Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

Alt2War · 2004-02-25 17:44:23

Boom, 35% of the workforce opts out. Those recieving benefits have no choice but remain in the system.
Those benefits must either be cut by 35% (sending old folks out on the street) or medicare tax must be increased for those who remain in to compensate (which cause more to drop out, on and on)
Only if you assume all other federal spending is static. There are literally billions of dollars that could be freed up with little or no adverse effect. In many ways such reductions would be a blessing themselves. It can be done as part of an overall plan to reduce the size of the federal government. Social Security cannot be saved, but it can be mercifully put down without 75% tax rates or streets littered with corpses.

No Adverse effect? hehehe

Be it a pork bellied defense contractor or a white trash momma in a trailer park, someone will be adversely effected by government spending cuts.

What this administration is doing is what they themselves call "Starving the Beast"

If you begin with the assumption that any and all entitlement or social service programs are inheriently evil and wrong, (which a suprising amount of people do) then the following plan is the only way to cut them out without a mass revolt.

Step 1: Big tax cuts. Everyone likes more money.
Step 2: Amass an outrageous deficit
Step 3: Wait, while warnings about the future doom of the economy is throughly broadcast into the minds of Americans.
Step 4: Cut entitlement and social programs to death to roll back the deficits.

Now the responsable thing to do would be to cut taxes ONLY if you also cut spending.

But that would be a hard sell. Most people would not trade fire trucks and grandma's check for a few hundred extra at tax time.

But if you give them a tax cut first, then wait for the inevidable fiscal crisis, Americans then realize that they must make cuts for the health of their economy.

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-25 18:09:06

Now the responsable thing to do would be to cut taxes ONLY if you also cut spending.
But that would be a hard sell. Most people would not trade fire trucks and grandma's check for a few hundred extra at tax time.

Therein lies one of the common fallacies. Cutting federal spending will not affect you local police or fire service. It need not affect miitary spending, or federal law enforcement, or infrastructure maintenance etc. Even somesocial programs need not feel the crunch immediately, namely SS since it's demise is the focus of my "proposal" as it is. For example, the US Department of Education spends roughly $35 billion dollars a year, last time I checked. It does nothing. In America, Education is a local and state function. DofE is powerless and useless. Nix it and we have another $35 billion to work with. Many other agencies can get this same treatment.

The only real problem is figuring out what to do with all the bureacrats that won't have jobs anymore. Perhaps they can be taught some marketable skills...

Now the responsable thing to do would be to cut taxes ONLY if you also cut spending.

This has been one of my biggest beefs with the Bush Administration. Close the Fed wallet, George! I knows it's just paper backed by nothing but c'mon... :rant:

Byron · 2004-02-26 06:08:44

Therein lies one of the common fallacies. Cutting federal spending will not affect you local police or fire service. It need not affect miitary spending, or federal law enforcement, or infrastructure maintenance etc. Even somesocial programs need not feel the crunch immediately, namely SS since it's demise is the focus of my "proposal" as it is. For example, the US Department of Education spends roughly $35 billion dollars a year, last time I checked. It does nothing. In America, Education is a local and state function. DofE is powerless and useless. Nix it and we have another $35 billion to work with. Many other agencies can get this same treatment.
.....

This has been one of my biggest beefs with the Bush Administration. Close the Fed wallet, George! I knows it's just paper backed by nothing but c'mon... :rant:

So, Cobra, when do you planning on runnng for President?

You certainly make a whole lot more sense than the talking heads on the TV...lol :band:

B

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-26 15:54:41

So, Cobra, when do you planning on runnng for President?
You certainly make a whole lot more sense than the talking heads on the TV...lol

2016

I can be reasonable sometimes. When I'm not being such a fascist, of course. :laugh:

Alt2War · 2004-02-26 19:14:50

Now the responsable thing to do would be to cut taxes ONLY if you also cut spending.
But that would be a hard sell. Most people would not trade fire trucks and grandma's check for a few hundred extra at tax time.
Therein lies one of the common fallacies. Cutting federal spending will not affect you local police or fire service. It need not affect miitary spending, or federal law enforcement, or infrastructure maintenance etc. Even somesocial programs need not feel the crunch immediately, namely SS since it's demise is the focus of my "proposal" as it is. For example, the US Department of Education spends roughly $35 billion dollars a year, last time I checked. It does nothing. In America, Education is a local and state function. DofE is powerless and useless. Nix it and we have another $35 billion to work with. Many other agencies can get this same treatment.
The only real problem is figuring out what to do with all the bureacrats that won't have jobs anymore. Perhaps they can be taught some marketable skills...
Now the responsable thing to do would be to cut taxes ONLY if you also cut spending.
This has been one of my biggest beefs with the Bush Administration. Close the Fed wallet, George! I knows it's just paper backed by nothing but c'mon... :rant:

Daycares, Police, Fire, Headstart, Highways, Phones, datalines, power plants, farms, factories, parks, dams, etc etc all get funding from the federal level.

My Neighborhood fire department had to sclose because NYC had to spend so much shit on Orange alerts. The Federal Govt promised to help cover the tab, and failed to.

The fire department in NYC intended to buy new Radios, ones that would have saved dozens of firemens lives if they had them on 9/11, but the feds cut the budget again, and NYC does not get it's radio.

Dispite what you believe, the Federal Government does indeed do a lot of good in places it's supposed to, Infrastructure, social programs, research.

I'm not arguing that there is not rampaging corruption and waiste, there is. But whatever the solution to waiste is, wholesale elimination of federal programs is not the answer.

Hazer · 2004-02-26 23:43:32

"As an European, I'm equally stumped...
Why oh why do a lot of people (in most cases) go so black and white on issues?"

And why must you stereotype? If several people decide to go a certain way, they have thought for themselves and have thought differently then yourself.

"Another thing i noticed: most of the discussions between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' looks like intelligent discussion, but it is just the nth rehash of former discussions, numbers etc. stated in lib or cons papers... it gets pretty tedious after a while, it's like a dialogue of parrots..."

American 'Liberals' and American 'Conservatives' share fundamental disagreements. That is why you see so much "re-hashing."
Not so much a clash of minds, but a clash of ideologies.

Palomar · 2004-02-27 06:18:58

"As an European, I'm equally stumped...
Why oh why do a lot of people (in most cases) go so black and white on issues?"
And why must you stereotype? If several people decide to go a certain way, they have thought for themselves and have thought differently then yourself.

*Not necessarily. It may just be that a majority is formed out of intellectual laziness. I think often that is the case (though not always).

For example, is John Kerry -really- the best Democratic choice for the White House bid? Or are Democrats around the country now voting for him left and right because of the caucases he won in New England?

The old snowballing effect doesn't have to have a lot of critical thinking/brain power behind it, you know.

Then again, maybe most Democrats -do- think he's the best possible candidate (although I have a hunch the old snowballing effect plays a greater part in popular politics than many people realize or want to realize, i.e. "run with the crowd").

I also don't think Rik was "stereotyping."

--Cindy

Rxke · 2004-02-27 15:58:12

No, Hazer, i was trying not to, but as i've mentioned before, i'm not good enough with English to give my views in a nuanced way. Sorry to upset you. I used 'a lot of people', and 'in most cases' to try to communicate i didn't want to generalize.

Again i failed miserably

But your point is a good one for me. America, as i understand it now, is a 2 party affair, with indeed fundamental different views...instead of let's say my crazy country, where we have errrr several parties as 'ruler' (liberal,socialist in one ruling government! for starters) and errr about seven as opposition... It's hard, sometimes to keep ahead of the situation, esp. around voting time, when infighting begins, no matter if you're ruler or opposition...

Errrr... ok (i'm bad at this, will say something stupid, i'm sure)
Since you are either lib or cons or moderate, you adhere more or less to the view of 'your' party. I get the feel.

We crazy belgians sometimes vote for people in a party we don't like as a whole, but we like the politician's personal views. And sure thing: once that politician expresses his views too much to the liking of the party, he gets kicked out (so in the end you voted for 'the enemy', because they give someone else the chair, wich i really think is not fair, nobody voted for the newcomer to be there)
So we can say: 'i hate party xxx, but still voted for YYY, he/she can make a difference,' and most people understand (we think they're all the same, anywy)
OK. I'm outa here, ignore this post if i said something stupid.
Again

Cobra Commander · 2004-02-27 20:20:41

Daycares, Police, Fire, Headstart, Highways, Phones, datalines, power plants, farms, factories, parks, dams, etc etc all get funding from the federal level.

All these functions are local functions. Some states, however, have volunteered to relinquish their control of their own affairs for federal dollars. Unfortunately, the federal money carries restrictions, controls, and adds to the inefficiency and waste of the whole system. By reducing, then eliminating federal funding for local functions the administration and execution of these functions will improve drastically. When the people are directly paying for the services in their state and locality, the services will be superior and cheaper. The federal transfer of these funds adds a big sponge that siphons off billions in waste and inefficiency. We can do better. The feds can assist in unusual situations, but basic local functions should not be dependent on federal funding.

Dispite what you believe, the Federal Government does indeed do a lot of good in places it's supposed to, Infrastructure, social programs, research.

The federal government does many things it really has no business doing. Others could do it better. It is supposed to do only a handful of things, all clearly defined in the constitution. Everything else is misplaced with the fed.

Then again, maybe most Democrats -do- think he's the best possible candidate (although I have a hunch the old snowballing effect plays a greater part in popular politics than many people realize or want to realize, i.e. "run with the crowd").

And both "herds" have their share of mindless stampedes, unfortunately.

Palomar · 2004-04-11 12:59:17

And both "herds" have their share of mindless stampedes, unfortunately.

*A few recent threads have brought this topic back to mind, including comments like "there must be a special place in hell reserved for conservatives" and etc. Also, the Howard Stern matter.

Cobra's comment (above) ties in nicely.

Again, I consider myself a moderate (albeit liberal-leaning).

And frankly, I have a problem with both ultra-conservatives and ultra-liberals. I dislike Sean Hannity as much as I do Howard Stern.

Ultra-conservatives strike me as smug, patronizing, condescending and pretentious (Sean Hannity). IMO, they sure seem to think they know most everything and what's best for everyone, and you should conform (with few or zero questions).

However, I've noticed that ultra-liberals can be just as intolerant and insistent on OTHERS seeing it THEIR way as well. In fact, I've noticed ultra-liberals tend to be more childish and tantrumy when it comes to disagreement with them. Expressing a mere opinion/belief contrary to them results in a barrage of insults.

In other words, to either "ultra" side, you'll be damned if you utter an -opinion- contrary to their way of thinking. You're not entitled to your opinion/viewpoint, you must conform to their special brand of Group Think.

I recall a thread from months back, wherein I expressed my disdain for the Confederate Flag. Someone here attacked that, insisting southerners can fly the CF if they want to as freedom of expression (although I -never- suggested or implied it should be otherwise). The implication was that my -opinion- was somehow an attempt to deprive others of their right to fly and be proud of the Confederate Flag. On the contrary: They're entitled to fly that flag, brandish it about and be proud...just like I'm entitled to say I don't like that flag and what it represents. But apparently that person thought I'm not "allowed" to have freedom of my own opinion.

That's the main trouble I see with extremists on either side. They attempt to deprive and/or guilt induce people who disagree with their agenda, then twist it around like you're "the bad guy" who has no right to disagree. They decide, you shut up and go along with them or face the consequences.

As for Howard Stern, my opinion of him is that he's a low-brow classless gutterhead. Of course, he's entitled to his free speech, his opinions, beliefs, etc. -- as are we all. (The difference is that he's laughing all the way to the bank). Do I think the matter of the fine was unfair? I did take note of that developing storyline, when it first broke. Yes, I think the fine was too harsh and etc. He was made an example of, IMO, which isn't fair either. Unfortunately life isn't always fair.

Hannity and Stern are both entitled to be who they are, think what they will, express themselves, etc. Just like I'm entitled to my opinions of them. Right? Isn't that THE essence of freedom? Yes, I think so.

I have standards, which I don't seek to force on anyone. On the other hand, I won't let others attempt to force/insult/guilt induce me out of my standards.

And to be really blunt, I think both ultra-conservatives and ultra-liberals tend to be bullies.

--Cindy

Euler · 2004-04-11 19:55:37

I think that one of the main reasons why America was less polarized under Clinton than it is under Bush is that with different parties controlling the legislative and executive branches, both sides had to be reasonable in order to get anything done. Now that the GOP controls both branches, they can do almost anything they want, and they have passed many laws that the Democrats hate.

The best way to keep social security from collapsing is to raise the age at which people are eligible for benefits. It would be reasonable to tie the age to life expectancy, though even then there will be increased strain on the system as the baby boomers retire. Raiding other parts of the government budget would only postpone things for a little while, especially when you consider that Social Security and Medicare are each significantly larger than the government's total civilian purchases.

For me it seems that ultra-conservatives range from insane to evil. Ultra-liberals range from naive to foolish.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-12 16:50:13

I think that one of the main reasons why America was less polarized under Clinton than it is under Bush is that with different parties controlling the legislative and executive branches, both sides had to be reasonable in order to get anything done. Now that the GOP controls both branches, they can do almost anything they want, and they have passed many laws that the Democrats hate.

I don't think it was less polarized under Clinton, it's just that the bulk of the two parties vent in different ways. The Democrats tend to be louder and more in-your-face, while Republicans work more subtley or underhanded, depending on your view.

For me it seems that ultra-conservatives range from insane to evil. Ultra-liberals range from naive to foolish.

I detect a leftward bent. Ultra-liberals merely foolish? Now that's naive.

Josh Cryer · 2004-04-13 17:43:18

"Never attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by stupidity."

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-13 17:53:11

"Never attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by stupidity."

And the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Earthfirst · 2004-04-14 11:29:06

"I am a liberal, my heart bleeds so much that I need a blood transfussion." :laugh:
A repblican see his glass half full and demands justice, who drank my half cup of water?
"A liberal sees that glass of water is halfe full, and says "Iam so glad that I could give to the village hydroponic systems.
I think I will reard my self with a glass of wine at the village bath house. I hate bush, I alwise standing for good. were my gerbale Kerry? fine you can keep it for now but dont forget to take him out, of its cage. I hate to see one like lemmwinks.
Mr slave, john kerry dont forget to dis bush"

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-04-20 09:08:44

a very old topic when George Bush junior was President, the vision was space changed under an Obama Presidency

maybe a degree of isolationist policy with Trump

some also say with the Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Admin a continued path of withdrawing from World Affairs or Isolationism

US to withdraw military personnel from Niger, source says
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-withdr … 024-04-19/

'US to withdraw military personnel from Niger, source says'
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/18/poli … index.html

'Burkina Faso's military government expels 3 French diplomats from country'
https://www.foxnews.com/world/burkina-f … ts-country

The United States agreed Friday to withdraw its more than 1,000 troops from Niger, officials said, upending its posture in West Africa where the country was home to a major drone base.
https://www.france24.com/en/africa/2024 … e-in-niger

Chad’s government threatens to kick out US troops as Russia expands influence in Africa
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/18/poli … index.html

and in other news

Russian troops arrive in Niger as military agreement begins
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-68796359

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2024-04-20 09:43:38)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-05-26 17:58:16

NASA Public Affairs Is Firing People

https://nasawatch.com/personnel-news/na … ng-people/

tahanson43206 · 2024-05-26 18:07:08

For Mars_B4_Moon ....

The link you provided in post #67 gives this error:

403 Forbidden

Even just nasawatch.com gives that error...

(th)

Calliban · 2024-05-30 14:49:33

This could have implications.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/tru … ion-report

If Musk and Trump become whisky pals, it is possible we could see a humans to Mars programme as part of a revised infrastructure bill. It is also possible that Musk will persuade him to blow trillions on an electric vehicle boondoggle.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-02-25 17:44:23

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#52 2004-02-25 18:09:06

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#53 2004-02-26 06:08:44

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#54 2004-02-26 15:54:41

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#55 2004-02-26 19:14:50

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#56 2004-02-26 23:43:32

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#57 2004-02-27 06:18:58

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#58 2004-02-27 15:58:12

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#59 2004-02-27 20:20:41

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#60 2004-04-11 12:59:17

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#61 2004-04-11 19:55:37

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#62 2004-04-12 16:50:13

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#63 2004-04-13 17:43:18

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#64 2004-04-13 17:53:11

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#65 2004-04-14 11:29:06

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#66 2024-04-20 09:08:44

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#67 2024-05-26 17:58:16

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#68 2024-05-26 18:07:08

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

#69 2024-05-30 14:49:33

Re: Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals

Board footer