Powered by TypePad

« Bracing For The 'Roid Rage' Defense | Main | As The Kabuki Accelerates »

July 27, 2011

Comments

Sara (Pal2Pal)

We, as a Americans, spend far too much time and energy on assigning blame, when that same time and energy should be focused on finding solutions. Who gives a damn who is to blame, what is, is, and what is needs to be fixed. Fix it and STFU. That is my prescription.

And throwing up one's hands and saying the other side is too dumb to understand is a very stupid way to start. In fact, it is as bad as those who use the excuse of we've always done it that way, an excuse that drives me to want to scream. I am not too dumb to understand, in fact, I suspect there are very few subjects I could not understand if someone took the time to explain it to me or teach me. I wouldn't understand the SS system if someone hadn't carefully explained it to me when I was much younger. But it was explained, when I was ranting about how much I had to pay each week into the system. Had I not zeroed in, I doubt the subject would have ever come up. Kids are just not taught how to manage finances. There were no classes on how to balance a checkbook, open a bank account, buy the first share of stock or invest in other ways. A majority of Americans probably think they don't have to pay taxes because they give the government an interest free loan for months of the year by overwithholding and then they get their own money back at the end of the year, less what they owed on taxes and think the government is doing them a favor. I'm sure you all know people who plan their major purchases around their tax refunds.

Belarus Bytes

BF,

I'm sorry but I'm don't understand this comment:

Well, I'm accustomed to working in a mine field without many friendlies to assist, so I am cautious. To you they sounded the same but you extrapolated my pov with the graf above

I'm not sure what you're saying regarding extrapolating your POV. I'm confused as to whether you're saying I was right or not. It's very late over here, so my confusion, as well as my poor grammar and proofreading, is probably due to being tired.

I'd really like to understand where you're coming from, but I'm off to bed now. If you choose to reply, I'll get back with you tomorrow.


Ben Franklin

sorry. I am juggling comments.

You said ""I guess one could argue that saying Republicans have an ulterior motive means that they are trying to do in under the radar while saying that they are intentionally set on destroying SS would imply that it is a public goal. But, to my mind anyway, the statements are identical as to the end result."

To which I say 'intentional' could be applied to both the 'under the radar' methodology, as well as a PUBLIC declaration of their intent to destroy. The point is they can't go public because it is political suicide. I'm assuming you are familiar with American Politics. If you aren't you will find one good thing about JOMer. They will instruct you.

JM Hanes

Janet: "How is "overt" bad if you are spreading the Gospel? "

I didn't sound to me like Sara meant bad.

I wonder, though, if you too, don't see some real differences between traditional (purely for lack of a better word) Christians and evangelical Christians. When I was growing up, most of the Protestants I knew did not, in fact, see it as their Christian duty to spread the Gospel or save other people's souls. They rather sought to observe their relationship with Christ and God within the church, and then let that relationship privately inform their secular lives outside of it.

It seems to me what a lot of people see as a momentous shift occurred when the newly formed "Religious Right" added "Christian" to the rhetoric of politics in a dramatically new way.


Ben Franklin

Sara;

Missed an earlier comment on best practices for blockquotes etc.

Doing my best on that front, to be clear, I mean.

As to the 'C' word, my apologies....when someone uses the 'A'word and casts in my direction, it is an autoresponse.

Frau Steingehirn

Zell Miller...dibs!

Danube of Thought

Rather than quibble over whether or not Obama (or anyone else) is a socialist, I think it would be more useful to discuss how one's ideal state compares with the states who describe themselves that way. If that is the test, then SS and Medicare certainly share a number of attributes of programs in those states, and Obama certainly seems to be an admirer of the European socioeconomic model.

As for whether socialism is "good" or "bad" I express no opinion, other than to say that as an economic model it has failed utterly throughout Europe, to the point where the poloiticians themselves are in full retrat from it. Doesn't matter; it's too late for them.

Chubby

((The point is they can't go public because it is political suicide. ))

so what? if SS is viable and deserves to be kept alive, it should be a no-brainer for your side to easily produce marvelous financial models demonsrating how it can be sustained. But because you can't, you instead spend all your time maligning and mispresenting Republicans. Paul Ryan came up with some good ideas on how to keep it going, but you guys just slammed that. By your mindless character asassinations, never looking at any ideas that might give a Republican credit, you yourselves are culpable of contributing to the program's destruction even while pretending to wholly support it.

Chubby

sorry Frau he's mine. I claimed Zell during the W's second run.

Ben Franklin

It's a trust issue, Chubby. You should understand that........

Chubby

((It's a trust issue, Chubby. You should understand that........))

LOL!!!!

so people who yelled and hollered against raising the debt ceiling and who are yelling and hollering for raising it should be trusted?

your side has no moral high ground wrt double standards, and the sooner y'all are honest enough to see that, and get off the self righteousness kick, the sooner political discourse will improve

Ben Franklin

"the sooner y'all are honest enough to see that, and get off the self righteousness kick, the sooner political discourse will improve"

Jeez. yer startin' to sound like a carnival preacher..

Sara (Pal2Pal)

STOP BLAMING EVERYONE, EVERYBODY, BOTH SIDES. Sit down and figure out your common ground, the things that as Americans you should all agree and then work on finding compromises/solutions for the few areas you are truly different.

I know it is harder to do in this day and age, especially with a couple of generations that have been "socialized" in the socialism sense, not the let's go party sense, who may be hearing a different POV than they have ever heard before. And, although this isn't true in all cases, we've also all been scared into submission by women who have turned good men into wimps and minorities who convince others that they'll ruin them with charges of racism if they don't tow the victim line and give them what they want.

Right now everyone seems to be "trigger-finger tuned" as my Dad used to say. I feel it at the drug store, my D-I-L says she feels it with her customers at the dry cleaner and I see it here. This debt ceiling fight has the whole country on edge and ready to explode. We talk past each other just to assure a gotcha and nothing ever gets done.

Frankly, if I was Speaker and I had a plan that had already passed the House, but can't even be heard in the Senate, I'd take the bill back, change one comma or period and send it back, again and again and again, if I had to. This has become nothing but a giant flustercluck of BS!

Captain Hate

That's kind of circular if you undercut the candidate who wins the Republican primary. People like Rove who stabbed O'Donnell in the back made sure that she wasn't a winning candidate. And then they have the nerve to come lecturing others about ideological purity.

Thanks for responding with this while I was watching a movie (Animal Kingdom; it was ok). This argument has been going on for a year and I keep being told that Mike Castle was a shoe in for the general election. Yet he couldn't win a primary. Aren't shoe ins supposed to win primaries? Mike Castle's electability was grossly overstated and nobody got called out for doing it. Enough with the foolishness. Castle's supporters were such annoying babies after the primary that nobody should take them seriously. They were too immature to understand how embarrassing they were. Maybe running for Double Aught 7; License to Ill Biden's seat brings out the stoopid.

I'll say it again: Whether it's because of his failed marriage or some other reason, Rove has a real problem with Republican women and Priebis or somebody ought to tell him to zip his yap about it or hit the road. Rove could be a real asset with his fund raising abilities but this ugly side of his personality will cost the party if it isn't kept under wraps.

Danube of Thought

I'm frankly loving the endgame.

JM Hanes

"Whether it's because of his failed marriage or some other reason, Rove has a real problem with Republican women"

Yeah. He almost singlehandedly kept Sharon Angle's campaign alive because he really wanted her to lose.

Ignatz

--They are desperate not to appear opposed to SS.--

The unfortunate fact is very few Republicans are opposed to SS. The vast majority simply want to tweak it to keep it limping along for several more decades even though it's an awful deal for our kids.
So due to a majority of Republicans drinking FDR's Kool-Aid the US is stuck with a system considerably worse, less free and less stable than such global powerhouses as Chile.

PD

even though it's an awful deal for our kids

My kids are pretty much assuming that it won't be there for them and that they need to make other arrangements. Not that they've ever heard that from me, of course.

Thing is, everyone should always have been making other arrangements anyway. SS was originally designed to be a *supplement*, wasn't it? Not something you should expect "to retire on." The way our politicians talk, you'd never guess this.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Janet: No I did not mean bad. JMH has pretty much explained.

Charlie (Colorado)

Ponzi schemes generally rely on the gullible to believe high returns in a short time frame, That's not SS.

No, that just makes it a stupid Ponzi scheme. Structurally, it's still based on the appearance of returns on an investment that really is just paying past investors with current receipts.

Charlie (Colorado)

That's kind of circular if you undercut the candidate who wins the Republican primary.

I would have sworn I made the same point in the next paragraph.

Charlie (Colorado)

They are desperate not to appear opposed to SS. They HAVE to go under radar, or lose their jobs, (which is ABSOLUTELY to be avoided)

The downside here being that if you decide this first you automatically see any change as being part of throwing grandma off the cliff. What if your psychic-fu is weak, grasshopper?

Danube of Thought

"My kids are pretty much assuming that it won't be there for them"

I hope they are planning on being taxed for it nonetheless.

narciso

Ask Paul Ryan, how well phasing in the changes
worked, they didn't because they don't care.

PD

I hope they are planning on being taxed for it nonetheless.

Sure. I.e., they'll get the pain, but little or no gain.

Ignatz

--Thing is, everyone should always have been making other arrangements anyway. SS was originally designed to be a *supplement*, wasn't it? Not something you should expect "to retire on."--

It's not too hard to make other arrangements when the tax is 2%, a little tougher when it's over 15%.

jimmyk

I would have sworn I made the same point in the next paragraph.

I took your main point to be that we're better off with an elected Castle than a defeated O'Donnell, and in states like Delaware that's the best we can hope for. I and others have pointed out that if for that reason one undermines O'Donnell after she's nominated, then one is just trying to affirm one's bias that Castle is electable and O'Donnell isn't. Yes, you acknowledged the establishment Republicans' role in O'Donnell's defeat. But you don't seem to see that that undercuts your point about states like Delaware. If all Republicans rally around the nominee and she's still defeated, that's evidence. If the Castle supporters go off and sulk because their man didn't win the nomination, then we haven't learned that tea party candidates can't win in Delaware, we've only learned that tea party candidates that are abandoned by establishment Republicans can't win in Delaware.

Mark Folkestad

Very well said, jimmyk.

Belarus Bytes

BF,

Thanks for the clarification. My understanding of your position, in my own words, is that Republicans have a secret agenda to destroy Social Security. Any effort by Republicans to make changes to or alter Social Security in any way is done solely to advance this agenda.

I'm assuming that the word "destroy" would encompass both the actual elimination of Social Security as well as the reduction of benefits to a level to which SS can no longer accomplish its purpose. I don't want to put words in your mouth so if I'm still missing the point, please let me know.

Captain Hate

Yeah. He almost singlehandedly kept Sharon Angle's campaign alive because he really wanted her to lose.

If you want to ignore his dismissive attitude of Palin, O'Donnell and Bachmann while concentrating on a single exception, would you at least point out 3 recent Republican male candidates he repeatedly disparaged on television.

Chubby

((Ask Paul Ryan, how well phasing in the changes
worked, they didn't because they don't care))


exactly

it's not about helping the poor, it's about buying votes

Chubby

((Jeez. yer startin' to sound like a carnival preacher..))

lol, standard lefty ad hom in lieu of a substantive or intellectually honest response. so tell me, why do you make such a big fuss about the right's hypocrisy but chronically evade the glaring fact that your own side is just as, if not more, hypocritical?

Charlie (Colorado)

If the Castle supporters go off and sulk because their man didn't win the nomination, then we haven't learned that tea party candidates can't win in Delaware, we've only learned that tea party candidates that are abandoned by establishment Republicans can't win in Delaware.

Yup, ergo the next graf. On the other hand, if we nominate a True Tea Party Candidate, and rally about and lose, we still lose.

The point is that the first essential here is to win. not have moral victories that include losing.

Jane says obamasucks

I'm raising a glass of grey goose in honor of Boehner. As I am nearly out, i will look for Tito tomorrow.

I hope it is as good as you guys say.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame