| From | Message |
|---|
|
 Greatest health care in the World?
www.msnbc.msn.com
That is $750 Billion a year, folks. If we cut that out, and got out of Afghanistan, we would be running a budget surplus, no problem.
|
|
... I don't disagree on either point, but it's a lot easier said than done. Are you holding your breath? Or, do you like to choose idealism over reality?
|
|
I'm going to assume your math is correct.
Budget surplus for *this* year . . . maybe . . . politicians like to spend every dime they can. I wouldn't count on having tons of extra money laying around just because some got freed up. Plus it still does nothing to help the total debt, the ridiculous trade deficit, and total liabilities in current UNfunded mandates (in the 50s-100s of trillions depending on your estimate) we find ourselves in.
People need to start getting used to the idea that we fooked. We can't save it. The ship is going down and we really should all be talking about what we'll be doing on the other side and how we'll make sure we don't repeat the same mistakes.
|
|
jdh ...
... there's a rather simple remedy. These three things, if implemented, would wipe out the debt in just a few years.
(1) increase soc sec threshold age to 68, then 69, then 70 over the next 25-50 years (it won't even be noticed if we add a month on every other year). (2) increase the medicare premium cap on wages; premiums are now paid only on salaries at $106,500 and below ... raise that $106.5 by $2-5K a year depending upon the economy (and it doesn't even impact anyone earning under $106.5K a year!). These two things would sustain both social programs until into the 22nd Century. (3) reduce defense spending by 5-10% overall over the next few years.
These three things take profound cooperation, but resolution is there if we as a people can get our act together.
|
dmaestro
07-Sep-12, 10:48
|
Chaz is correct. I would raise the cap faster but we DO know how to solve the entitlement problem using those simple steps. Polls show majority support for these measures taken together.
|
dmaestro
07-Sep-12, 10:51
|
Deleted by dmaestro on 07-Sep-12, 10:53.
|
|
chaz
Well.
*If* those three things would actually wipe out 16 trillion dollars in debt, then we should do them (I'm going to assume your source on this is correct).
Now you need to ask yourself why we are not doing those things.
|
dmaestro
07-Sep-12, 16:19
|
Why not? Politics. It takes fair compromises to achieve success. Economist point out that politcians are the biggest reason for the stagnant economy. They would rather burn the village to save it for selfish ends.
|
|
dm
I'll agree with you there!
(non-partisan truism)
|
|
So
Then we continue to vote for the SAME people who are not fixing anything . . . if it were ostensibly so simple . . .
I'm going to need google to look up "the working definition of insanity"
Awesome
Thumbs up guys
|
dmaestro
07-Sep-12, 20:49
|
Collectively, yes. Softaire, chaz and I could get together in a room and do better than our Congress at solving the entitlement problem. They get job security by making simple compromise solutions too difficult.
|
|
dm ...
... Softy, you, and I in the same room? Compromising?
|
dmaestro
07-Sep-12, 21:03
|
More likely than Congress working together to get anything major done...
|
|
DM
Are you trying to 'reinvent yourself' as a moderate and a statesman or just going for a joke? I must admit they're one and the same. You've already outed yourself loudly, proudly and often as someone who wants conservatives to die (the sooner the better) and have no wish or intention to 'compromise', dialogue or negotiate with them in any way before that desired end is fulfilled.
You've also stated that you consider deception and lying as perfectly acceptable tools to employ in the pursuit of crushing or destroying that enemy you call most foul, the conservative.
I'd be comfortable with middle of the road people like Softie, Stinky, JDH and DOK getting together and making those decisions but radical leftists like Chaz and you? Not a chance. I would allow Illi to be involved only to ensure the proper legal formatting.
|
dmaestro
07-Sep-12, 21:33
|
Inaccurate and out of touch, thumper? I think so. You are too rigid in your interpretations. Figurative is not literal. What part of compromise is so difficult for you?
|
|
So a 'figurative' lie is not really a lie? Maybe to you. You've said repeatedly that you happily anticipate the day when conservatives die off (literally dead, not figuratively) and proclaim to be helping that happen, and now you throw out the word 'compromise' like it's some magic cloak thinking to cover yourself with it. You say now that you wish 'compromise'. Really? What is it that you wish ME to compromise?
|
|
Thumper
You wrote...."I'd be comfortable with middle of the road people like Softie, Stinky, JDH and DOK..."
I'm offended on their behalf. I think you called them moderate.
I think you owe them all an apology.
|
|
Illi
Was I being offensive? Well you see, that's why we need a couple legal beagles around. To process the defamation paperwork.
|
dmaestro
08-Sep-12, 12:05
|
Thumper, I don't think you were paying attention. I commonly use a form of hyperbole to make a point. Conservatives can't really die off because conservative patterns are hard wired to various extents in the brain In selected circumstances, liberals become conservative. But conservatism must adapt as well. Human evolution itself produces a balance between liberal, moderate and conservative thinking which thousands of years ago in more stable environments favored more conservative thinkers. Historically conservatives have generally always outnumbered liberals except in times where the need for rapid change was overwhelming. Today in the information age, the pace of change creates a stressful environment that encourages conservative thinking patterns while the need for change requires less dominance by conservative thinking patterns. But humans do not evolve instantaneously but over long periods of time, and prefer stability until it becomes too uncomfortable. That is why you see growth in fundamentalism in the broad sense around the globe in response to increased pressure to develop a global view and culture. The tea party is simply one conservative face based on our cultural values on a multifaceted and complex struggle in cultures around the world to deal with an emerging world that is rapidly becoming different than the past with many unknowns. There needs to be some sort of compromise and governance from the middle spectrum that leverages the values of various perspectives into something that works. That is how the country was founded and it is the recent falling away from that principle of compromise that has got us to the point we are. Your desire to exclude a substantial segment from discussions is exactly the problem. I think you are so far on the fringe you can't distinguish between moderates and radicals.
|
|
... I don't think Thumper was offensive ... he's just unwilling to consider the merits of others' points of view and how history produces several competing points of view ... or, he has already made up his mind he is right and others are not, and is not able to consider it. In some ways, extreme left liberals have a parallel difficulty understanding the resistance to change.
|
|
I have learned that liberals never paid attention to English while they were in school. And, they do not understand the rules of good writing. There also do not take constructive criticism well.
I have, on several occasions, suggested to dm that he break up his long winded, run-on sentences into meaningful paragraphs where each paragraph has a meaning to be conveyed.
It is also much easy to read text when it is broken up into easy to see and understand units.
It is more pleasing to look at text like that.
I have suggested that people might actually read his dribble (I mean text) if it is easy to read and understand.
I suggested that it is a sign of respect to his audience when he makes it as easy to read as possible. It is a lack of respect when he does not.
But he continually rejects that idea. Once he told me he does not care if I read it or not.
Now, you please decide for me who is the arrogant and foolish one here.
I also told him I would not read his long boring, run-on paragraphs when they give me headaches, so I miss a lot of his banterings.
Do you think that is common among liberals or is it only dm and his arrogance that force him to write with such condescension?
|
|
softy ...
... I'm not sure if generalized critiques are always valid although perhaps some are. And, just as much as you might critique dm's writing style as boring or unreadable, others might critique your style or my style with similar remarks (thumper does this all the time, at least toward liberals, or haven't you noticed?). Certainly you've critiqued my style fairly often. Yet you occasionally do ask for clarification from posters if it seems ambiguous ... and then pounce on the writer with your disagreements, especially if they are not as conservative as you are. I guess we all have our ways of saying things ... and most of us are getting used to the personalities who post here most often ... and become forgiving of such things as missing capital letters or run-on sentences ... or overuse of ellipses (like I do) ... on and on.
I do think intellectual people do tend to write with run-on sentences and use lots of extra words unnecessarily. Some of them are obviously liberal. I realize you like compact, to the point, salient sentences that communicate basic truths or obvious conclusions ... and your own writing style tries to do this ... sometimes successfully. !!!
Arrogance and foolishness, however, is not particularly defined by writing style ... it's defined by the way a particular person thinks, and how respectfully he or she can present information to the audience. If an audience doesn't care for the information, they can ignore it ... like what is done with Henny so often. But for most of us, we want to learn why the other person thinks the way s/he does to better understand the point and either to confirm how one believes, or to persuade the other.
How's that for a long-winded response, amigo?
|
|
chaz
That was EXCELLENT.
It passes the readability, pleasing to eye, and thoughtfulness test! I could actually read it, understand it, and think about it. It didn't give me a headache. It even had good content too.
Good One!
(but you are not DM. I am curious to see if he changes his writing style or if he adamantly sticks to the unreadable format, now that I have mentioned it again).
|
|
Softie
Some libs talk like that face to face too. It's like they have to get it all out at once before they explode. Very much like a verbal diuretic explosion. Not really a conversation as much as they just want to get some on you.
|
|
... as do some ultra-righties ... but they don't ever consider that they do cuz they think they're always right.
|
Log in 
