Democrats on the brink of suicide

[EriktheRed]

I fully support the Democrats and Reconciliation. This will only help the Republicans at some point. The Dems will lose in numerous landslides this year and the Republicans will later use this same tactic when they regain power. This Dem-led Congress is by far the worst U.S. Congress in history and have been reduced to lame-duck status for some time. So I say,go for reconciliation Dems. Just another nail in your coffin. Make 2010 count people.

So you support reconciliation for purely partisan reasons, not taking into consideration that this sordid legislation will then become law and massacre our health care system for everyone.

Nice....

Look at the bigger picture, Taz. The conservatives can seize control of the House and Senate on the promise that they will repeal all laws passed by this Congress. If we can get a super majority, we'll override Obama's veto and replace him in 2012 just for shits and giggles.

The Liberal Democrats will be out of power for 40 years.

 

[Cuyo]

Calling Obama a fascist. Now that's original!

You are quite fringy in your beliefs. Didn't I see you in the birther thread?

No matter who was elected, they would be running a huge deficit right now. OK? No matter who. Any economist could have told you, with the condition of the economy a year ago, a balanced budget is not in our near foreseeable future. We're just starting to clean up the mess 30 years of Reaganomics has left us.

I actually find it a hopeful sign that you libbies persist in accusing average Americans to be "fringey". It means you'll continue to alienate voters with your foul rhetoric and platform... and we'll be rid of you all the sooner.

Oh... and running a deficit isn't the same as quadrupling a deficit. Just so ya know.

p.s. I noticed that once again you failed to answer my question. Maybe you don't have any kids and maybe you don't give a crap about how the next generation is going to pay 900 Billion in debt annually.... but if you're gung ho to spend their future, it's just polite to cough up an idea or two.

It's an empty question. <Shrug> I dunno. You could start by freezing the Pentagon, the largest line item in the budget by far, yet always overlooked by righties who all the sudden are concerned about deficit spending now that a democrat is in office. Other than that, there is not nearly as much discretionary spending as you think there is. We can't do much else than try to fix the problem for the time being.

The question is only "empty" if you're a looter, thieving from the next two generations. For these kids who are going to have to pay for this mess... it's plenty valid.

And the deficit problem is not as much about discretionary spending as it is about entitlement spending and wasteful spending. We could start by recalling Porkulus, (which is little more than a DNC slush fund), killing Obamacare, and actually doing something to fix Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid before they take us all to the poorhouse.

You think you're profound, but you aren't. Exactly how much... ugh... "Porkulus"... Do you think has been spent? What percentage of the problem do you feel is... er.... "Porkulus?"

I don't think I can continue to talk to you. You may believe that you're so profound, and made such an indelible mark that I feel outgunned, and that's sad because it's just not the case. This started out innocently enough, but the conversation has devolved to regurgitating talking points from the church of Hannity and latter day dopes.

Good day.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well for stgarters he didnt say that the porkulus was the problem. Only that fixing the problem should start with ending what's left of the spending. It wont happen because it is Obama's slush fund. But thats another topic.
But it is nothing short of astounding to talk to people who blame Reagan, Bush--hell Abraham Lincoln-- for the deficit when Obama's budget has a gap bigger than all of them--put together.
How does a president preach fiscal discipline and then offer a budget with a bigger deficit than every one of his predecessors combined? It is difficult to take anyone seriously who doesnt consider this.

 

[Cuyo]

Well for stgarters he didnt say that the porkulus was the problem. Only that fixing the problem should start with ending what's left of the spending. It wont happen because it is Obama's slush fund. But thats another topic.
But it is nothing short of astounding to talk to people who blame Reagan, Bush--hell Abraham Lincoln-- for the deficit when Obama's budget has a gap bigger than all of them--put together.
How does a president preach fiscal discipline and then offer a budget with a bigger deficit than every one of his predecessors combined? It is difficult to take anyone seriously who doesnt consider this.

It's more his lack of focus and peppering of soundbytes... Rabble rabble, liberal fascist deficit government takeover...

Blame Reagan, Bushes for debt? You betcha. Numbers don't lie.

Blame Obama for current deficit? Hard to say. What could the man have done differently? Do you think McCain or anyone else for that matter, would be doing much better? Have you forgotten the state of affairs when he first sat in the oval office?

So if we are genuinely concerned about deficit spending, leave the sound bytes on the mantle for a moment and let's talk about two things that would really make a difference; Terminate Bush tax cuts and reign in the Pentagon. Without either or both of those things, there will be no balanced budget in the foreseeable future, period!

SS and Medicare? We can't eliminate them. Current recipients have already paid their whole lives. Why are they "In Trouble?" Not because of a vast, liberal conspiracy to destroy the economy, but because people are living longer than we expected some 40 years ago. So how do you propose we handle this? Put a cap on how long you're allowed to live?

I'm willing to hear you out, and... GO.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

^^^^^^^^^^^Dopey response

Is that your answer to 900 Billion in annual interest debt? Seriously? Is that what our kids are going to say to our creditors when they want paid?... "Dopey response"?

I dunno. I kind of think they're gonna want cash. But maybe that's just me.

It's dopey because it reeks of a low-information political malcontent. You think "Progressives" are responsible for the national debt? It's skyrocketed since Reagan, the big conservative. Old man bush continued this trend. Bill Clinton, the progressive, balanced the budget and left a surplus. Then Bush Jr. was the first president to cross 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 trillion.

So show me where anyone labelled "Progressive" caused this problem, and I'm happy to continue discussing...

Since you've included the Bush's in that list, you're confusing Republican with conservative. Not necessarily the case, however, Reagan was conservative. He cut taxes, it was the Democrat Congress that did all the spending.

 

[Murf76]

You think you're profound, but you aren't. Exactly how much... ugh... "Porkulus"... Do you think has been spent? What percentage of the problem do you feel is... er.... "Porkulus?"

I don't think I can continue to talk to you. You may believe that you're so profound, and made such an indelible mark that I feel outgunned, and that's sad because it's just not the case. This started out innocently enough, but the conversation has devolved to regurgitating talking points from the church of Hannity and latter day dopes.

Good day.

About a third of Porkulus has been spent, but Socialist Dems started claiming success at about 5%. (Which leads one to wonder why they didn't just spend the 5% and call it a day. )

And while the spending problem isn't limited to Porkulus, consider Omnibus with it's 8,000+ earmarks, and both Obama budgets... 962 Billion is a pretty big slice of the pie. Particularly when one considers that the interest on it takes it closer to a trillion and a half.

A side benefit to repealing Porkulus would be that we could negate the government seizure of our private medical records. Today, if a government agency or bureaucrat wants to peruse your medical records, they'd need a subpoena to do it. By 2014, under this unconstitutional provision of the Porkulus bill, your record will be electronically submitted for Comparative Effectiveness Research by law. ANY bureaucrat the federal government decides to put in charge, will have access to the most minute and personal functions of your very body.

Now, how the fuck does THAT get past the 4th?



Socialism is most succinctly defined as 'government ownership of the means of production', Communism would be 'public ownership of the means of production', Fascism splits the difference between government and private. But ALL collectivist systems end up pretty much the same way... in Oligarchy, the few RULING over the many.

The conflict in this country is NOT about Librals vs. Conservatives or Democrats vs. Republicans. It's really about Collectivism vs. Individualism (Liberty) with the clear understanding that Collectivism will invariably end up in Oligarchy.

In real life, although perhaps not on this board ... liberals are generally well-intentioned people. Their motive is compassion. They just want everybody to get a slice of the pie. But what they don't understand is that true Liberty cannot coexist with a collectivist system. You can't be free and sovereign and also required to put the collective before yourself.

Liberals believe self-interest is selfish, greedy. But really, when we act in ways that are individually beneficial, we have MORE to offer to society. And history has proved it out. We are the most successful, generous people on the face of the planet. That happened BECAUSE of our system, not in defiance of it. When we are free to create wealth... we're free to share it, and on our own terms.

You people need to THINK about what you're supporting. WE are the sovereign. We are not serfs to be ordered about for the good of the collective and at the benefit of a select few who've managed to climb up over the backs of their brethren. You can't really have both a nanny state and individual freedom. They do not coincide.

This idea of 'splitting the difference', this "Third Way" is a facade. It doesn't exist. It too results eventually in Oligarchy. Our votes are at their most potent on the local level. Our federalist system was designed to keep them that way, to keep us strong. Allowing an over-bloated central government inevitably results in tyranny and loss of citizen sovereignty. Our founders understood that. That's WHY they set defined limits on central government.

Now, you may find me pedantic.. but that's not going to shut me up. I've spent HOURS each day educating myself over the past four years on history and politics, because I perceive a REAL DANGER to our country and to my children's future. And this may be unsolicited advice... but you might want to do the same before you willfully throw away something you might regret losing later on.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well for stgarters he didnt say that the porkulus was the problem. Only that fixing the problem should start with ending what's left of the spending. It wont happen because it is Obama's slush fund. But thats another topic.
But it is nothing short of astounding to talk to people who blame Reagan, Bush--hell Abraham Lincoln-- for the deficit when Obama's budget has a gap bigger than all of them--put together.
How does a president preach fiscal discipline and then offer a budget with a bigger deficit than every one of his predecessors combined? It is difficult to take anyone seriously who doesnt consider this.

It's more his lack of focus and peppering of soundbytes... Rabble rabble, liberal fascist deficit government takeover...

Blame Reagan, Bushes for debt? You betcha. Numbers don't lie.

Blame Obama for current deficit? Hard to say. What could the man have done differently? Do you think McCain or anyone else for that matter, would be doing much better? Have you forgotten the state of affairs when he first sat in the oval office?

So if we are genuinely concerned about deficit spending, leave the sound bytes on the mantle for a moment and let's talk about two things that would really make a difference; Terminate Bush tax cuts and reign in the Pentagon. Without either or both of those things, there will be no balanced budget in the foreseeable future, period!

SS and Medicare? We can't eliminate them. Current recipients have already paid their whole lives. Why are they "In Trouble?" Not because of a vast, liberal conspiracy to destroy the economy, but because people are living longer than we expected some 40 years ago. So how do you propose we handle this? Put a cap on how long you're allowed to live?

I'm willing to hear you out, and... GO.

Reagan's tax cuts increased Federal tax revenue. I proved this in another thread. The numbers don't lie. Nor does Reagan. And here he is explaining the issue:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrjxcccJuCc]YouTube - Reagan; Taxes and Budget Deficit[/ame]
Bush had proposals to reform social security. And the leftist Democrats screamed he was going to make grandma eat dog food. If people are living longer then raising the retirement age would be the appropriate move. Let's see Obama tackle that one. The same Obama who artlessly offered seniors a $200 bribe to support his gutting of Medicare.

 

[Vanquish]

LOL. So Mr. Rancho Cukoomonga ducks out when asked a hard question about sin taxes. What was that clip supposed to prove, anyway? About all it espouses is a 2 fold platitude: 1) taxation shouldnt hurt the economy 2) we shouldnt use taxation to spend more than we're growing.

uhm ok. that's not just a republican platform. you can use the stereotype of dems being tax and spend into oblivion, but that's a cartoon view and not reality.

 

[Cuyo]

You think you're profound, but you aren't. Exactly how much... ugh... "Porkulus"... Do you think has been spent? What percentage of the problem do you feel is... er.... "Porkulus?"

I don't think I can continue to talk to you. You may believe that you're so profound, and made such an indelible mark that I feel outgunned, and that's sad because it's just not the case. This started out innocently enough, but the conversation has devolved to regurgitating talking points from the church of Hannity and latter day dopes.

Good day.

About a third of Porkulus has been spent, but Socialist Dems started claiming success at about 5%. (Which leads one to wonder why they didn't just spend the 5% and call it a day. )

And while the spending problem isn't limited to Porkulus, consider Omnibus with it's 8,000+ earmarks, and both Obama budgets... 962 Billion is a pretty big slice of the pie. Particularly when one considers that the interest on it takes it closer to a trillion and a half.

A side benefit to repealing Porkulus would be that we could negate the government seizure of our private medical records. Today, if a government agency or bureaucrat wants to peruse your medical records, they'd need a subpoena to do it. By 2014, under this unconstitutional provision of the Porkulus bill, your record will be electronically submitted for Comparative Effectiveness Research by law. ANY bureaucrat the federal government decides to put in charge, will have access to the most minute and personal functions of your very body.

Now, how the fuck does THAT get past the 4th?



Socialism is most succinctly defined as 'government ownership of the means of production', Communism would be 'public ownership of the means of production', Fascism splits the difference between government and private. But ALL collectivist systems end up pretty much the same way... in Oligarchy, the few RULING over the many.

The conflict in this country is NOT about Librals vs. Conservatives or Democrats vs. Republicans. It's really about Collectivism vs. Individualism (Liberty) with the clear understanding that Collectivism will invariably end up in Oligarchy.

In real life, although perhaps not on this board ... liberals are generally well-intentioned people. Their motive is compassion. They just want everybody to get a slice of the pie. But what they don't understand is that true Liberty cannot coexist with a collectivist system. You can't be free and sovereign and also required to put the collective before yourself.

Liberals believe self-interest is selfish, greedy. But really, when we act in ways that are individually beneficial, we have MORE to offer to society. And history has proved it out. We are the most successful, generous people on the face of the planet. That happened BECAUSE of our system, not in defiance of it. When we are free to create wealth... we're free to share it, and on our own terms.

You people need to THINK about what you're supporting. WE are the sovereign. We are not serfs to be ordered about for the good of the collective and at the benefit of a select few who've managed to climb up over the backs of their brethren. You can't really have both a nanny state and individual freedom. They do not coincide.

This idea of 'splitting the difference', this "Third Way" is a facade. It doesn't exist. It too results eventually in Oligarchy. Our votes are at their most potent on the local level. Our federalist system was designed to keep them that way, to keep us strong. Allowing an over-bloated central government inevitably results in tyranny and loss of citizen sovereignty. Our founders understood that. That's WHY they set defined limits on central government.

Now, you may find me pedantic.. but that's not going to shut me up. I've spent HOURS each day educating myself over the past four years on history and politics, because I perceive a REAL DANGER to our country and to my children's future. And this may be unsolicited advice... but you might want to do the same before you willfully throw away something you might regret losing later on.

While you're patience is to be commended, and I must confess certain aspects of your posts are becoming more coherent, I still think you're a little paranoid; In a tin-foil hat/underground bunker sort of way.

I was waiting for that word Socialism to come out, I'm surprised it's taken this long. I think your manifesto is beyond my op-ed about "Socialism..." It's contemporary use and it's aspect within American politics, et al... It seems that what your proposing is more fringe than the simple minded shouts for conservatism/capitalism, almost as though your suggesting anarchy, or some loose-knit form of government far, far to the right of anything the U.S. has ever seen. What exactly are you proposing?

Regarding your hypothetical end game for what you're calling "collectivism," do you not think capitalism ends in oligarchy? More specifically, aristocracy, because even in a full free-market system, the rich wind up owning all means of production, all sources of media, and therefore become a "Ruling class" over the "Serfs." Whatever economic disparity exists in contemporary America, I must whole-heartedly dis-agree with your assertion that "Too much government" is to blame, in fact I think the opposite is true. Free market systems end in this wealth concentration, ultimately class revolution.

You may be right about what you label "Liberals" being well-intentioned in most things, however, social programs like SS, Medicare, medicade, welfare et al, are not necessarily just that. On the contrary, such welfare systems have always existed, to keep the lower class in line. In Rome it was called bread and circus; Give someone with nothing something to eat and a ticket to the circus to keep him busy, and he's not breaking into your house to rob you.

It sounds as though you'd like to eliminate welfare in all it's forms... What do you think would happen then?

One last question then I'll wait to hear back. I've been looking for a conservative to give me the TRUE conservative answer to this, most balk at the opportunity but I think you may go through with it.
Tom shows up at the hospital with a broken leg. He has no insurance, and no money, and is already deeply in debt; and he's 63. E.g., every assumption is that if you treat him, he will never, ever pay his bill. What do we do with Tom?

 

[The Rabbi]

One last question then I'll wait to hear back. I've been looking for a conservative to give me the TRUE conservative answer to this, most balk at the opportunity but I think you may go through with it.
Tom shows up at the hospital with a broken leg. He has no insurance, and no money, and is already deeply in debt; and he's 63. E.g., every assumption is that if you treat him, he will never, ever pay his bill. What do we do with Tom?

We treat him and pay for it with funds collected by private foundations and charities set up for just such an eventuality. And if you think that's far fetched I'll mention that many of the hospitals in existence now were set up as charity hospitals in the 19th century by "robber barons". The capability of such charities is enhanced by lowering the tax rate to where people can amass wealth to make such contributions. These charities are of course far more efficient than the gov't at delivering such services.

 

[Cuyo]

oh and IA and Murf, you both ropadoped my question. Cut pentagon, eliminate tax cuts? GO!

 

[WillowTree]

Obama to spell out new healthcare plan - Yahoo! News

The assholes are going to go for reconcilliation, and end the viabilty of their party for good.

The American people soldily rejected their 'plan' but they will try to force it down our throats anyway.

Of course, it will be repealed the same way they passed in december, the fools.

I'm cheering them on. Aren't you?

 

[Cuyo]

One last question then I'll wait to hear back. I've been looking for a conservative to give me the TRUE conservative answer to this, most balk at the opportunity but I think you may go through with it.
Tom shows up at the hospital with a broken leg. He has no insurance, and no money, and is already deeply in debt; and he's 63. E.g., every assumption is that if you treat him, he will never, ever pay his bill. What do we do with Tom?

We treat him and pay for it with funds collected by private foundations and charities set up for just such an eventuality. And if you think that's far fetched I'll mention that many of the hospitals in existence now were set up as charity hospitals in the 19th century by "robber barons". The capability of such charities is enhanced by lowering the tax rate to where people can amass wealth to make such contributions. These charities are of course far more efficient than the gov't at delivering such services.

Hypothetically Rabbi, OK? There is no charitable organization, you treat him or he dies. Which way?

 

[Xenophon]

Obama to spell out new healthcare plan - Yahoo! News

The assholes are going to go for reconcilliation, and end the viabilty of their party for good.

The American people soldily rejected their 'plan' but they will try to force it down our throats anyway.

Of course, it will be repealed the same way they passed in december, the fools.

I'm cheering them on. Aren't you?

From what I hear, if they make it an up/down vote it still may not pass as a number of Dems will vote no in protest of using reconcilliation, so that may not be viable afterall.

This is idenital to Frist calling it the 'nuclear option' when the GoP tried to force Chimp's judges to a vote.

 

[Murf76]

While you're patience is to be commended, and I must confess certain aspects of your posts are becoming more coherent, I still think you're a little paranoid; In a tin-foil hat/underground bunker sort of way.

I was waiting for that word Socialism to come out, I'm surprised it's taken this long. I think your manifesto is beyond my op-ed about "Socialism..." It's contemporary use and it's aspect within American politics, et al... It seems that what your proposing is more fringe than the simple minded shouts for conservatism/capitalism, almost as though your suggesting anarchy, or some loose-knit form of government far, far to the right of anything the U.S. has ever seen. What exactly are you proposing?

What I'm suggesting is nothing more, and nothing less, than a return to our federalist system whereby central government is LIMITED to the enumerated powers granted it by our Constitution.

Our votes are diluted at the national level, our power is small. But at the local and state level, we are empowered to control our environment and to attend to the best needs of our community.

The central government was never supposed to be in the "welfare" business. It's function was well-defined and limited to specific functions. It's the states who should be seeing to the welfare of the poor, aged, and indigent.

Regarding your hypothetical end game for what you're calling "collectivism," do you not think capitalism ends in oligarchy? More specifically, aristocracy, because even in a full free-market system, the rich wind up owning all means of production, all sources of media, and therefore become a "Ruling class" over the "Serfs." Whatever economic disparity exists in contemporary America, I must whole-heartedly dis-agree with your assertion that "Too much government" is to blame, in fact I think the opposite is true. Free market systems end in this wealth concentration, ultimately class revolution.

You may be right about what you label "Liberals" being well-intentioned in most things, however, social programs like SS, Medicare, medicade, welfare et al, are not necessarily just that. On the contrary, such welfare systems have always existed, to keep the lower class in line. In Rome it was called bread and circus; Give someone with nothing something to eat and a ticket to the circus to keep him busy, and he's not breaking into your house to rob you.

It sounds as though you'd like to eliminate welfare in all it's forms... What do you think would happen then?

To begin with, there's no such thing as laissez faire capitalism. Never has been. And it's not what Republicans advocate. Republicans do see the need for some regulation. It's in the Constitution that it be so, and we support the Constitution.

That said, you don't need a Sherman Tank when a flyswatter will do. Regulations should be well-considered and used at the smallest increment to get whatever problem that needs address solved. Greed is as natural to humans as compassion. Both must be checked.

We see clearly that too much regulation interferes negatively with commerce in the example of the housing bubble and lending crisis. But all regulation, just like all legislation has unintended, as well as intended, consequences. Loosened lending standards for the sake of compassion, allowed fertile ground for greed to grow. We also see the negative consequences of too much regulation in the example of health insurance. Insurance is heavily regulated by the States. In states where regulations have become onerous.. policy prices skyrocket. Again, the best of intentions go awry because in compassionate protection of state citizens, state legislatures have caused the product to be priced beyond their means.

In the case of healthcare, Congress is empowered to allow interstate sales of insurance products, and it should. This is its enumerated role and it has failed to live up to its obligations. That said, I would prefer to see all welfare programs returned to the States along with their revenues. Sure, you'll have some do a poor job, but others will find innovative solutions that the trailing ones can take example from.

But the biggest plus to a federalist approach is that all the eggs aren't in one basket. A legislative decision resulting in catastrophic economic damage can be limited to only the state or states which engaged in it. The economic health of the others is preserved. In a central government approach... we all go down with the ship.

One last question then I'll wait to hear back. I've been looking for a conservative to give me the TRUE conservative answer to this, most balk at the opportunity but I think you may go through with it.
Tom shows up at the hospital with a broken leg. He has no insurance, and no money, and is already deeply in debt; and he's 63. E.g., every assumption is that if you treat him, he will never, ever pay his bill. What do we do with Tom?

Whatever State law demands. It's perfectly okay to solve these welfare problems in the state house. We aren't prisoners. If we don't like the way California decides to treat Tom, we can hie ourselves to Texas, or Missouri, or New Hampshire. We have 49 other choices.

We ARE a compassionate people. We're not going to leave ole Tom out on the sidewalk if the central government doesn't intervene. Have a little faith in the inherent goodness of Americans. Sure, we hear the worst of the worst on the TV news and human beings are indeed capable of great evil... but most reject it.

Our tax structure is hosed up. It's the States which should have the larger portion and the central government the smaller.

 

[Cuyo]

Obama to spell out new healthcare plan - Yahoo! News

The assholes are going to go for reconcilliation, and end the viabilty of their party for good.

The American people soldily rejected their 'plan' but they will try to force it down our throats anyway.

Of course, it will be repealed the same way they passed in december, the fools.

I'm cheering them on. Aren't you?

From what I hear, if they make it an up/down vote it still may not pass as a number of Dems will vote no in protest of using reconcilliation, so that may not be viable afterall.

This is idenital to Frist calling it the 'nuclear option' when the GoP tried to force Chimp's judges to a vote.

Xeno,
Unless I have misunderstood something-- My understanding is this.

1. We have already passed different versions of the bill through both houses of congress, this we know. The house could pass the senate version tomorrow (meaning, any time), Barry could sign, done and done. (No "reconciliation" necessary)
2. Before reconciliation even comes into the picture, this must be done (or house version in senate, which won't happen).
3. Reconciliation only comes into play with regard to specifics, in this case, public option. Since the Senate bill has no public option, passing it in the house would make it law, but would not give public option. Reconciliation, in this case of debate, would only exist to re-introduce public option.

Is this what's happening as you understand it, and if so, would you hold the Dems in the same contempt if they were simply trying to get Senate version passed, as it stands, no reconciliation necessary?

 

[Murf76]

oh and IA and Murf, you both ropadoped my question. Cut pentagon, eliminate tax cuts? GO!

Just saw this. Somehow, I missed it earlier.

If memory serves, I recommended recalling Porkulus, killing Obamacare, and reforming entitlement programs. You can't cut military spending without risking soldiers lives... and like it or not, we've got war on two fronts as well as a global terrorist threat to deal with.

Tax law needs to be completely overhauled. If I had my way, we'd do a flat tax where EVERYBODY has some skin in the game or fo back to the original plan where the States collect the money and pay the federal government a portion.

Tax reform, if done correctly would drastically reduces the power of Washington politicians, limiting their opportunities for corruption and vote-buying. And weirdly, it empowers the poor, because they're no longer beholden to Washington for their subsistence. As I said, the States should have the larger portion, and the central government the smaller, and the States should be the ones administering social programs.

 

[Cuyo]

oh and IA and Murf, you both ropadoped my question. Cut pentagon, eliminate tax cuts? GO!

Just saw this. Somehow, I missed it earlier.

If memory serves, I recommended recalling Porkulus, killing Obamacare, and reforming entitlement programs. You can't cut military spending without risking soldiers lives... and like it or not, we've got war on two fronts as well as a global terrorist threat to deal with.

Tax law needs to be completely overhauled. If I had my way, we'd do a flat tax where EVERYBODY has some skin in the game or fo back to the original plan where the States collect the money and pay the federal government a portion.

Tax reform, if done correctly would drastically reduces the power of Washington politicians, limiting their opportunities for corruption and vote-buying. And weirdly, it empowers the poor, because they're no longer beholden to Washington for their subsistence. As I said, the States should have the larger portion, and the central government the smaller, and the States should be the ones administering social programs.

You can't balance the budget with those recommendations. Last year's military expenses alone were the projected cost of the healthcare proposal over 10 years (And since the public option, if it gets in, is premium based, I don't know if that estimate is before or after collected premiums), and the total unspent recovery money is less than half. Nobody spends on military like us. The UK is second, and their budget is 1/10th of ours. Does that mean we're 10 times safer? Or just that there's 10 times more waste?

It's not a popular subject, I know. But the stuff you're talking about doing is small fry shit compared to our big problems - If we're still talking about the folly of deficit spending, that is.

I've often pondered the prospect of delegating more responsibility to individual states. There's pros and cons. There are two big cons that I can think of off the top of my head. One is that all the wealth will retreat to the states that preserve wealth, leaving the remaining states in perpetual depression. The other is that reconciling the tax dollars in our massive interstate commerce would be a chore, to say the least.

I believe there are a number of things that should be done at the federal level, either because it can be done most cost effectively at a national level (Healthcare, for example IMO), or because no single state has enough of a financial interest to do it, although it would benefit all states (The interstate highway system), or because only the federal government has the means to do it (Like the military).

It would be neat though, wouldn't it? If you don't like the way your state does business, move to another and truly be in a whole new ecosphere. I don't see it happening though. We're too massive in size and population to look at things through the eyes of the 18th century.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

oh and IA and Murf, you both ropadoped my question. Cut pentagon, eliminate tax cuts? GO!

I didn't know you were asking me, but in my opinion, the Pentagon (defense) is one of the few things the Federal government is constitutionally permitted to spend money on. As for tax cuts, JFK and Reagan proved that cutting taxes increases Federal revenues. I'd think everyone would like that, especially progressives.

 

[Xenophon]

I'm cheering them on. Aren't you?

From what I hear, if they make it an up/down vote it still may not pass as a number of Dems will vote no in protest of using reconcilliation, so that may not be viable afterall.

This is idenital to Frist calling it the 'nuclear option' when the GoP tried to force Chimp's judges to a vote.

Xeno,
Unless I have misunderstood something-- My understanding is this.

1. We have already passed different versions of the bill through both houses of congress, this we know. The house could pass the senate version tomorrow (meaning, any time), Barry could sign, done and done. (No "reconciliation" necessary)
2. Before reconciliation even comes into the picture, this must be done (or house version in senate, which won't happen).
3. Reconciliation only comes into play with regard to specifics, in this case, public option. Since the Senate bill has no public option, passing it in the house would make it law, but would not give public option. Reconciliation, in this case of debate, would only exist to re-introduce public option.

Is this what's happening as you understand it, and if so, would you hold the Dems in the same contempt if they were simply trying to get Senate version passed, as it stands, no reconciliation necessary?

I hold both parties in contempt, but that is another matter.

Queen Nan would have to have a floor vote to pass the senate bill, and she doesn't have the votes, the insider estimate is 190 Max, which is why there is talk of reconciliation since the senate bill won't pass the house, but a revamped Pelosi bill would need to get done and THEN reconcilation would be used.

It is my opinion Barry is blowing smoke with threats of reconcilation, trying to intimidate the GoP into giving him something.