in the chart), but even a dunce (and Congress has 535 of them that were voted into office) can see that at some point, the financial burden inherent in a very steep rate of increase simply cannot be sustained.  I don't want to do math here, but there is not enough money in the universe to cover the bill if this process continues unabated. 
Our fearless leaders, fearing only for their jobs and power, are deliberately misleading us, hoping that they will have gotten all they can out of the public till and into their pockets, before the obvious financial collapse occurs.

37 Oh oh oh that brings up my pet peeve, a slowing in the rate of growth IS NOT A CUT.  IT'S NOT.  IF YOU ARE SPENDING MORE, BUT LESS MORE THAN YOU ANTICIPATED, IT'S STILL MORE NOT LESS.  ARRRRGGGGHHHHH ALEXSMASH

Hmm.  It appears my caffeine has kicked in.

Posted by: alexthechick at November 21, 2011 02:24 PM (VtjlW)

I love you. Yes. THIS!!!! 1000X THIS!!!!!

38 The bottom 20% need some help however.   That is a simple fact of life and any party that does not recognize it will not get elected.

And who says the Government (read: the coerced tax-payer) has to provide that help?  We provided quite well for them for more than a century on private charity. 

I have no problem helping those who really need help (btw: I'm guessing that percentage is closer to 5 than 20), but why should my tax money be taken to pay some bureaucrat to formulate some policy that will be enacted by some agency which will, eventually get 45 cents out of every dollar to the people who actually need it?

39 The reason is that people are fundamentally humane. There is nothing at all humane about robbing Peter to pay Paul. Your argument fails.

40 Quoting AllenG: "I think this bears mention, because basically anyone who just "accepts" the Entitlement State has given up on this "true" form of Liberty, and is willing to accept its pale shadow of "Liberty from..." in this case, Liberty from taking care of ones self."

^ and this!

41 "Crazy Money" Kids will be hardest hit.

42 Unless you are willing to see them starve to death on the streets (and most people would not let even cats or dogs do this) they will have to be provided for.   Some kind of welfare state is inevitable.

Posted by: TrueNorth at November 21, 2011 02:23 PM (OVw8Y)

Hunger is a fantastic motivator. 

43

Capitalism is the best system for the top 80%.  The bottom 20% need some help however.   That is a simple fact of life and any party that does not recognize it will not get elected.

that's the biggest load of crap I've ever seen

44 Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at November 21, 2011 02:31 PM (p7SSh)

A more concise (and biting) form of my argument.

45 Capitalism is the best system for the top 80%.  The bottom 20% need some help however.   That is a simple fact of life and any party that does not recognize it will not get elected.

Posted by: TrueNorth at November 21, 2011 02:23 PM (OVw8Y)

 

Prior to the 1960's, churches and charities took care of many of the lower 20%, and they did it very well.  (So don't be telling me that only government is able to do this.  I know better).

Then along came the civil rights movement, which is a good thing, but LBJ decided go several steps further with the "Great Society".  All this was was reparations writ large.

FDR gave marxism a foot in the door of our way of life, LBJ pushed it all the way open.  It will be hard to close.

46

It's harder to limit government than to expand it - voters have shown themselves to be willing to spend more, as long as they think it's not THEIR taxes paying for it. Hayward:

Liberals need to acknowledge that the American people will never support the high level of taxation--let alone wholesale redistribution--that would be necessary to support the future welfare state that has been set in motion.

The RightÂ’s mistake is that we have not made this choice clear to the American people. Democrats grow goverment through a piecemeal approach. We never force them to present the voters with the total bill to pay for it. The time has come to do that: Democrats want a European welfare state? Here's the cost...

 

And nowhere, neither Hayward nor Ben's response, addresses the driving cultural force behind government  growth: The shift from two-parent families to single-parent households. It was the most significant domestic development in the Western world in the 20th century. Simply put, America can never, ever roll back the welfare state while at the same time increasing the number of single-parent homes. (Out-of-wedlock births are now about 40%.) Voters have shown they won't "punish the children" of a parent who made an awful life choice. So, unless we turn back the cultural tide, we'll never change the country politically.

 

So,

 

1. Force Democrats to defend the cost of their European Utopia

2. Say out loud what most taxpaying, middle class voters are saying among themselves: we're paying taxes to raise other people's children.

 

 

 

47

Unless you are willing to see them starve to death on the streets (and most people would not let even cats or dogs do this) they will have to be provided for.   Some kind of welfare state is inevitable.

Posted by: TrueNorth at November 21, 2011 02:23 PM (OVw8Y)

if they won't get a job and work for something I'll walk past them happily as they hunger in the streets, maybe I'll give them a ham on the side if I find compassion with a situation.

48 Draconian.  Severe.  Oppressive.  Brutal.  Extre-e-e-e-me.  These are all words I want to hear when we talk about cuts.  Oh, and drastic.  I want to hear that, as well.

49 I have no problem helping those who really need help (btw: I'm guessing that percentage is closer to 5 than 20), but why should my tax money be taken to pay some bureaucrat to formulate some policy that will be enacted by some agency which will, eventually get 45 cents out of every dollar to the people who actually need it?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 21, 2011 02:30 PM (8y9MW)

That is the heart of it.  The federal government has no right to take my money for charity, and in fact has ruined charity by taking the morals out of the equation.

50 why should my tax money be taken to pay some bureaucrat to formulate some policy that will be enacted by some agency which will, eventually get 45 cents out of every dollar to the people who actually need it?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 21, 2011 02:30 PM (8y9MW)

Because you might choose to be a stingy bastard and not support charitable giving in an appropriate manner.  If the elites confiscate your wealth and redistribute it as they see fit, they both employ a lot of government bureaucrats and create a permanent caste of incompetents that have no rationale to ever do anything except cash the gummint check and vote for more benefits.  Win Win for them, and the fact that you lose has not been lost on them either.

51 that's the biggest load of crap I've ever seen

If you read it (as I did) that "Capitalism" is going to mean that a certain % are "left behind" (which it does: the world ain't perfect), it's fair enough.  The % is wrong (like I said, I'd be surprised if 5 out of every 100 people couldn't prosper under Capitalism), but the idea that "The poor you will always have with you," is true enough.

At that point, the question becomes: so who takes care of the poor?  And my answer is "not the Government."

52

FDR gave marxism a foot in the door of our way of life, LBJ pushed it all the way open.  It will be hard to close.

Posted by: Soona at November 21, 2011 02:33 PM

Don't forget me!

53 I guess it hasn't dawned on Hayward that simple math is the reason the welfare state must be largely dismantled and restored to a limited size as a means to provide temporary help.  We are broke, the end.

There aren't enough new taxes in the world that will cover the obligations on the books already.  Not to mention that any time government increases revenues SPENDING goes up even more.  The guy is a complete idiot.

54
"Everybody in the country is going to have to sacrifice something, accept change for the greater good. Everybody is going to have to give. Everybody is going to have to have some skin in the game."

What does Obama give? Besides his abundant wisdom and broad expertise, what does Obama give?

What do all those protesters give; what is their skin in the game?

55 stupid ants

56 Hayward's article seems self -serving: Another area ripe for conservative reappraisal is the environment. Conservatives who sensibly dislike both the centralized regulation of most environmental policy and the untethered apocalypticism of much of the environmental movement have tended to respond with a non sequitur: the environment has mostly become a cause of the Left, therefore environmental problems are either phony or are not worth considering. To be sure, many environmental problems have been overestimated, and the proposed remedies are problematic from several points of view, but conservatives, with only a handful of exceptions, have ceased sustained reflection on how to assess environmental problems seriously, or how to craft non-bureaucratic and non-coercive remedies for many genuine problems that require solutions. The tortured course that has led to the extreme polarization of environmental issues is beyond the scope of this paper, but suffice it to say that this polarization has been deleterious to both the aims of the environmental movement--which has allowed environmentalism to become so strongly associated with the aims of the Left as to be no longer worth conservatives competing for--and the long-term political viability of American conservatism, which has at this point almost entirely conceded areas of sustained public concern (environmental health, the provision of parks, and the protection of wildlife and scenic landscapes) to its political opponents. There is a small subculture on the Right, known as "free market environmentalism," that offers an alternate path toward environmental protection consistent with conservative principles, including respect for property rights, a strong preference for markets, and our congenital suspicion of government and regulation. The conservative movement would be well served to take those ideas more seriously. ***** Hayward's profile: Experience Senior Fellow, Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1992-present Member, California Departmental Transportation Advisory Committee, 1996-2001 Contributing Editor, Reason Magazine, 1990-2001 Bradley Fellow, 1997-98; Henry Salvatori Fellow, 1993-94, Heritage Foundation Public Interest Member, California Citizens Compensation Commission, 1990-95 Director, Golden State Center for Policy Studies, 1987-91 Executive Director, Inland Business Magazine, 1985-90 Richard M. Weaver Fellow, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1985-86 Director of Journalism, Public Research Syndicated, Claremont Institute, 1984-87 California has gone to hell in a hand basket...

57 At that point, the question becomes: so who takes care of the poor?  And my answer is "not the Government."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 21, 2011 02:35 PM (8y9MW)

yep, there will always be poor. the left has never gotten used to that fact or that 9/10 times it's the poor guy/gal's fault

58 Relax everyone 2012 is almost here

59 The bottom 20% 99% need some help however. Fixed it for you. On the way to DC. Doesn't anybody ever clean these streets? They smell like shit...

60
I wonder if Dunce has ever contemplated that it might be the welfare system that is The Cause of the perpetual lower class.

61 yep, there will always be poor. the left has never gotten used to that fact or that 9/10 times it's the poor guy/gal's fault Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans Curious/Sky at November 21, 2011 02:37 PM (yAor6) Ain't that the truth. Ya shouldn't have trusted me

62 Quoting TrueNorth: "Capitalism is the best system for the top 80%.  The bottom 20% need some help however.   That is a simple fact of life and any party that does not recognize it will not get elected."

One of the problems I have with your point is...who defines the 80% and the 20%?  We've let our "socialist betters" decide over the last few decades, and find that they defined the 20% as something "true north" of 40%!

63 Ain't that the truth. Ya shouldn't have trusted me

Posted by: B Madoff at November 21, 2011 02:38 PM (i6RpT)

Well, they probably shouldn't have.  Anyone who promises much for nothing (or very little) is probably lying to you.

64 Is Steve Hayward the same guy as Steve Hayes?

65 I am the 99%:   A Miami woman who wanted to work at a nightclub started searching for someone who could perform plastic surgery at a cheap price to give her a curvier body. Police say what she found was a woman posing as a doctor who filled her buttocks with cement, mineral oil and fix-a-flat-tire sealant.

66
The leftist policies brought about by the Democrats starting in the early 20th century are the cause of lifelong welfare recipients.

67 "Capitalism is the best system for the top 80%.  The bottom 20% need some help however.   That is a simple fact of life and any party that does not recognize it will not get elected."

We're never going to outbid the Democrats in terms of goodies to hand out to the bottom 20%. So, why bother?

68

Ain't that the truth. Ya shouldn't have trusted me

Posted by: B Madoff at November 21, 2011 02:38 PM (i6RpT)

Well, they probably shouldn't have.  Anyone who promises much for nothing (or very little) is probably lying to you.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 21, 2011 02:39 PM (8y9MW)

and anyone who goes all-in in an investment should be ready for the possible negative result

69 I got visual aids looking into Sarah's hoohaw for the second shooter!

70
Published in the Fall 2011 issue of Breakthrough Journal

About Us

Breakthrough Journal's mission is to modernize liberalism for the 21st century. Founded shortly after the death of heterodox sociologist Daniel Bell, Breakthrough Journal embraces Bell's view that "A new public philosophy will have to be created in order that something we recognize as a liberal society may survive."





Remember when AEI writers were supposed to be sorta conservative? Takes me back....

71 yep, there will always be poor. Statistically, there must be the poor. But you're not locked into your category, as long as there's Opportunity. Lots of mobility possible. (I'm not speaking about the current pause in Americanism)

72

Barack Hussein Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

I denounce myself.

73 those who advocate surrender (such as Hayward) ALWAYS think they're the ones being reasonable.

74 The leftist policies brought about by the Democrats starting in the early 20th century are the cause of lifelong welfare recipients.

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 21, 2011 02:40 PM (sqkOB)

Of course.  If the recipient ever got off of welfare, there would be no motivation to vote democrat, thus the programs were designed to keep them there.

75 Capitalism is the best system for the top 80%. The bottom 20% need some help however. That is a simple fact of life and any party that does not recognize it will not get elected.

Posted by: TrueNorth at November 21, 2011 02:23 PM (OVw8Y)

Oh. You mean we have to get elected and stuff? We can't change America through the sheer power of our unwavering web personas?

Republicans can easily stand for the Truly Needed and still cut the welfare state by one-third. We just need to have a national discussion about who is the Truly Needy.* We can win that debate.

*Hint, they are the ones who show up temporarily at our church food bank, and act grateful. They are NOT the bunch last week who took their food and helped themselves to the children's winter coats on the racks 30 feet away from the food, and took offense when we informed them that the coats belonged to the children who go to the church. "If you ain't giving them away, you shouldn't have them there!" Yeah, we can compassionately trim those assholes from the social safety net.

76 Is Hayward's argument essentially- currently Americans get a $1.00 return for .67 cents paid in taxes and that *if* Americans are asked to pay more-they'll wake up and realize that the Democrat state will cost tho much? First-the Democrats haven't even presented a budget since when? And a remote second if you look at the sales taxes, and VAT taxes and income taxes that Europeans have paid out without waking up.... Their governments have found more ways into their pockets than a pick pocketing whore...

77 That graph makes absolutely no sense.  Neither do some of the others over at that site.

I thought creative charts and graphs were the tool of the libtards.  No?

78 One of the problems I have with your point is...who defines the 80% and the 20%?  We've let our "socialist betters" decide over the last few decades, and find that they defined the 20% as something "true north" of 40%!

Posted by: ZogTheFuzzy at November 21, 2011 02:38 PM (VJUQK) 

And the actual living standards of that 20% are superior to the life style of the most well to do among all US citizens for most of the life of the Republic. 

When the other side defines the language, you cannot win a rational argument!

Note that the poor will always be with us, and if we define the poor as the bottom 20% in terms of income, we will always have 20% living in poverty.

79

Posted by: Mike Devx at November 21, 2011 02:42 PM (Tm0GD)

THIS, my self-loathing republican brother is this type

when Obama embarassed himself by trying to get an adress to Congress on the night of a GOP debate my brother cried foul and said the President comes first and the GOP should have laid down

80

if they won't get a job and work for something I'll walk past them happily as they hunger in the streets, maybe I'll give them a ham on the side if I find compassion with a situation.

Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans Curious/Sky at November 21, 2011 02:34 PM (yAor6)

And you'll never have a say in running America, because you'll concede every election to Democrats as you hold out for your Conservative Utopia. Come on.

81 and anyone who goes all-in in an investment should be ready for the possible negative result Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans Curious/Sky at November 21, 2011 02:41 PM (yAor6) Downside? What downside?

82
Indeed.

And that's why Obama and the Democrats are doing everything they can to wipe out opportunity.

They want their base to stay poor and stupid.

83

And you'll never have a say in running America, because you'll concede every election to Democrats as you hold out for your Conservative Utopia. Come on.

Posted by: CJ at November 21, 2011 02:44 PM (9KqcB)

well I can fantasize

dont mistake me for a purist when it comes to election strategies

84 A more concise (and biting) form of my argument. Thank you, sir. That said, leftards are so damned transparent if you can ignore their smokescreens. I suggest trying to find the central lie and refuting it.

85

Steve Hayward? Never heard of him.

 

86
the graph: gee, who came into power in 2007? and then really into power in 2009?

but yeah, Bush and Med Part D was no freakin help.

87
@56



Hayward also writes for NRO and The Weekly Standard because, you know, Republicans....

88 One problem I see is that people keep electing a divided government because it supposedly produces better results yet they rail against government incompetency when this experiment repeatedly fails. Why do we keep expecting that lawmakers with different political philosophies are somehow going to reform our government? Voting for gridlock first preserves the status quo and secondarily makes matter worse by forcing bad compromises. Our government simply cannot continue to function like this. 

89
Pick winners and losers.

Caps and limits.

Steer government spending towards particular industries/people.

90

“Which brings us to the third major political fact of our age: the welfare state, or entitlement state, is here to stay. It is a central feature of modernity itself. We are simply not going back to a system of "rugged individualism" in a minimalist "night watchman" state; there is not even a plurality in favor of this position.”

 

 

oh yes we are, the question is whether we get there by choice or hardship.

91

Police say what she found was a woman posing as a doctor who filled her buttocks with cement, mineral oil and fix-a-flat-tire sealant.

 

Fix-a-flat is for breast enhancement only, it says so right on the can.

92 They want their base everyone except them to stay poor and stupid.

Fixed, Sooth.

Socialism/Marxism/Whatever-you-want-to-call-it-ism is just Feudalism with the illusion of choice.  As long as people can own property, and advance, then feudalism will fail.

Feudalism began to fall apart when the free commoners began to realize they could make better lives for themselves.  The aristocracy has fought against that upward mobility since then.

93 5 I am the 99%: A Miami woman who wanted to work at a nightclub started searching for someone who could perform plastic surgery at a cheap price to give her a curvier body. Police say what she found was a woman posing as a doctor who filled her buttocks with cement, mineral oil and fix-a-flat-tire sealant. Posted by: Wall-E at November 21, 2011 02:39 PM (48wze) -------------------------------------------------------- She got a curvier body alright. She looks like a Weeble.

94 Poverty is being defined up ever since the 60's.  If one wants to go someplace near to see real poverty, then go to Mexico, or Roatan.  Then you'll see true poverty.

95 ...and, 'Hi Everybody!'

96 89: Up twinkles!

97

dont mistake me for a purist when it comes to election strategies

Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans Curious/Sky at November 21, 2011 02:46 PM (yAor6)

Understood. I don't think they are separate. A realistic conservative approach can win elections.

98

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 21, 2011 02:47 PM (OWjjx)

+100

ditto

99 91

“Which brings us to the third major political fact of our age: the welfare state, or entitlement state, is here to stay. It is a central feature of modernity itself. We are simply not going back to a system of "rugged individualism" in a minimalist "night watchman" state; there is not even a plurality in favor of this position.”

 

 

oh yes we are, the question is whether we get there by choice or hardship.

 

Easy fix. Return the program to the rightful owners the States. Guess what, some States have no need for a Welfare program. Others can experiment in what works: think things like, weekly visits, quality assuring the recipient is actually looking for work, is providing parenting skills like cooking and cleaning. You want Welfare, well then you get a new parent looking in on how you are using it. You'd be surprised at the number of people who would prefer agricultural work than live in a fishbowl. There is a place for the nanny state: its the welfare boogers that need minding.

100 Lots of mobility possible. (I'm not speaking about the current pause in Americanism)

Posted by: t-bird at November 21, 2011 02:42 PM (FcR7P)

This is another point that is not presented often enough, i.e., there is financial mobility.  I have been in the bottom 5% (financially) using free ketchup packets to flavor spaghetti in a shared apartment,  progressed to a point where the AMT screwed me over but good, and regressed financially to where I need to be exceedingly careful about what I spend.

I don't blame the rich for the early days of ketchup and spaghetti and know that one's finances are dynamic over time.

101

oh yes we are, the question is whether we get there by choice or hardship.

Posted by: shoey at November 21, 2011 02:48 PM (jdOk/)

I don't know if that's true. The Soviet Union collapsed. Did that bring on an age of rugged individualism, or a bunch of half-assed capitalist welfare states? I'm not convinced that a total collapse of the US economy will bring about fundamental change. We'll probably still have to convince people.

102 sock off

103 Which party controlled Congress and the White House from 1/01 to 1/07?  Right, the Republican party.  Thanks for nothing, a$$holes.

104 I'm not convinced that a total collapse of the US economy will bring about fundamental change. We'll probably still have to convince people.

Posted by: CJ at November 21, 2011 02:54 PM (9KqcB)

it could create a whole opposite effect, this is how Dictators are born...

105 most here would not object to short term finanical aid assistance, even government ran short term financial aid assistance

I do.  Well, the government run version, anyway.  I have no problem supporting those in need.  My church does it both through assistance paying bills, and a food pantry.  The church right across the street (which is bigger and has more resources) does both of those plus a clothing store not unlike Goodwill. 

And if you can't afford even their low prices?  They'll give the stuff to you- because that's what Christians (as a group) do. 

The Government makes that harder, every single day, and simultaneously locks more people into that form of dependence every year.

As for "short term" financial assistance- that's what Unemployment was supposed to be.  How "short term" has that turned out to be?  The government needs to be completely out of the benevolence industry- let private organizations handle that.

106 Capitalism is the best system for the top 80%.  The bottom 20% need some help however.   That is a simple fact of life and any party that does not recognize it will not get elected.

The bottom 20% need capitalism more than anybody.

107 Want to know something that burns my biscuits?  1.25% interest rates on savings.  I know retired people that are being forced to risk their savings, or eat the seed corn, right now because the Fed is holding interest rates at 0%.  Why?  Because if bonds were paying a historically normal yield, we would be in default already.

Real, hardworking people, who saved for their own retirement, are being screwed right now, so that we can stretch the endgame out a couple of more years.

Suckers of Cock.

108 Which party controlled Congress and the White House from 1/01 to 1/07?  Right, the Republican party.  Thanks for nothing, a$$holes.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 21, 2011 02:54 PM (dZ756)

Dems had the Senate from 2001-2003

109 The aristocracy has fought against that upward mobility since then.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 21, 2011 02:49 PM (8y9MW)

You say that as though that was a bad thing!

110 It is a reminder that it is not enough to repeal ObamaCare; we must propose a market-based health care plan of our own or Medicare will sink the budget like a stone.  There is no alternative. 

Hold it, shhh, don't tell me, I know.  But the voting public isn't buying any of it.  They want Medicare in some form, and Social Security in close to the same form it is now in.

SS can be made viable with a few common sense reforms like increasing retirement age gradually and means-testing benefits.  Democrats won't go along, but at least those things must happen.  It will still be a crappy deal for retirees compared to private plans, but it won't go bankrupt if we can tweak it to survive until the Baby Boomers begin dying off.

Medicare is a different kettle o' fish, though.  We cannot cut reimbursements any more, doctors and clinics are leaving the system already, but that is all Democrats are willing to cut.  Major reforms are needed to ensure the system doesn't just collapse from over-promised benefits.

But we do not have to acquiesce in the huge increase in welfare and food stamp rolls under Obama.  We can eliminate corporate and agricultural subsidies and all sorts of other transfer payments.

Hayward is right that we have lost the existential battle over the welfare state programs, at least the flagship ones.  But that's no reason to surrender on reforming the biggest ones and cutting the smaller ones.

111

The time will be coming soon when this government, if it keeps going down the entitlement road, will be having to an Uncle Joe Stalin epiphany. 

It's a whole lot easier to starve people to death than to feed them.

112

The time will be coming soon when this government, if it keeps going down the entitlement road, will be having to an Uncle Joe Stalin epiphany. 

It's a whole lot easier to starve people to death than to feed them.

Posted by: Soona at November 21, 2011 02:58 PM (+CZc+)

we're already seeing it w/ Healthcare

113 It is a reminder that it is not enough to repeal ObamaCare; we must propose a market-based health care plan of our own or Medicare will sink the budget like a stone.  There is no alternative.

No.  We.  Don't.

We need to repeal ObamaCare and then affirmatively (by legislation if necessary) hand it over to the States.

114

Have you seen your Dow stock market thingy lately?

 

115 "...the entitlement state is here to stay. Get used to it and start negotiating."

Uh, that's what we've been doing since G. H.W. Bush.

So, how's that working out?

116 OT, but pray for these guys!
http://tinyurl.com/7fql36z

117
re: interest rates

I think the Fed's meddling is preventing a correction and a recovery. All this government meddling is wreaking havoc in the economy.

118 The time will be coming soon when this government, if it keeps going down the entitlement road, will be having to an Uncle Joe Stalin epiphany. 

Canada has plenty of Lebensraum, IYKWIMAITTYD.

119 All this government meddling is wreaking havoc in the economy.

That's certainly true.

It's almost as if a command economy works no better in lending than it does in any other sector.

120 58 Relax everyone 2012 is almost here

Posted by: The Mayans at November 21, 2011 02:37 PM (i6RpT)

You crazy Mayans, one minute you're foretelling the future in the skulls of vanquished enemies, the next you're worshiping some head of cabbage you named Ralph.

121

...the next you're worshiping some head of cabbage you named Ralph.

 

Hey, hey, hay!

122

Real, hardworking people, who saved for their own retirement, are being screwed right now, so that we can stretch the endgame out a couple of more years.

Sorry that those people bought into the "retirement myth".  That's what's giving us many of the economic problems we have now. 

Retirement is the idea of a German socialist around the turn of the last century.  I'm working until I absolutely can't work anymore.

123 I am old enough to remember when the welfare policies were referred to as the War on Poverty. All these programs have done is to encourage people to engage in the behaviors that lead to a lifetime of poverty.

124
The economy is like a sailing ship. When you get caught in a storm, you take down the sails and head into the waves.

We're in a storm right now. These idiots are keeping up the sails and attempting to roll with the waves.

We will eventually capsize.

125 I hated Reagan, but yet I will compare Obama to him favorably. I protested wars for oil by marching in the street, yet I stand silent as Obama bombs Libya for an oil pipeline because well...that wars different. I stand against corporations, yet I own and IPhone, Macbook, drink Coke, and wear Abercrombie and Fitch. Who am I?

126
You take your beating and ride out the storm.

You never try to navigate through the goddamm storm.

Storm always wins.

127
...black eyes...like a doll's eyes

128

...the next you're worshiping some head of cabbage you named Ralph.

 

Hey, hey, hay!

Posted by: Dwayne Wayne at November 21, 2011 03:05 PM (7rV2S)

 

 

No Roger, No Re-Run, No Rent!!!

 

129 This converted scumbag muslim in NYC who was caught building a bomb. Bloomberg goes on TV to call him a Lone Wolf and Yada Yada Yada and never once mentions the word Muslim.

130 No Rent!!!

Good.  That play sucks.

131 The economy is like a sailing ship.

I'm pretty sure it's like a box of chocolates.

132

@2: "If we made paying taxes a qualification for voting this shit would end."

It's cute that you think so.

133 My mother is my next patient. Now where did I put that Vodka?

134
Can you evade a tornado?

No, because you can't predict its path. You hunker down and let it pass.

135 Y'know, this crap about "everybody needs to start sacrificing for the greater good" is just that -- crap.

If everybody needs to be sacrificing for the greater good, who's actually getting a greater good, hm?

136 Sorry that those people bought into the "retirement myth".

Nonsense on stilts.  Retirement is not a myth if you save up for it, unless someone changes the rules of the game on you after your earning years. 

I mean, sure, someone can rob you, but that doesn't make the idea of private property a myth either.

Same thing.

137 The economy is like a sailing ship. When you get caught in a storm, you take down the sails and head into the waves.

We're in a storm right now. These idiots are keeping up the sails and attempting to roll with the waves.

We will eventually capsize.

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 21, 2011 03:07 PM (sqkOB)

Uhmm, makes note not to sail with Soothsayer. In a storm in a sailboat you turn your stern to the storm, leave up enough sail to keep control and put out a sea anchor and hope the storm outruns you before you hit something solid.

No sails=no steering. Sailboats can't go directly into the waves and the auxillary motors are not strong enough to fight a storm head on.

138 Whoever's been picking out Megyn Kelly's wardrobe since she got back deserves an Emmy or something.

139 I protested wars for oil by marching in the street, yet I stand silent as Obama bombs Libya for an oil pipeline because well...that wars different.
Posted by: I Am the 99%

Actually the reason for bombing Libya is even funnier than oil. It was to prevent a huge refugee flux into southern Europe.

Richard Miniter was the only one I saw writing about this aspect.

140
Just go with it, robtr.

And stop fact-checking me!

141 Can you evade a tornado?

No, because you can't predict its path. You hunker down and let it pass.

Posted by: Soothsayer Quint at November 21, 2011 03:12 PM (sqkOB)

 

Absolutely.  That's what many people did in OKC's May 3, 1999 tornado.  It's easy. 

 

 

142 ace burned out already, huh?

143 130 This converted scumbag muslim in NYC who was caught building a bomb. Bloomberg goes on TV to call him a Lone Wolf and Yada Yada Yada and never once mentions the word Muslim.

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 21, 2011 03:09 PM (i6RpT)

I hope all these muslim lovers get to see first hand what their love and respect earns them in the muslim world.

144 I'm glad to see the calling of the BS on this. Europe is eating itself because they ran out of other people's money. It took them longer than it will take us, because, frankly, they had more other people's money than we did to start with. Unsustainable won't last, it's the meaning of the word.

145 I'm not convinced that a total collapse of the US economy will bring about fundamental change. We'll probably still have to convince people. I think you're looking at this backwards. It takes consensus tyranny and positive acts of coercion to fund a welfare state. The burden of "convincing" lies on the side that will want to reinstitute the welfare state.

146 Just go with it, robtr.

And stop fact-checking me!

Posted by: Soothsayer Quint at November 21, 2011 03:15 PM (sqkOB)

Heh, ok. Just what Soothsayer said. Still you might want to think twice about going on a 3 hour cruise with him.

147 Posted by: Mallamutt
.........
Well said.

And I would add one more thing..  Many of the social safety nets we have in place were started as collective efforts many Americans gladly participate in.  Unemployment, for instance.  That is a 26 week insurance program.  It is supposed to be self-funded for the most part.

The problems come when libtard politicians try to attract a few million voters over to the dark side by upping the number of weeks.. over and over and over.

The more we can privatize  programs like this, the better off we will be.  The less the politicians can monkey with the parameters, the better.

Not all programs can be privatized, IMHO (like Medicare - it is very problematic) but many can and should be.

148
It's easy.

Serpentine?

Serpentine, Shelley!

149 ace burned out already, huh?

He had to sleep at some point.

150
Disclaimer: All my nautical and tornado knowledge comes from movies and cartoons. Do not try this at home.

151 >> It took them longer than it will take us, because, frankly, they had more other people's money than we did to start with.

And also because we were some of those other people whose money they had. It's much easier to lard up the welfare state when you can count on Uncle Sugar to ride to your defense.

152 The jobs they used to do - ditch digger, stable boy, village idiot - are no longer on offer.

You as village idiot just offered up a pile of horseshit there.  And I bet if you go a mile or two in any direction from the stable you'll see someone actually digging ditches.

153 I complain about Bush's huge defecits and tax cuts, yet do not seem to remember Obama increasing the deficit 4 times faster then Bush as well as extending the Bush tax cuts with a Dem crongress headed by Nancy Pelosi. I think Dick Cheney should be thrown in jail for no bid contracts to Haliburton, yet if someone tells me about Solyndra or another green energy company full of Obama donors I will not see a problem with it. I hate teabaggers, but yet somehow claim that I stand for tolerance. Who am I?

154 109 Which party controlled Congress and the White House from 1/01 to 1/07?  Right, the Republican party.  Thanks for nothing, a$$holes.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 21, 2011 02:54 PM (dZ756)

Dems had the Senate from 2001-2003

Posted by: AuthorLMendez Is Offering $ To ace If He Bans Curious/Sky at November 21, 2011 02:56 PM (yAor6)

I stand corrected.  So from 2004 - 2006 the Republican-controlled Legislative and Executive branches did what?  Outspent the Democrats.  Oh, and let's not forget that a Dem Senate cannot spend $ with a GOP House and Pres.

155 The world needs ditch diggers, too.

156 SFGoth 2011 was a very good year for us. You ignore Khobar Towers, bombing the embassies of Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole- much cheaper...

157 Bush's defecits were wrong, Obama's defecits, even though four times bigger are right. Bush's wars were criminal acts based on lies, Obama's wars are for good reasons and truth.

158 You should have ignored Twin Towers-people not like flying-who cares? Cheaper.

159

In the 12 years of Republican Congress, average annual deficit:  $104 billion

And I screamed bloody murder about that.

160  The world needs ditch diggers, too.

Posted by: Judge Smails at November 21, 2011 03:21 PM (7rV2S)

 

And from what I've seen of #OWS, we have an ample and ready supply of them.

161 What's that thing Plato said about preservation of the state... pppfffffftttt!!!

162 161  The world needs ditch diggers, too.

Posted by: Judge Smails at November 21, 2011 03:21 PM (7rV2S)

 

And from what I've seen of #OWS, we have an ample and ready supply of them.

 

I do not concur.

163 OT: Money, in big numbers, according to XKCD.

Perspective.

164 Am I correct in my quick calculation that if the US gov't was currently spending at the 1990-2000 level, it would actually be in surplus?

165 Love the chart-fu.  Who'da-thunk Mrs Botox & the SCOAMF would go full-retard.

166 ...or given the way this thread went, maybe it's on topic after all...

167
And I screamed bloody murder about that.

No you didn't. You and Ace loved spending when the Republicans were doing it.

168 I stand corrected. So from 2004 - 2006 the Republican-controlled Legislative and Executive branches did what? Outspent the Democrats. Posted by: SFGoth at November 21, 2011 03:21 PM (dZ756) WTF are you going on about? The dems took over and took spending through the damned roof. Yes, we all know House Republicans are useless fleshbags. But to say them spend more than Democrats is just bashing your face against reality and screaming "YOU'RE NOT REALLY THERE!"

169 Worst. Congress. Ever? Last summer, during the height of the debt-ceiling debate, congressional scholar Norm Ornstein wrote an article dubbing this Congress the Worst Congress Ever. And thereÂ’s now even more evidence to back up that assertion. According to Gallup just 13% approve of CongressÂ’ job (and that percentage is lower in other polls. As far as productivity goes, congressional lobbyist Billy Moore tells First Read that this Congress has enacted just 55 public laws so far this year (and 34 of them merely extended existing laws), compared with the average over the last 20 years of 148 public laws for a first full session.

 Just 55 laws compared to 148?  I'd call this the best Congress ever.

170 Erg has kind of disappeared, hasn't he.

171 Good.  That play sucks.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 21, 2011 03:09 PM (8y9MW)

HEAR! HEAR! the movie too

172

And from what I've seen of #OWS, we have an ample and ready supply of them. -

I do not concur.

Posted by: Sub-Tard Backhoe at November 21, 2011 03:26 PM (0M3AQ)

 

I don't know if they could dig a ditch...

but I'll be damned if they couldn't fill one.

173
I kinda miss him.

And Deb F, too.

174 I'd trade raykon for the little shitstain anyday though.

175 This idea of socialism is going to bring down the whole world.  But who cares?  Buckle up, assholes.

176 107Capitalism is the best system for the top 80%. The bottom 20% need some help however. That is a simple fact of life and any party that does not recognize it will not get elected.

The bottom 20% need capitalism more than anybody.

Posted by: Lemmiwinks at November 21, 2011 02:55 PM (pdRb1)

 

 

11!!!

177 Even with the free lunch, the bill eventually comes.

178 Erg has kind of disappeared, hasn't he.

Posted by: toby928© future purveyor of fine wheeled wallets at November 21, 2011 03:29 PM (GTbGH)

yeah and proudonkey/dum-dum is more infrequent

curious/sky whore links every now and then when her man cain is being talked about

Greg only shows up for election threads only to dissapear when good things happen for the GOP

and polynikes hasn't been seen since what? the last Romney thread?

yes, I keep tab on all trolls (well polynikes ain't a troll but me and him despise each other so I added him)

and Jeff B (not a troll but the resident squish) has been silent today

179 169 I stand corrected. So from 2004 - 2006 the Republican-controlled Legislative and Executive branches did what? Outspent the Democrats.

Posted by: SFGoth at November 21, 2011 03:21 PM (dZ756)

WTF are you going on about? The dems took over and took spending through the damned roof.

Yes, we all know House Republicans are useless fleshbags. But to say them spend more than Democrats is just bashing your face against reality and screaming "YOU'RE NOT REALLY THERE!" Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at November 21,

Go back to the chart, look at 2001 - 2006.  That's WTF I'm talking about.  AND, it gave the Donks cover to go through the roof.  So, yeah.

180 talking about no-shows still no sign of Jane?

181 No you didn't. You and Ace loved spending when the Republicans were doing it.

I can't speak for Ace, but I hated it. Problem was, we were at war, and John Kerry was a freakin' surrender monkey. (And, despite W.'s faults, he was an acceptable war-fighter.).

182 The world needs ditch diggers, too. Posted by: Judge Smails at November 21, 2011 03:21 PM (7rV2S) And from what I've seen of #OWS, we have an ample and ready supply of them. Posted by: Soona at November 21, 2011 03:25 PM (+CZc+) Those jerks couldn't find a depression in the Grand Canyon

183

I don't know if they could dig a ditch...

but I'll be damned if they couldn't fill one.

Posted by: garrett at November 21, 2011 03:30 PM (7rV2S)

 

Agree.  I'm sure they couldn't even shit in one.

184 102

oh yes we are, the question is whether we get there by choice or hardship.

Posted by: shoey at November 21, 2011 02:48 PM (jdOk/)

I don't know if that's true. The Soviet Union collapsed. Did that bring on an age of rugged individualism, or a bunch of half-assed capitalist welfare states? I'm not convinced that a total collapse of the US economy will bring about fundamental change. We'll probably still have to convince people.

Posted by: CJ at November 21, 2011 02:54 PM (9KqcB)

 

 

the collapse that is coming, will make the collapse of the old Soveit Union look like Church Picnic, lots of people still don't want to admit that but it is true.

185 ah yes shoey is here, Glenn Beck in secret

186 So from 2004 - 2006 the Republican-controlled Legislative and Executive branches did what? Outspent the Democrats. You're confusing 'Republican' with 'conservative'. We have to stop that. Or make them the same.

187 Yes, we will have the looters as long as the looters can vote. If we made paying taxes a qualification for voting this shit would end.

Hm. Turbo Tax Timmy Geithner and the exemplary GE Corporation and Solyndra Executive taxfund looters are supposed to pay taxes, and most certainly do vote as well as buy votes.

188

when Obama embarassed himself by trying to get an adress to Congress on the night of a GOP debate my brother cried foul and said the President comes first and the GOP should have laid down

Author, you should ask your brother if he remembers anything from that 'historic and monumentally important' speech that couldn't have even waited until today

189 HEAR! HEAR! the movie too

Tickets to the play on Broadway were part of a package I got on a trip with my Drama Club to NYC.  I was smart enough not even to bother with the movie.

Any play that expects me to identify with the promiscuous, AIDS (or at least HIV) sharing, hipster-douche-bag "protagonists," instead of the "antagonist" friend who (gasp) wants them to pay the rent on their loft is trying to entertain the wrong audience.

190 The Republican party is a poor vessel for conservative hopes, but I don't know who else to go with that won't be even less effectual.

191

and Jeff B (not a troll but the resident squish) has been silent today

 

There should be one day a year where JeffB's Girlfriend jokes are allowed.

192

Author, you should ask your brother if he remembers anything from that 'historic and monumentally important' speech that couldn't have even waited until today

Posted by: Schwalbe : The Me-262© at November 21, 2011 03:37 PM (UU0OF)

he's too busy bitching about Republicans being the "Party of No" to listen to me, according to him i'm a hack no one should listen to

193
my new Righteous & Harmonious Fists party, of course

194
pssst.....Corzine theft may double up to $1.2 B.

195 It's the 'income inequality' that makes a capitalistic system work for everybody-- including the people at the bottom.  It provides investment and development by the rich that provides opportunities for the lower classes to fill.

196

toilet paper for blow jobs

 

that's a good album title, there.

197 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

198 I'm stocking up on toilet paper, just to be covered.

199 Are you going to reduce a 14.7 trillion dollar economy to the point where you are trading toilet paper for blow jobs at the last fire pit.
Probably not.

God damn it.

200 Can you get a prolonged slump, a sort of Japan "Lost Decade" doubled....probably. Are you going to reduce a 14.7 trillion dollar economy to the point where you are trading toilet paper for blow jobs at the last fire pit.

Yeah, probably.  I think we will end up with our capital base effectively reduced by 90%, which means the even the savings of the upper middle class will be crushed, while the uber-rich will still have the wherewithal to get by.

Feudalism, it's what's for breakfast.

201 This is why we need Romney. He's a business man. He straightened out the olympics didn't he? Well, that alone makes him the most qualified to fix this mess. Romney: He understands the welfare state better than the others.

202

Can you get a prolonged slump, a sort of Japan "Lost Decade" doubled....probably. Are you going to reduce a 14.7 trillion dollar economy to the point where you are trading toilet paper for blow jobs at the last fire pit.

Probably not.

 

Hey, #OWS!  That's your cue.

203 If you haven't had your space fix recently (since Obama doesn't have a space program any more) ...

204 Quoting Kansas: "Just 55 laws compared to 148?  I'd call this the best Congress ever."

Great point.

My dream...electing lawUNmakers!

205 Split Personality
What the Republican divide over Social Security means for the future of entitlement reform.

206 No blowjob for you!

207 Republican Divide sounds like a geological feature you drag your kids to during the summer so they can be bored in another state.

208

Are you going to reduce a 14.7 trillion dollar economy to the point where you are trading toilet paper for blow jobs at the last fire pit.

What can I get for half a tube of Crest?

209 après moi le déluge

210 What can I get for half a tube of Crest?

A fragment of an incandescent light bulb. 

211

Posted by: Waterhouse at November 21, 2011 03:48 PM (0n9YV)

 

That or a bad Belushi film.

212 A Rationing Advocate to Head Social Security Advisory Board?
If Donald Berwick was a bad dream, Henry J. Aaron is a nightmare.

213 The problem with my fellow conservatives is they seem to completely forget that we have to have a realistic political strategy on how to take on entitlements.  Here's a hint: go after the unpopular ones first.  I understand MediCare and Social Security arehugely expensive, but they're also REALLY popular with middle class Americans that decide elections.  Only reforms that have broad bipartisan support (like slightly raising the age of eligibility) should be attempted.

The entitlements that are least popular are things like welfare, food stamps, government housing, MEDICAID.  These are things Republicans can tackle and not lose elections over since most users of these programs are probably 90% plus Democrat.  Start with these and shave off a few trillion, then we'll talk about some sort of privatization/voucher system for Social Security and medicare. 

Go after the low hanging fruit first.

214

trading toilet paper for blow jobs at the last fire pit.

 

And that's just for one sheet.  If you want more, you'll have to come live in my garage.

215

And that's just for one sheet.  If you want more, you'll have to come live in my garage.

 

One is all I need.

216

@14: "To be clear, it's taken 80 years to get to this point. I don't expect to undo it in one presidential term."

However, because it has been building for 80 years, one presidential terms is likely all the time you'll have to undo it - if you're lucky.

217   187 t-bird, conserving? Big spender neoconservative Republicans with authoritarian cravings for more bureaucracy, more fiat Federal Reserve fake money insane debt and more interventionism eliminating liberty vs. fiscally responsible constitutional conservative Republicans.

'Republican' with 'conservative'...make them the same.

Same as what?  As if a neo-Lenin-conservative doesn't mean to plunder privilege for its own insulated high society, justice never touching the elitist "leadership" deaf to constitutional demands from voting constituents and sworn duties of office.

218 If you want more, you'll have to come live in my garage.

Who needs more than one sheet?
...
Anyone want a chocolate-covered pretzel?

219 8 track, start with legislatively exterminating ObamACAre.

220 FNC talking about the "happiness riots" in Egypt.  That turned out well, huh?

221 Quoting: "Same as what?  As if a neo-Lenin-conservative doesn't mean to plunder privilege for its own insulated high society, justice never touching the elitist "leadership" deaf to constitutional demands from voting constituents and sworn duties of office."

Wow...understanding this statement must be above my pay grade!

222 do we got a crazy among us?

223 I think you're making the same mistake, España. But I could be wrong, that is an ass-load campus 'revolutionary' gibberish you've got there.

224 New thread, please.  I'm starting to hear the gurgle of the death rattle with this one.

225 I've got a bad feeling that we're in for a movie review

226 It takes consensus tyranny and positive acts of coercion to fund a welfare state. The burden of "convincing" lies on the side that will want to reinstitute the welfare state.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at November 21, 2011 03:17 PM (p7SSh)

Which could be the majority of your fellow Americans.

227 Quoting Soona: "New thread, please.  I'm starting to hear the gurgle of the death rattle with this one."

I think #220 from Espana was the final straw.

228 Which could be the majority of your fellow Americans. So, this is a numbers game, then? If it is a numbers game, then it is a game of force. I don't resist because this twisted system of enslavement is the system into which I was born. Every day, I do the cost/benefit analysis that tells me that going along to get along is the far better option. If the system collapses, what will my analysis tell me then?

229 Phil Gramm believes that the revival of Gramm-Rudman under the BCA will make it easier to defund ObamaCare:

"President Obama insisted that if the super committee failed, the sequester cutting $68 billion in 2013 had to occur after the 2012 election, in the next administration. As written, if a sequester is triggered, it would occur on Jan. 2, 2013. If Republicans win a majority in the House and Senate, they could use the provisions of the revived Gramm-Rudman Act to replace or modify the 2013 sequester with entitlement reforms or other changes in discretionary spending. Their plan could not be filibustered and would pass with a simple majority vote. The savings achieved would be in effect for only one year.

The resulting empowerment of a new Republican Congress and president would be profound. Rather than having to first adopt a budget, delaying real action until the summer or fall of 2013, a new Republican Congress could de-fund ObamaCare immediately and begin to reform entitlements for a year during which they could adopt a budget and use reconciliation to make these and other reforms permanent with a simple majority vote."

Theoretically correct but involves many ifs.

230

Which could be the majority of your fellow Americans.

So, this is a numbers game, then? If it is a numbers game, then it is a game of force.

Sure, force. Or just convincing the majority of your countrymen to go down a different path. That's how we got here you know...elections. The welfare state grew with the support of the populace.

231

@54: "What does Obama give? Besides his abundant wisdom and broad expertise, what does Obama give?

What do all those protesters give; what is their skin in the game?"

We're raising awareness, motherfucker!

232 That's how we got here you know...elections. The welfare state grew with the support of the populace. Unless 100% of the populace supported growing the welfare state, then it was done by force.

233 When you read so many people on "conservative" blogs yelling "Hands off my Social Security!" ... [no need to continue]

234 232 ETA: Gramm-Rudman worked in theory but was a failure in practice.

235 @ChadPergram  Armed Services Chair McKeon seems resigned to defense sequester. Says he'll introduce bill to protect against defense cuts.

236 On the contrary the class warfare, high inflation, revenge for the past, style welfare state the left loves is at best temporary while it lives off the fat then muscle then bone built up in the past. Once that runs out the authoritarian ruling class stays and remains wealthy but everyone else now must supports it either through taxes or skyrocketing inflation. Been to zimbabwe lately? My family has. What you do is not take more money out of the bank then you will spend that day. Because when you go shopping again in a week or two it will have lost soo much value. Im just saying I wish I could make every democrat and leftist live as a commoner (cut off from evil western money from home) in zimbabwe and cuba for at least a few months.

237 Unless 100% of the populace supported growing the welfare state, then it was done by force.

No, actually, all you need is 51%

238 No, actually, all you need is 51% How is that not force?

239 Gah. You're an idiot, Hayward's an idiot. The entitlement state is on its last legs and is about to become one with panem et circenses, for the very simple reason that it destroys the very conditions that permit it to exist in the first place. Political "reality" is irrelevant. The money does not exist. Things that can't continue, don't.

240 I am familiar with shopping Mecca Paramus, and I call BS on this.  There will be coverage of some moronic group of protesters who manage to hinder shopping at 1/10,000 stores.

241 Agree.  I'm sure they couldn't even shit in one.
No, they can. They'd just fall into the shit-filled ditch doing it.

242 USA spent about $12 trillion inflation-adjusted dollars on the cold war from 1948-1991.  That's 43 years.  We've spent about half that much on Iraq and Afghanistan (so far) in a fraction of the time.  And it hasn't come with a nuclear arsenal or any other tangible assets.  Not an appreciable difference between the democrats and republicans.  We are all suckers.

243 But God Damn it we can start moving in the right direction!

Not with Romney.

244
Excellent blog, thanks for the share. I'll be a regular viewer.

245 I can't speak for Ace, but I hated it. Problem was, we were at war, and John Kerry was a freakin' surrender monkey. (And, despite W.'s faults, he was an acceptable war-fighter.).

"W" wasn't even a competent warfighter. He gave us two half-assed efforts that degenerated, by design, into boondoggle social engineering experiments paid for with American dollars and lives.

246 "The Democrats are worse" isn't a defense for Bush's own incompetence and fuzzy thinking.

247 That is useful information and its quite easy to come a croper if you are not vigilant.

248 I love what you guys are frequently up too. Such clever work and reporting! Keep up the terrific works guys IÂ’ve added you guys to my blogroll.

249 We've spent about half that much on Iraq and Afghanistan (so far) in a fraction of the time.

6 trillion?  More like 1.2 for both all totaled.  Or less that this years deficit alone.

250 Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to more added agreeable from you! download hulu ! hulu to ipad  video to imovie dvd to imovie
video to flash converter

251 Yep! I was agreed, I'll keep in touch to your blog.

252 You know what's even more idiotic? How comment threads on this site get taken over by spam within a couple hours of starting, how hundreds of comments get posted within those couple hours, and then everybody runs off to the new comment thread. You people post so fast you can't ever stop to think about the nonsense you spout, and then it gets drowned out by the bot nonsense, which is not much less sensible. "morons" might have been chosen as a joke, but it isn't one.

253 Your mother sucks cocks in hell Rollory.