CBO says we can't sustain this country. Conservatism will win by default

[Oddball]

So why is it that, after being elected, 'conservative' politicians never act very 'conservative'?

Defenders of conservatism of course claim that the politician in question never was a conservative in the first place...because of course conservatism can't fail, it can only BE failed....

That explanation always makes me wonder why cons keep getting fooled by charlatans.

The other possible explanation is that conservatism doesn't really work.

That explanation has some data to back it up.

There hero of the conservative movement, Reagan - even HE abandoned the core principles of conservatism - he signed the largest tax hike in history. He never vetoed a spending bill and jacked spending like nobodies business. He significantly increased the size of the government.

Why? Because he failed conservatism? Or because he recognized the narrow ideology simply doesn't work?

Or maybe he just folded up like a pup tent, in the face of screeching socialistic welfare state bedwetters and their willing toadies in the media...Another GOP specialty.

 

[ConHog]

The main thing we need to cut is defense - SERIOUSLY CUT DEFENSE (we should also probably change the name to "intervention"). The MIC cash cow is what is sucking the very life out of this country and has been since Reagan. Imagine where we'd be with all the money back that has been borrowed for the STUPID, USELESS war on "terror". Bring our soldiers home. Deploy specially trained intelligence officers to be our ears over there and defend our homeland AS IS THE INTENT OF DEFENSE. Seal our ports and borders and operate like we are a country with one brain cell between us for a change. Sheesh.

How ridiculous can you be? Just totally gut national defense huh? If we had followed your advice in th 80s we'd be the ones in Russia's shoes right now. How is that working out for them (not that they had it good before )?

There needs to be some accountability in the defense budget for sure, but that could be said of the entire budget.

You dreamers who want to pretend the whole world would get along with us just fine if we'd just disband our military and play nice are fools.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

How ridiculous can you be? Just totally gut national defense huh? If we had followed your advice in th 80s we'd be the ones in Russia's shoes right now. How is that working out for them (not that they had it good before )?

There needs to be some accountability in the defense budget for sure, but that could be said of the entire budget.

You dreamers who want to pretend the whole world would get along with us just fine if we'd just disband our military and play nice are fools.

Did I say anything about disbanding or gutting the military? No, I did not. I said bring home our soldiers in the ME, scale back # of troops, cut the greedy contractors loose and send intelligence ops to be our ears. We cannot afford these "wars". Period.

 

[ConHog]

How ridiculous can you be? Just totally gut national defense huh? If we had followed your advice in th 80s we'd be the ones in Russia's shoes right now. How is that working out for them (not that they had it good before )?

There needs to be some accountability in the defense budget for sure, but that could be said of the entire budget.

You dreamers who want to pretend the whole world would get along with us just fine if we'd just disband our military and play nice are fools.

Did I say anything about disbanding or gutting the military? No, I did not. I said bring home our soldiers in the ME, scale back # of troops, cut the greedy contractors loose and send intelligence ops to be our ears. We cannot afford these "wars". Period.

No, what we can not afford is to NOT fight these wars. Now if you want to argue that they should have already been won, I'd agree with you. We need to beat the holy shit out of our enemies there turn the shit over to whomever , and tell them do what you want but we'll be back if you fuck with us. Problem solved.

 

[tnttnt]

Lefty run places have greater income disparities, harsher lives for the poor, and greater levels of dependency and clientism.

Actually, dummy, if you'd do a little research, you'd realize that you have this backwards.

I dare you to compare Sweden (strong social safety net - zero poverty / widespread prosperity) vs Russia (little to no social safety net, free (well, Oligarch controlled) markets and a miserable populace).

You can add several other states to that list - Norway for example.

 

[Oddball]

So, those bread lines in the Soviet bloc nations were all just figments of the imagination.

 

[Ravi]

Saw the news today that the CBO said by 2020, we'll be bankrupt if we stay this course. That our only hope is to cut spending by 20%, leaving us with little more than medicare, medicaid, maybe SS, and defense. Any other way, we go broke, bankrupt. I'm sure many liberals will cheer at the demise and fall of our powerful nation, but it's true, it's gonna happen if we stay this course.

What does that mean? It means the utopian dream of liberalism is dead in the water. It will never happen. We'll never be able to actually fund this healthcare overhaul. Welfare will dry up. Municipal services will be dwindled down to fire, police, ems, road maintenance.

In short, conservatism is going to win out....by default. We'll have no other choice. We'll all have to work harder. Save more. Be more responsible. More self-reliant.

Ironic, isn't it? Liberal spending and ideals have led us into bankruptcy................but the end result will be one in which conservative minded people will be the ones who flourish, and liberal minded people will likely suffer greately because they'll have to fend for themselves. Hmmm. Interesting.

Actually they support the health care legislation but say it won't do enough to balance the budget if Obama follows through with promised tax cuts for the middle class.

So basically, they don't want to see tax cuts and they are probably correct.

You must get your news from FOX.

 

[KissMy]

I will sit back & laugh about these fools for the next 10 years. I hope they crank the hell out of the printing presses.

I have piles of gold, 1000 acre farm, 4 houses, 5kw wind generator, 5kw solar panels, 10kw grid-tied battery back-up, 2,500gal fuel, 30kw diesel generator, 60' green house, 3 deep wells & sewer lagoons. All this is paid for.

Other than PHEV Hybrid pick-up truck, I don't need shit from these commies. I will sit back & watch them die off so I don't have to listen to their whining any more.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Saw the news today that the CBO said by 2020, we'll be bankrupt if we stay this course. That our only hope is to cut spending by 20%, leaving us with little more than medicare, medicaid, maybe SS, and defense. Any other way, we go broke, bankrupt. I'm sure many liberals will cheer at the demise and fall of our powerful nation, but it's true, it's gonna happen if we stay this course.

What does that mean? It means the utopian dream of liberalism is dead in the water. It will never happen. We'll never be able to actually fund this healthcare overhaul. Welfare will dry up. Municipal services will be dwindled down to fire, police, ems, road maintenance.

In short, conservatism is going to win out....by default. We'll have no other choice. We'll all have to work harder. Save more. Be more responsible. More self-reliant.

Ironic, isn't it? Liberal spending and ideals have led us into bankruptcy................but the end result will be one in which conservative minded people will be the ones who flourish, and liberal minded people will likely suffer greately because they'll have to fend for themselves. Hmmm. Interesting.

Profligate defense spending, starting with Reagan, is what has pushed us toward bankruptcy. When conservatives sign on to putting defense on the cutting board, I'll believe they're serious about getting the fiscal house in order.

Until then, shut UP!!!!!!!!

What are you... 5?

What are you? 300 pounds?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Saw the news today that the CBO said by 2020, we'll be bankrupt if we stay this course. That our only hope is to cut spending by 20%, leaving us with little more than medicare, medicaid, maybe SS, and defense. Any other way, we go broke, bankrupt. I'm sure many liberals will cheer at the demise and fall of our powerful nation, but it's true, it's gonna happen if we stay this course.

What does that mean? It means the utopian dream of liberalism is dead in the water. It will never happen. We'll never be able to actually fund this healthcare overhaul. Welfare will dry up. Municipal services will be dwindled down to fire, police, ems, road maintenance.

In short, conservatism is going to win out....by default. We'll have no other choice. We'll all have to work harder. Save more. Be more responsible. More self-reliant.

Ironic, isn't it? Liberal spending and ideals have led us into bankruptcy................but the end result will be one in which conservative minded people will be the ones who flourish, and liberal minded people will likely suffer greately because they'll have to fend for themselves. Hmmm. Interesting.

Profligate defense spending, starting with Reagan, is what has pushed us toward bankruptcy. When conservatives sign on to putting defense on the cutting board, I'll believe they're serious about getting the fiscal house in order.

Until then, shut UP!!!!!!!!

Funny that national defense is charged directly as a responsibility of the government... and yes, there can be improvements to what is spent and how effectively....

But unless the DEMs start cutting ALL spending on things not directly charged to the government by the constitution (welfare programs, NEA, etc), I will not believe they are serious about anything for the country's improvement

That argument is shit. The fact that that shit argument is made for defense is all the more reason it has to be on the table.

I'll happily support a 20% cut in federal welfare spending if you'll support a 20% cut in defense spending.

 

[Gadawg73]

Was it a liberal that proposed and passed the largest social program in 70 years?
Wake up.
Social Security and Medicare is what CBO says will bankrupt us. Nothing else. Those 2 consume over 50% of the budget and in 20 years about 75%.
Who here stands fora 20% across the board cut in those social programs, raising the retirement age from 62 to 67 and having a means test for senior health benefits?
If not, say hello to bankruptcy for your kids.

 

[ConHog]

Was it a liberal that proposed and passed the largest social program in 70 years?
Wake up.
Social Security and Medicare is what CBO says will bankrupt us. Nothing else. Those 2 consume over 50% of the budget and in 20 years about 75%.
Who here stands fora 20% across the board cut in those social programs, raising the retirement age from 62 to 67 and having a means test for senior health benefits?
If not, say hello to bankruptcy for your kids.

I support both of those measures, and what's more I contend that IF the politicians would have kept their grubby hands off the "lockbox" Social Security and Medicair wouldn't be bankrupting us at all.

 

[Gadawg73]

Was it a liberal that proposed and passed the largest social program in 70 years?
Wake up.
Social Security and Medicare is what CBO says will bankrupt us. Nothing else. Those 2 consume over 50% of the budget and in 20 years about 75%.
Who here stands fora 20% across the board cut in those social programs, raising the retirement age from 62 to 67 and having a means test for senior health benefits?
If not, say hello to bankruptcy for your kids.

I support both of those measures, and what's more I contend that IF the politicians would have kept their grubby hands off the "lockbox" Social Security and Medicair wouldn't be bankrupting us at all.

There is no lockbox. All that ever was was IOUs.
There is no retirement account somewhere with your retirement in it. Social security is,and always has been, a pay as you go system.
That is why it is fucked up.

 

[ConHog]

Was it a liberal that proposed and passed the largest social program in 70 years?
Wake up.
Social Security and Medicare is what CBO says will bankrupt us. Nothing else. Those 2 consume over 50% of the budget and in 20 years about 75%.
Who here stands fora 20% across the board cut in those social programs, raising the retirement age from 62 to 67 and having a means test for senior health benefits?
If not, say hello to bankruptcy for your kids.

I support both of those measures, and what's more I contend that IF the politicians would have kept their grubby hands off the "lockbox" Social Security and Medicair wouldn't be bankrupting us at all.

There is no lockbox. All that ever was was IOUs.
There is no retirement account somewhere with your retirement in it. Social security is,and always has been, a pay as you go system.
That is why it is fucked up.

That is why I put "lockbox" in quotes. And yes that money was not supposed to be in the general fund to begin with but that murdering scumbag LBJ changed all that. prior to him there were no government IOUs going to social security.

Read more to see how that scumbag fucked us over.

FAQ 24. Trust Fund/General Fund

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, that may very well be.. but if the Republicans get in there and do the same old shit... then what's the diff? I hope I am wrong...

This is it in a nutshell. Republicans aren't some kind of saints immune to the same temptations and stick and carrot tactics the Democrats submit to. And once they get into Congress, they are just as focused on keeping themselves there as the Democrats are. But, just as the Democrats are, they also become further and further removed from the people they are there to represent, and become completely out of touch with what the people are feeling and thinking.

The ONLY remedy that I see is to revert back to strict Constitutional intent as the Founders intended. That means that the federal government do NOTHING that is not specifed as its responsibility in the Constitution. That means that Congress will pass no legislation and implement no policy of any kind that benefits one group of people and not all equally.

If they would return to that principle, it would eliminate almost all of the graft, corruption, and non essential spending in Congress. The legislators would be able to complete their work in short order and spend most of their time back in their home states learning and experiencing what their constituents are going through.

They can't eliminate entitlements overnight without hurting the people they have made dependent on them, but they can begin the slow, careful process of rolling them back and returning them to the states where they belong.

Once Congress is sufficiently reformed that way, the political parties won't matter all that much other than the vehicles through which everything is thoroughly debated and examined before they make it into law.

I'm all for getting money out of politics.

But it will be a pretty tough trick, particularly since talk show conservatives have been convinced that it's a 1st amendment violation to limit the ways with which money can influence politics.

It is absolutely a first amendment violation to limit a person's ability to support and campaign for somebody they want elected to office or to support the party that most reflects a person's values and principles. Most especially since those in Congress will invariably look to restrict those who are not their constiuents while finding loopholes for those that are. It isn't much different than letting the fox set the rules for how he can raid the hen house.

But take away that person's ability to benefit more than anybody else from the policies and laws passed by Congress, and most people are going to support and vote for people they believe will look to the best interests of the whole country and not just special interests.

I think that would also remove a huge amount of money from the election process because there would be much less advantage for most people to give huge chunks of money to a candidate or party. And there would be fewer jobs and political favors to hand out because we would need less than one fourth of the Washington bureaucracy that we now have.

 

[ConHog]

This is it in a nutshell. Republicans aren't some kind of saints immune to the same temptations and stick and carrot tactics the Democrats submit to. And once they get into Congress, they are just as focused on keeping themselves there as the Democrats are. But, just as the Democrats are, they also become further and further removed from the people they are there to represent, and become completely out of touch with what the people are feeling and thinking.

The ONLY remedy that I see is to revert back to strict Constitutional intent as the Founders intended. That means that the federal government do NOTHING that is not specifed as its responsibility in the Constitution. That means that Congress will pass no legislation and implement no policy of any kind that benefits one group of people and not all equally.

If they would return to that principle, it would eliminate almost all of the graft, corruption, and non essential spending in Congress. The legislators would be able to complete their work in short order and spend most of their time back in their home states learning and experiencing what their constituents are going through.

They can't eliminate entitlements overnight without hurting the people they have made dependent on them, but they can begin the slow, careful process of rolling them back and returning them to the states where they belong.

Once Congress is sufficiently reformed that way, the political parties won't matter all that much other than the vehicles through which everything is thoroughly debated and examined before they make it into law.

I'm all for getting money out of politics.

But it will be a pretty tough trick, particularly since talk show conservatives have been convinced that it's a 1st amendment violation to limit the ways with which money can influence politics.

It is absolutely a first amendment violation to limit a person's ability to support and campaign for somebody they want elected to office or to support the party that most reflects a person's values and principles. Most especially since those in Congress will invariably look to restrict those who are not their constiuents while finding loopholes for those that are. It isn't much different than letting the fox set the rules for how he can raid the hen house.

But take away that person's ability to benefit more than anybody else from the policies and laws passed by Congress, and most people are going to support and vote for people they believe will look to the best interests of the whole country and not just special interests.

I think that would also remove a huge amount of money from the election process because there would be much less advantage for most people to give huge chunks of money to a candidate or party. And there would be fewer jobs and political favors to hand out because we would need less than one fourth of the Washington bureaucracy that we now have.

I'll tell you how I would handle that. Anyone can donate however much they would like to a single fund, ran by a quasi private/governmental corporation which would then distribute all such donations to all candidates equally. ANYONE caught attempting to manipulate the system in anyway goes to prison. End of problem.

 

[DiamondDave]

Profligate defense spending, starting with Reagan, is what has pushed us toward bankruptcy. When conservatives sign on to putting defense on the cutting board, I'll believe they're serious about getting the fiscal house in order.

Until then, shut UP!!!!!!!!

Funny that national defense is charged directly as a responsibility of the government... and yes, there can be improvements to what is spent and how effectively....

But unless the DEMs start cutting ALL spending on things not directly charged to the government by the constitution (welfare programs, NEA, etc), I will not believe they are serious about anything for the country's improvement

That argument is shit. The fact that that shit argument is made for defense is all the more reason it has to be on the table.

I'll happily support a 20% cut in federal welfare spending if you'll support a 20% cut in defense spending.

No... because you are not owed being taken care of by the government... but the constitution does make it a direct charge of the federal government to have a national defense

I would support defense budget reform.. not paying contractors who do not live up to the contract... more efficient use of monies etc...

I would happily support a 100% cut in federal welfare programs and federal entitlements... along with defense spending review and reform

 

[Gadawg73]

This is it in a nutshell. Republicans aren't some kind of saints immune to the same temptations and stick and carrot tactics the Democrats submit to. And once they get into Congress, they are just as focused on keeping themselves there as the Democrats are. But, just as the Democrats are, they also become further and further removed from the people they are there to represent, and become completely out of touch with what the people are feeling and thinking.

The ONLY remedy that I see is to revert back to strict Constitutional intent as the Founders intended. That means that the federal government do NOTHING that is not specifed as its responsibility in the Constitution. That means that Congress will pass no legislation and implement no policy of any kind that benefits one group of people and not all equally.

If they would return to that principle, it would eliminate almost all of the graft, corruption, and non essential spending in Congress. The legislators would be able to complete their work in short order and spend most of their time back in their home states learning and experiencing what their constituents are going through.

They can't eliminate entitlements overnight without hurting the people they have made dependent on them, but they can begin the slow, careful process of rolling them back and returning them to the states where they belong.

Once Congress is sufficiently reformed that way, the political parties won't matter all that much other than the vehicles through which everything is thoroughly debated and examined before they make it into law.

I'm all for getting money out of politics.

But it will be a pretty tough trick, particularly since talk show conservatives have been convinced that it's a 1st amendment violation to limit the ways with which money can influence politics.

It is absolutely a first amendment violation to limit a person's ability to support and campaign for somebody they want elected to office or to support the party that most reflects a person's values and principles. Most especially since those in Congress will invariably look to restrict those who are not their constiuents while finding loopholes for those that are. It isn't much different than letting the fox set the rules for how he can raid the hen house.

But take away that person's ability to benefit more than anybody else from the policies and laws passed by Congress, and most people are going to support and vote for people they believe will look to the best interests of the whole country and not just special interests.

I think that would also remove a huge amount of money from the election process because there would be much less advantage for most people to give huge chunks of money to a candidate or party. And there would be fewer jobs and political favors to hand out because we would need less than one fourth of the Washington bureaucracy that we now have.

Personal campaign contributions are free speech. I agree with your analysis except for the jobs opinion. In many instances government is understaffed in many areas yet overstaffed in many others as you correctly state.

 

[Gadawg73]

Funny that national defense is charged directly as a responsibility of the government... and yes, there can be improvements to what is spent and how effectively....

But unless the DEMs start cutting ALL spending on things not directly charged to the government by the constitution (welfare programs, NEA, etc), I will not believe they are serious about anything for the country's improvement

That argument is shit. The fact that that shit argument is made for defense is all the more reason it has to be on the table.

I'll happily support a 20% cut in federal welfare spending if you'll support a 20% cut in defense spending.

No... because you are not owed being taken care of by the government... but the constitution does make it a direct charge of the federal government to have a national defense

I would support defense budget reform.. not paying contractors who do not live up to the contract... more efficient use of monies etc...

I would happily support a 100% cut in federal welfare programs and federal entitlements... along with defense spending review and reform

100% cut in entitlement programs? Social security is an entitlement program.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm all for getting money out of politics.

But it will be a pretty tough trick, particularly since talk show conservatives have been convinced that it's a 1st amendment violation to limit the ways with which money can influence politics.

It is absolutely a first amendment violation to limit a person's ability to support and campaign for somebody they want elected to office or to support the party that most reflects a person's values and principles. Most especially since those in Congress will invariably look to restrict those who are not their constiuents while finding loopholes for those that are. It isn't much different than letting the fox set the rules for how he can raid the hen house.

But take away that person's ability to benefit more than anybody else from the policies and laws passed by Congress, and most people are going to support and vote for people they believe will look to the best interests of the whole country and not just special interests.

I think that would also remove a huge amount of money from the election process because there would be much less advantage for most people to give huge chunks of money to a candidate or party. And there would be fewer jobs and political favors to hand out because we would need less than one fourth of the Washington bureaucracy that we now have.

I'll tell you how I would handle that. Anyone can donate however much they would like to a single fund, ran by a quasi private/governmental corporation which would then distribute all such donations to all candidates equally. ANYONE caught attempting to manipulate the system in anyway goes to prison. End of problem.

Won't work because no newbies would ever get elected. The incumbants who already have a network behind them, media people following them around, and high name recognition, unless they screw up royally, would get elected handily while the guy trying to build a campaign organization and gain name recognition gets left out in the cold.

I can't tell you how many time in my lifetime truly remarkable and capable people were left behind while the corrupt, pompous, idiot incumbant got re-elected purely because nobody had heard of the new guy or gal.

No, let's take the money out of it at the government level. Not out of the electoral process. Take the money away from Congress to spend and the electoral process will take care of itself.