This recently appeared in the NY Times, thought I would share becuase I feel Paul Krugman's view on this is correct.
Senator Bunning's Universe
By PAUL KRUGMAN
So the Bunning blockade is over. For days, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky exploited Senate rules to block a one-month extension of unemployment benefits. In the end, he gave in, although not soon enough to prevent an interruption of payments to around 100,000 workers.
But while the blockade is over, its lessons remain. Some of those lessons involve the spectacular dysfunctionality of the Senate. What I want to focus on right now, however, is the incredible gap that has opened up between the parties. Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally.
Take the question of helping the unemployed in the middle of a deep slump. What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment. That's because the economy's problem right now is lack of sufficient demand, and cash-strapped unemployed workers are likely to spend their benefits. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that aid to the unemployed is one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus, as measured by jobs created per dollar of outlay.
But that's not how Republicans see it. Here's what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning's position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief ''doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.''
In Mr. Kyl's view, then, what we really need to worry about right now -- with more than five unemployed workers for every job opening, and long-term unemployment at its highest level since the Great Depression -- is whether we're reducing the incentive of the unemployed to find jobs. To me, that's a bizarre point of view -- but then, I don't live in Mr. Kyl's universe.
And the difference between the two universes isn't just intellectual, it's also moral.
Bill Clinton famously told a suffering constituent, ''I feel your pain.'' But the thing is, he did and does -- while many other politicians clearly don't. Or perhaps it would be fairer to say that the parties feel the pain of different people.
During the debate over unemployment benefits, Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat of Oregon, made a plea for action on behalf of those in need. In response, Mr. Bunning blurted out an expletive. That was undignified -- but not that different, in substance, from the position of leading Republicans.
Consider, in particular, the position that Mr. Kyl has taken on a proposed bill that would extend unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies for the jobless for the rest of the year. Republicans will block that bill, said Mr. Kyl, unless they get a ''path forward fairly soon'' on the estate tax.
Now, the House has already passed a bill that, by exempting the assets of couples up to $7 million, would leave 99.75 percent of estates tax-free. But that doesn't seem to be enough for Mr. Kyl; he's willing to hold up desperately needed aid to the unemployed on behalf of the remaining 0.25 percent. That's a very clear statement of priorities.
So, as I said, the parties now live in different universes, both intellectually and morally. We can ask how that happened; there, too, the parties live in different worlds. Republicans would say that it's because Democrats have moved sharply left: a Republican National Committee fund-raising plan acquired by Politico suggests motivating donors by promising to ''save the country from trending toward socialism.'' I'd say that it's because Republicans have moved hard to the right, furiously rejecting ideas they used to support. Indeed, the Obama health care plan strongly resembles past G.O.P. plans. But again, I don't live in their universe.
More important, however, what are the implications of this total divergence in views?
The answer, of course, is that bipartisanship is now a foolish dream. How can the parties agree on policy when they have utterly different visions of how the economy works, when one party feels for the unemployed, while the other weeps over affluent victims of the ''death tax''?
Which brings us to the central political issue right now: health care reform. If Congress enacts reform in the next few weeks -- and the odds are growing that it will -- it will do so without any Republican votes. Some people will decry this, insisting that President Obama should have tried harder to gain bipartisan support. But that isn't going to happen, on health care or anything else, for years to come.
Someday, somehow, we as a nation will once again find ourselves living on the same planet. But for now, we aren't. And that's just the way it is.
If they honestly believe that we'd rather sit at home collecting unemployment versus actual potential earning income what was once made....they're definitely out of touch. What I'm getting in unemployment is only a third of what I was making on-the-job. I am fortunate that I've had money I've been saving for such a scenario, but the difference only lasts for so long.
And if it wasn't for the COBRA subsidy out there where I'd only have to pay 35% of what would normally have been the cost, I'd been screwed.
What the Democrats fail to understand, repeatedly. Is that it isn't the governments job to take care of it's people. Government doesn't make jobs, wealthy individuals and businesses do. Is it coincidence that the states with lower rates (Texas) are mush stronger than states that tax as much as they can and still want more (California, Michigan) in the current crises? I don't think so.
Unemployment doesn't create jobs. No more than welfare does.
As for health-care, even CNN polls show that nearly 75% of Americans think Congress needs to start from scratch or stop working on health-care completely. The President needs to forget bipartisan support and worry about the peoples support. Which this bill does not have.
If they honestly believe that we'd rather sit at home collecting unemployment versus actual potential earning income what was once made....they're definitely out of touch. What I'm getting in unemployment is only a third of what I was making on-the-job. I am fortunate that I've had money I've been saving for such a scenario, but the difference only lasts for so long.
And if it wasn't for the COBRA subsidy out there where I'd only have to pay 35% of what would normally have been the cost, I'd been screwed.
Unfortunately Urizen, there are people that do collect unemployment without looking for a job. I know several people that are doing just this.
What the Democrats fail to understand, repeatedly. Is that it isn't the governments job to take care of it's people. Government doesn't make jobs, wealthy individuals and businesses do. Is it coincidence that the states with lower rates (Texas) are mush stronger than states that tax as much as they can and still want more (California, Michigan) in the current crises? I don't think so.
Well said Wolfthulhu. Texas is economically strong because we don't experiment with Keynesian economic theory.
|
What the Democrats fail to understand, repeatedly. Is that it isn't the governments job to take care of it's people. Government doesn't make jobs, wealthy individuals and businesses do. Is it coincidence that the states with lower rates (Texas) are mush stronger than states that tax as much as they can and still want more (California, Michigan) in the current crises? I don't think so.
We as a society have an interest in the well-being of our economy. The government represents our collective interest (ideally, anyway). So I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
Yes, the jobs are created by businesses, but if they have no incentive to do so, why would we expect the situation will improve? Wealthy individuals and businesses do not create jobs out of altruistic motives, so we as a society benefit when conditions are created that encourage job creation.
And for those states in question, is it possible they are prospering because they have the best of both worlds? With lower taxes than other states, but federal programs that benefit job growth, hey, I'd open my business in Texas, too. That doesn't speak one way or the other about federal economic policies.
Unemployment doesn't create jobs. No more than welfare does.
And yet leading economists would disagree. (Where unemployment is concerned, anyway - I don't want to derail on a welfare debate.)
As for health-care, even CNN polls show that nearly 75% of Americans think Congress needs to start from scratch or stop working on health-care completely. The President needs to forget bipartisan support and worry about the peoples support. Which this bill does not have.
How many people have even read the health care overhaul or know what it contains? I know I haven't, so I'll state right out that I am neither for nor against it. But I'm dubious of the claim that politicians should disregard legislation based on the opinion of people who don't even know what the legislation entails.
If we lived in a direct democracy, perhaps it would be different. Not only would individuals be responsible for decision-making, but they would be responsible to know the details of legislative proposals.
As it is, we live in a representative democracy, where what people know of legislation is dictated by soundbites on the news, or what their hairdresser told them, etc.
I'm not saying that what the people want doesn't matter, because it does. But legislators should hopefully have the foresight to base policy decisions on what is or is not good policy, and can trust that when the details become known, people will support their decisions.
That may or may not apply to this specific case, because, as I said, I don't know the details of the current legislation myself (it seems like it keeps changing). Maybe it really is garbage. But public opinion is definitely not everything.
|
As for health-care, even CNN polls show that nearly 75% of Americans think Congress needs to start from scratch or stop working on health-care completely. The President needs to forget bipartisan support and worry about the peoples support. Which this bill does not have.
According to Jon Stewart (the most trusted news anchor according to polls), Faux News is the only poll that shows numbers this high. All of the other polls show support for congress passing the legislation or a damn-near even split. He showed the polling from CNN specifically and it showed 62% in favor of Congress passing the health care legislation.
|
For things like this I trust Real Clear Politics over the tv talking heads. The RCP average is +9.5 for opposing the health care plan. The actual polls themselvges range anywhere from +3 oppose in the ABC/Washington Times poll to +19 oppose in the Quinnipiac poll. However, despite what Jon Stewart says, there has not been a published poll that shows a mjority favor passage since the January 8th-January 10th Gallup Poll. And it requires going back to June of last year to find a period where the majority of the polls showed support for the plan.
|
|
I support the idea tha Sen. Bunning was trying to espouse. What is the point of passing a pay/go bill if you are going to exempt the very next piece of legislation from it. However, as one of those people who would have lost their benefits if the bill didn't pass, I was upset that he picked that particular bill to make his point on. Like I told my wife, it's the right principle but the wrong bill.
|
|
Unemployment doesn't create jobs. No more than welfare does.
You are right, Unemployment in and of itself does not create jobs. However, spending does and if you remove the ability to spend from millions of people then millions more will loose their job. I use my benefits to pay for the multiple four and eight hour trips I have to make each week to interview and try to find a job. The same principle applies with sandbagging. Sandbagging does not stop a flood, but the floods would be a lot more destructive if we didn't sandbag.
What the Democrats fail to understand, repeatedly. Is that it isn't the governments job to take care of it's people.
So you support the abolition of the military, the police, the fire department, government-financed road construction, etc?
Ok.
|
|
What the Democrats fail to understand, repeatedly. Is that it isn't the governments job to take care of it's people.So you support the abolition of the military, the police, the fire department, government-financed road construction, etc?
Ok.
The military and road construction fall under Constitutionally mandated functions of the government, and the police and fire department are, generally speaking, funded by local governments. I think you are putting words into Wolfthulu's mouth that he did not actually say.
|
|
Unfortunately Urizen, there are people that do collect unemployment without looking for a job. I know several people that are doing just this.If they honestly believe that we'd rather sit at home collecting unemployment versus actual potential earning income what was once made....they're definitely out of touch. What I'm getting in unemployment is only a third of what I was making on-the-job. I am fortunate that I've had money I've been saving for such a scenario, but the difference only lasts for so long.
And if it wasn't for the COBRA subsidy out there where I'd only have to pay 35% of what would normally have been the cost, I'd been screwed.
It may not be the same in every state, but here in Utah you must submit at least two job applications per week to be eligable to recieve unemployment.
|
|
For things like this I trust Real Clear Politics over the tv talking heads.RCP has made some unfortunate stylistic choices. I almost dismissed the site out of hand because of it's similar appearance to a lot of Neocon sites that I've seen. I'm giving it another look though
Actually I think the neocon sites copied it rather than the other way around. I have found them to be pretty straight forward and non-partisan.
It may not be the same in every state, but here in Utah you must submit at least two job applications per week to be eligable to recieve unemployment.Unfortunately Urizen, there are people that do collect unemployment without looking for a job. I know several people that are doing just this.If they honestly believe that we'd rather sit at home collecting unemployment versus actual potential earning income what was once made....they're definitely out of touch. What I'm getting in unemployment is only a third of what I was making on-the-job. I am fortunate that I've had money I've been saving for such a scenario, but the difference only lasts for so long.
And if it wasn't for the COBRA subsidy out there where I'd only have to pay 35% of what would normally have been the cost, I'd been screwed.
In Texas I believe it's one a week. However, if you're playing the system and only making out one job application(or even two) a week, you can be assured you're not going to get a job offer and you can ride out the remaining time. When I've been unemployed I've put out a dozen or more applications a week and even then it would take quite a while to get employment.
As for health-care, even CNN polls show that nearly 75% of Americans think Congress needs to start from scratch or stop working on health-care completely. The President needs to forget bipartisan support and worry about the peoples support. Which this bill does not have.According to Jon Stewart (the most trusted news anchor according to polls), Faux News is the only poll that shows numbers this high. All of the other polls show support for congress passing the legislation or a damn-near even split. He showed the polling from CNN specifically and it showed 62% in favor of Congress passing the health care legislation.
Really? Well, Jon Stewart should look harder.
CNN report
The military and road construction fall under Constitutionally mandated functions of the government, and the police and fire department are, generally speaking, funded by local governments. I think you are putting words into Wolfthulu's mouth that he did not actually say.What the Democrats fail to understand, repeatedly. Is that it isn't the governments job to take care of it's people.So you support the abolition of the military, the police, the fire department, government-financed road construction, etc?
Ok.
This.
This.The military and road construction fall under Constitutionally mandated functions of the government, and the police and fire department are, generally speaking, funded by local governments. I think you are putting words into Wolfthulu's mouth that he did not actually say.What the Democrats fail to understand, repeatedly. Is that it isn't the governments job to take care of it's people.So you support the abolition of the military, the police, the fire department, government-financed road construction, etc?
Ok.
You didn't say it wasn't the government's job to take care of people if the constitution says so. You said it wasn't the government's job period. If you're going to repeat slogans like this you should expect to be called on their jaw-dropping absurdity. I certainly didn't bend your fingers back until it came out.
The only job government has is taking care of its people. That's the only reason to have government. In fact, it's the only thing government is. The exclusive purpose of the state is taking care of its people. The only question remaining to honest people is how that shall be best accomplished.
This.The military and road construction fall under Constitutionally mandated functions of the government, and the police and fire department are, generally speaking, funded by local governments. I think you are putting words into Wolfthulu's mouth that he did not actually say.What the Democrats fail to understand, repeatedly. Is that it isn't the governments job to take care of it's people.So you support the abolition of the military, the police, the fire department, government-financed road construction, etc?
Ok.
You didn't say it wasn't the government's job to take care of people if the constitution says so. You said it wasn't the government's job period. If you're going to repeat slogans like this you should expect to be called on their jaw-dropping absurdity. I certainly didn't bend your fingers back until it came out.
The only job government has is taking care of its people. That's the only reason to have government. In fact, it's the only thing government is. The exclusive purpose of the state is taking care of its people. The only question remaining to honest people is how that shall be best accomplished.
The job of the government is to protect it's people. There is a difference.
If experiments in keynesian economics and government regulation of business are what caused states to lag behind Texas, how does Texas compare to say, soviet canuckistan on things like unemployment, quality of life, life expectancy and weathering the current recession?
Pretty good I would say.
The job of the government is to protect it's people. There is a difference.This.The military and road construction fall under Constitutionally mandated functions of the government, and the police and fire department are, generally speaking, funded by local governments. I think you are putting words into Wolfthulu's mouth that he did not actually say.What the Democrats fail to understand, repeatedly. Is that it isn't the governments job to take care of it's people.So you support the abolition of the military, the police, the fire department, government-financed road construction, etc?
Ok.
You didn't say it wasn't the government's job to take care of people if the constitution says so. You said it wasn't the government's job period. If you're going to repeat slogans like this you should expect to be called on their jaw-dropping absurdity. I certainly didn't bend your fingers back until it came out.
The only job government has is taking care of its people. That's the only reason to have government. In fact, it's the only thing government is. The exclusive purpose of the state is taking care of its people. The only question remaining to honest people is how that shall be best accomplished.
Elucidate.
|
|
Really? Well, Jon Stewart should look harder.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday also indicates that only a quarter of the public want Congress to stop all work on health care, with nearly three quarters saying lawmakers should pass some kind of reform.
Twenty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say Congress should pass legislation similar to the bills passed by both chambers, with 48 percent saying lawmakers should work on an entirely new bill and a quarter saying Congress should stop all work on health care reform.
doesnt look like it to me...maybe you got the numbers in the first para. mixed up?
|
Pretty good I would say.If experiments in keynesian economics and government regulation of business are what caused states to lag behind Texas, how does Texas compare to say, soviet canuckistan on things like unemployment, quality of life, life expectancy and weathering the current recession?
Is there a Texan census or cia world fact book type entry online somewhere?
If both are on fairly even footing, and I think Canada is even more interventionist and hands out more welfare than say California, would this suggest that these are not controlling variables? Or is the situation up here so different that a comparison doesn't reveal anything useful?
I support the idea tha Sen. Bunning was trying to espouse. What is the point of passing a pay/go bill if you are going to exempt the very next piece of legislation from it. However, as one of those people who would have lost their benefits if the bill didn't pass, I was upset that he picked that particular bill to make his point on. Like I told my wife, it's the right principle but the wrong bill.
Unfortunately, that is often the swan song of many conseravative minded folks when it comes to this type of legislation.
It may not be the same in every state, but here in Utah you must submit at least two job applications per week to be eligable to recieve unemployment.Unfortunately Urizen, there are people that do collect unemployment without looking for a job. I know several people that are doing just this.If they honestly believe that we'd rather sit at home collecting unemployment versus actual potential earning income what was once made....they're definitely out of touch. What I'm getting in unemployment is only a third of what I was making on-the-job. I am fortunate that I've had money I've been saving for such a scenario, but the difference only lasts for so long.
And if it wasn't for the COBRA subsidy out there where I'd only have to pay 35% of what would normally have been the cost, I'd been screwed.
I also know people who are collecting unemployment and not bothering to look for a job. In North Carolina, the requirement is to make two job applications every week, but that information is only turned into the unemployment commission if a person is audited. Considering how many unemployed there are and how overworked the unemployment offices are, the chances of an audit are almost negligible.
Krugman is a political hack.
His article didn't cover the reason for Bunning's filibuster - the hypocrisy of Congress proudly passing PayGo then immediately turning around and exempting bills from it. He also didn't mention that republicans were angry at Bunning for how his little stunt was making the republican party look.
But of course, Krugman shouldn't be expected to mention those points. He doesn't report news, he writes attack articles.
I support the idea tha Sen. Bunning was trying to espouse. What is the point of passing a pay/go bill if you are going to exempt the very next piece of legislation from it. However, as one of those people who would have lost their benefits if the bill didn't pass, I was upset that he picked that particular bill to make his point on. Like I told my wife, it's the right principle but the wrong bill.
It was certain the bill would be passed and the language changed to apply retroactively, so it was a good bill for Bunning to make his point with. At worst, those of us drawing unemployment would have had a check delayed.
I also know people who are collecting unemployment and not bothering to look for a job. In North Carolina, the requirement is to make two job applications every week, but that information is only turned into the unemployment commission if a person is audited. Considering how many unemployed there are and how overworked the unemployment offices are, the chances of an audit are almost negligible.It may not be the same in every state, but here in Utah you must submit at least two job applications per week to be eligable to recieve unemployment.Unfortunately Urizen, there are people that do collect unemployment without looking for a job. I know several people that are doing just this.If they honestly believe that we'd rather sit at home collecting unemployment versus actual potential earning income what was once made....they're definitely out of touch. What I'm getting in unemployment is only a third of what I was making on-the-job. I am fortunate that I've had money I've been saving for such a scenario, but the difference only lasts for so long.
And if it wasn't for the COBRA subsidy out there where I'd only have to pay 35% of what would normally have been the cost, I'd been screwed.
The situation is similar here in Colorado too. Welfare and unemployment fraud are rampant.
What the Democrats fail to understand, repeatedly. Is that it isn't the governments job to take care of it's people.So you support the abolition of the military, the police, the fire department, government-financed road construction, etc?
Ok.
I am willing to consider your proposal.
I am willing to consider your proposal.What the Democrats fail to understand, repeatedly. Is that it isn't the governments job to take care of it's people.So you support the abolition of the military, the police, the fire department, government-financed road construction, etc?
Ok.
You minarchist, you.
My question to both Democrats and Republicans is how do we pay off the national debt and pay for medicare, social security, and medicaid?
We are looking at estimates as high as $100,000,000,000,000 for all of these combined in this century.
Are we afflicted with some arrogance that says we can't share the fate of the USSR?
I'm convinced the US experiment in socialism and centralized economic and social control is a massive failure.
I think most Americans simply don't comprehend how badly we have screwed our kids and grand kids.
If we double the corporate, personal income, and payroll taxes how long would it take for entitlements to be sustainable and the national debt to be paid off if the economy doesn't collapse or grind to a halt as a result of said taxes?
If we cut $1,800,000,000,000 of discretionary spending per year from our current 1.6 trillion in annual deficits it would take 50 to 75 years to pay off the national debt, and this would still not address the issues of social security etc.
How long do we think we can avoid massive inflation which will hit the most vulnerable with the most impact?
I don't think we even begin to understand how deep this hole is.
Apologize Now for the Burden Future Generations Will Bear
First, you should apologize to your children.
You should apologize to them because, if you're my age, you came into the world when the national debt was about $100 billion. That was a lot of money back then, more than any generation had ever owed. But when your children came into the world, they inherited a national debt of around $3 trillion. That's 30 times more, and it happened on your watch.
So the least you could do is apologize.
And it's only getting worse. Democrats recently approved raising the debt ceiling yet again, to more than $12 trillion. It's a burden future generations will shoulder for decades.
Your descendants may have had plans for their money that didn't involve paying off Chinese and Japanese investors in US government securities, but too bad. They just had the rotten luck to be born after a few decades of unconscionable budgetary recklessness by their elders. Hey, nobody said life was fair.
How did this happen? Good parents know the risks of debt. They work hard to send their children into the adult world free and clear of financial obligations.
No one wants their son or daughter to start out in life deep in debt. And yet, that's what's happened.
Part of the problem is the difference between private debt, incurred between consenting adults, and public debt, incurred through the political process. We use the same word to describe them, but they are as different as night from day.
When a private citizen goes into debt, the money must come from someone else. Terms must be agreed upon, along with the "discount rate": The premium required because a dollar today is worth more than a promised dollar tomorrow. People who loan money may also ask for something in temporary exchange, to guard against the risk they won't be paid back. That's called "collateral", and it serves the important purpose of reducing the possibility that people will borrow more than they can afford.
None of this happens in public debt. There is no agreement between consenting adults, no discussion of terms, no collateral to guard against risk. Instead, there are simply people who enjoy the benefits (those of us who are alive now), and people who will pay the costs (those who will be alive later).
It doesn't have to be this way. Our borrowing is driven by mandatory entitlement spending. But laws of man aren't laws of nature. What man has made, man can undo. We just have to let political candidates know that they can win if they make cutting spending and cutting the debt an issue in their campaign. To do this, they will have to go for the sacred cows of federal spending: Social Security, Medicare, Veteran's Benefits, and pretty much every other area currently off limits in the federal budget.
For all our talk of children being America's future, we sure don't walk the walk. The tragedy of public debt is its ultimate demonstration of what economists call "rent seeking": The transfer of wealth from the politically weak to the politically powerful. In this case, those who benefit are the most politically organized class in America: Voters. Public debt bestows benefits on people who are privileged with voting rights, at the expense of those too young to wield them. It may not be exactly like child abuse, but it's darn close.
If this bothers you, and you've got kids, go apologize to them now.
We taught them to clean up their messes, while making an awful mess of things ourselves. But if you want to do more than apologize, write your elected officials. Tell them that you're willing to accept cuts in your favorite entitlement programs, even ones that benefit you directly, if it will help reduce the crushing debt on your kids.
Tell them you'll vote them out of office if they don't.
Then show your kids the letter. That way, after you've gone, they'll know you tried. And maybe, instead of perpetuating the debt burden on the next generation, they'll take the problem a little more seriously than you did and leave your grandchildren with a little less debt than you left them. That'd be even better than an apology.
This article was originally published in the Colorado Springs Gazette, February 17th, 2010.
|
My question to both Democrats and Republicans is how do we pay off the national debt and pay for medicare, social security, and medicaid?
In theory it's pretty simple. You make a budget where you spend less than you make (inflow exceeds outflow). The budget includes the things you have to pay for, which for the government would be things that are constitutionally required and commitments that have already been made. If the outflow from these things exceeds the inflow, they will have to raise taxes (you and I in the same situation would have to get a 2nd job or something similar).
Once we're on that budget, where we spend less money than we bring in, all the surplus goes to paying down the debt. You do that, year after year, until the debt is gone.
The stipulation is that the government has to be committed to not taking on further debt in the future (except maybe under "war bond" type situations). Otherwise, the cycle starts all over again and the sacrifices we made during the lean years would mean nothing.
-Skeld
Krugman is a political hack.
His article didn't cover the reason for Bunning's filibuster - the hypocrisy of Congress proudly passing PayGo then immediately turning around and exempting bills from it. He also didn't mention that republicans were angry at Bunning for how his little stunt was making the republican party look.
But of course, Krugman shouldn't be expected to mention those points. He doesn't report news, he writes attack articles.
It was certain the bill would be passed and the language changed to apply retroactively, so it was a good bill for Bunning to make his point with. At worst, those of us drawing unemployment would have had a check delayed.I support the idea tha Sen. Bunning was trying to espouse. What is the point of passing a pay/go bill if you are going to exempt the very next piece of legislation from it. However, as one of those people who would have lost their benefits if the bill didn't pass, I was upset that he picked that particular bill to make his point on. Like I told my wife, it's the right principle but the wrong bill.
I love how the lefts answer to every government problem is to expand government.
I love how the right's answer to every government problem is to shrink government.
:-D
This is food for thought, but I didn't see any explanation of their calculations.
:-DI love how the right's answer to every government problem is to shrink government.
LOL!
I still think my approach is at least intellectually consistent. :P
I am willing to consider your proposal.What the Democrats fail to understand, repeatedly. Is that it isn't the governments job to take care of it's people.So you support the abolition of the military, the police, the fire department, government-financed road construction, etc?
Ok.
Much of it has actually been implemented, de facto anyway, in Somalia. Strangely it didn't bring about an earthly paradise. Can't imagine why.
Much of it has actually been implemented, de facto anyway, in Somalia. Strangely it didn't bring about an earthly paradise. Can't imagine why.I am willing to consider your proposal.What the Democrats fail to understand, repeatedly. Is that it isn't the governments job to take care of it's people.So you support the abolition of the military, the police, the fire department, government-financed road construction, etc?
Ok.
There are other African nations with larger governments that have very similar conditions and higher death tolls. I take it that you see Somalia as a model of individual liberty.
North Korea has plenty of government, but they don't seem to be doing so well. Strangely it didn't bring about an earthly paradise. Can't imagine why.
Greece isn't doing so well with it's welfare state either.
If experiments in keynesian economics and government regulation of business are what caused states to lag behind Texas, how does Texas compare to say, soviet canuckistan on things like unemployment, quality of life, life expectancy and weathering the current recession?
Not sure how we compare to Texas but I think we'll be pretty much fine - especially if the government finds a pair and raises our taxes starting 2011. We should be well out of the worst of this by then and if they put the GST back up to 7% and did some trimming on some of the less critical social programs we could probably get back into steady surpluses by 2015 or 2016.
Don't get me wrong - I love our social programs and am, by and large, happy with how the government runs them - we have a pretty efficient and thrifty bureaucracy up here thats fairly good at saving us money. The problem seems to be that the government does not want to tax us for these programs. Its their job to deliver the social programs we want in an efficient manner but its also their job to balance the books and tax us enough to pay for these programs.
My complaint is the government had it backwards - cut our taxes too low during the good times. They need to tax us more in good times so they can afford to dip into the surpluses during downturns.
There are other African nations with larger governments that have very similar conditions and higher death tolls. I take it that you see Somalia as a model of individual liberty.
No, not a model of individual liberty. Just a real world instance of your crank anarchism put in practice. I'd call it the very opposite of individual liberty and freedom, just as I would Stalin's USSR.
It doesn't have to be this way. Our borrowing is driven by mandatory entitlement spending. But laws of man aren't laws of nature. What man has made, man can undo. We just have to let political candidates know that they can win if they make cutting spending and cutting the debt an issue in their campaign. To do this, they will have to go for the sacred cows of federal spending: Social Security, Medicare, Veteran's Benefits, and pretty much every other area currently off limits in the federal budget.
Jacking up your taxes is an alternative way of paying this down.
Unfortunately it seems that every single one of the power brokers entrenched in Washington have forgotten their duty. It isn't their job to decide what is best for the American people, it is their job to do what we damned well tell them to do, after we have decided what is best for ourselves.
Let's face it, we are living in the information age. The idea of a representative democracy made sense back in the day, when news took weeks or months to travel around. These days we don't really even need the House of Middlemen to put forth our issues for us, and yet we continue to let it go on unabated.
