Eloquent post. Many valid reasons why I hope
Posted By: the laws change soon in your favor! on 2008-09-16
In Reply to: As a lesbian, no I do not see where you're coming from - pxmt
Some of the sweetest and most devoted couples I know are same-sex. They pay taxes, are all highly educated and make my community a better place. They adore their children, their pets, their friends. To think they're denied the simple right of marriage, is heartbreaking.
Interestingly, I only have only one couple of friends who are married, who are same RACE. All the rest are black & white, white & Asian, Asian & Latino, Filippino and black, etc. I remember back when I was a teen, my parents actually didn't want me hanging out with a certain friend because her parents were a mixed-race couple. They thought it was 'scandalous'.
Well, that has all changed, and you better believe that every vote I cast will hopefully work towards bringing about equality in marriage for ALL couples.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
One of the most eloquent posts to date! I hope you
everywhere you can, and not the lies that the 'pubs have been throwing around for far too long. The last 8 years have erased any and all hope that I will:
1 - Be able to retire.
2 - Be able to own a home.
3 - Be able to continue to fund my savings or IRA instead of siphoning from them.
4 - Be able to feel any sense of security whatsoever.
5 - Be able to travel any further than the local K-Mart two towns away, and be able to afford much once I get there.
That was a very eloquent post. It very clearly
described your angst about voting, and it's what lots of other people feel. It's true, no candidate is perfect, no platform will save the world, or even the country.
Whatever happens, happens, I guess. I only have one vote, and I intend to use it, but in the end the REAL truth is that for all of us regular everyday Joes and Janes, it really won't matter that much who wins...
In the end, we're still totally ON OUR OWN.
Wow...good post. Lots of valid questions...
First and foremost...lower taxes equal better economy. We have to figure out a way to improve things without tax, tax, tax. I don't care WHO they tax. Fact is, over 90% of the total tax bill in this country is paid by the so-called rich. I am not in any way rich, but I think if they are bearing 90% of the burden already, that is enough. The government has to learn to live within its means. Sticking a windfall profits tax on oil companies when we are paying what we are paying at the pump is just nuts to me, but that is what Obama wants to do. And then redistribute that money to people (who did nothing to earn it) for whatever reason he wants to do it. Yes, people will have a little money to spend on gas, but gas will only go higher as a result of the tax...so I do not see a win there.
As to public education...my personal opinion is if they stopped building Taj Mahal schools (that look like the Pentagon) and spend more money on actually educating the children...less opulent buildings and paying teachers more...we would see better results. The state I live in has ridiculous property taxes which go directly into the school systems and yes we have school buildings that rival the best architecture around...but our graduate rate and testing scores is way down. You would think that would tell people something, wouldn't you? That maybe opulent buildings don't translate into a good education? I don't know what the answer to that is. Obviously writing letters and calling people does no good...have tried both.
As to socialized medicine...I think that would be a horror. For a multitude of reasons. We hve the best health care in the world, that's why leaders of other countries bring their families here to be treated. We have the premier schools and treatment facilities. How many foreign physicians are trained here? I think we all know the answer to that. They tried it in Massachusetts (state run health care), and while it was a good program on paper, it was doomed to fail. They are millions in the hole. The inevitable end of socialized medicine. When they can't meet the bills, taxes will have to go up or jobs will be lost, services will be cut...that is the way it goes and i would rather not sacrifice the quality of health care on the altar of getting it free.
I agree that there should be some regulation and oversight of insurance companies to get premiums into the real world, that's for sure. And whatever programs that remain to make sure children are insured need to be monitored for abuse. they don't need to institute programs that cannot be monitored. That makes no sense fiscally or any other way.
One thing I would like to see is a flat income tax. A straight across the board percentage with no deductions. No loopholes. No nothing. That way everyone pays the same percentage of their income, no matter what that income is. That is what I would like to see. The government would save millions in processing costs alone.
As to how do you know who is being sincere and who is just making campaign promises? They are both just making campaign promises. They will follow through on a few of them, most of them they won't. History tells you that. Politicians basically tell you what they think you want to hear. My take on it is the campaign promises that most closely follow what i want for the country, my family, that follows my value system, is the man/woman I am going to vote for. So if just a few of the things that are promised come to fruition, that is a good thing.
On the other hand, voting for someone who does not share my value system, is for things I think will be bad for the country...on the face of it...a no win there. No pluses to go there.
But that is just me.
I hope globetrotter takes a look at your post...
because a more potent example of elitism I have never met!
Hope this post answered your question.
no message
I do hope that's not you, Shera, making fun of my post...sm
After all, I paid you a compliment down below, as I thought we may have something in common.
Please allow me my opinion. You were asking for opinions when you posted regarding this, didn't you? Thanks for allowing me mine.
Gary Muchler - hope the pictures post
Gary Muchler
And finally, they're a dwindling number and may soon be extinct, so let's take a quick look at the conservative counter-protestors who have been voicing their support for the war. You've already met memorial vandal Larry Northern, but now I'm proud to present ardent Bush supporter Gary Muchler. Here he is in Wilkes-Barre PA, trying to snatch a sign at a rally for Cindy Sheehan:
Just a thought, but instead of assaulting peaceful protestors perhaps Gary could sign up for the military. He loves the war, he's already got the camo pants (which the Army would be delighted to show him how to belt properly), and he'd get into shape right quick. C'mon Gary, sign up today!
Gary joins the elite ranks of the Pro-War Rogues' Gallery, which features previous honorees The Unknown Patriot:
...and of course, Morans Guy:
OMG, I hope my post didn't look like I thought Obama did it
I know he didn't. He's a very decent person and respectful and when something is wrong he'll say so (and will have words with his people if they cross the line). I wasn't sure who did it. The news said they were going to tell us who is responsible but they never did (go figure). I just think its a horrible thing to happen to anyone and DH and I were talking tonight about when did all the nasty things like this start happening. I'm sure 100 or so years ago it wasn't bad like this. I just think it's a horrible world when someone is running for an office and people think its okay to do this. How low will they go?
And what facts to post....I hope you are really proud of your fellow posters...
right now.
i could have been a bit more eloquent...
LOL i was just exasperated at all the arguing. Everyone has their own opinion and it is definitely okay to disagree and have the discussions, but I think when people start acting like their side has NEVER done anything is just ridiculous. Give Obama a break! what? like you EVER gave Bush a break! And i dont really care about either of them you know. I just can't stand the hypocrisy sometimes. IT goes for the sex scandals too. A republican does it they are the WORST because of their "family values". WHAT? Well what happened to the "tolerance" of the democrats?
it's CRAZY!!! that's why i dont spend much time over here it works me up too much and i want to be happy so i go chat on the gab board :)
There is nothing whatsoever eloquent
You 2 sound like a couple of old bitties. Obama supporters are not a cult. This is what enthusiastic joyful support of a president looks like. Most of us are thanking our lucky stars that the shrub did not manage to snuff that out all together.
I agree with one of the posters below. If you keep on trying to turn hope and change into curse words, you deserve all the misery you apparently are wallowing in and will only succeed in marginalizing yourselves even further. There is nothing you can say or do to stop this train. Time to suck it up and get on with your lives, if you can even remember what that means beyond your uglier than ugly 24/7/365 witch hunt.
Very beautiful and eloquent
What a beautiful picture.
No, Obama is very eloquent.
.
That was eloquent and I am also PROUD !!! Gobama!
everyone else is sour grapes!
Talk about eloquent...and RIGHT, which are not always the same thing.
That guy has a political future in England, methinks.
McCain gave an eloquent speech
I felt sad watching his speech. You could tell it is a big dissappointment for him and all conservatives.
His speech was eloquent and sincere.
McCain lost, gave an eloquent
speech and still got to get that last "jab" in.
It is a sad day for a lot of us. Obama won - congratulations. I know his fans are happy. So McCain does not speak as eloquently as Obama. I wouldn't think he would as Obama is a lawyer. But then again I was not voting for someone because of their speaking ability. I was voting for their issues they support.
Obama had none of them (or "it"). Obama's plans are bad for the country, but so many people fell under his spell with his speaking ability.
Tis a sad day for our country when someone is voted first because of their color and second the way they speak and how he convincingly tells you he's going to give all the poor and low income people stuff for free.
Did anyone notice his message in his speech tonight. He's already planting the idea that he's not going to fulfill all the promises he made during his campaign. So time will tell as to when he starts breaking all the promises.
She is a nice eloquent lady....until she starts...
with the "rabid Republicans" type comments. Not necessary to take potshots to impart information. Fact is, I like GP. We are from the same part of the country and have a lot in common, believe it or not.
As to Obama...look. I had concerns about him during the campaign. Those did not just disappear *poof* when he won the election. I still have concerns. I don't trust him. His first choice for his administration did not make any strides toward trust, in fact, made me even more concerned. I asked if the real Barack Obama would step up, and he has. Maybe the next choices will be better. Time will tell.
Actually, Obama is NOT "very eloquent" when he tries to speak
Lots of people have noticed this and commented on it. He becomes quite ordinary, hesitant, and as some have said, "professorial".
I'm sure you must have too...or you're simply too bedazzled by pixie dust to notice that Obama is really quite ordinary.
See link...not saying whether it is valid or not - asking you sm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm
You have a very valid point........
I've noticed on this board alone that if anything is said against Obama, you MUST be a racist! So, unfortunately, on this board at least and probably over the country, if anything is said that opposes Obama, you will be called a racist because that's all they know to do.
Obama wants you to be dependent on the government for all your needs, as so many already do where I live. He will do absolutely nothing to help you, but will only make it worse. Most of us with any common sense know full well you can't help anyone by continuing to keep them down. Obama has every intentio of not only doing just that but bringing in the middle class as well to become dependent on the government, thereby empowering government to become more powerful.......
Unfortunately, I have noticed so many on this board actually believe the government's job is to POLICE their lives. They don't have a clue what their constitution says, what it means, and they actually believe BIGGER government means a better life for them. Most of those that scream racist on this board are just plain lame and very sad indeed and they know nothing else! Working hard to pay your bills seems to fall on deaf ears with those that think free handouts are a blessing. They don't have a clue about the American spirit and no doubt couldn't recite the pledge of allegiance or sing the star spangled banner without looking at the words......
and I say the same....go ahead and flame away. I truly couldn't care less.
I do think these are valid concerns...(sm)
and ones that have to be addressed. However, I don't see anything wrong with setting a goal, which is what Obama has done by saying it should be closed in 1 year. I think he purposely left himself some leeway by saying a year, and at the same time let people like me who support him that it will get done.
Personally I think they should be tried in a military court, which would avoid a lot of the bureaucracy that is associated with the regular US court system. They may want to go by the world court rules when trying them? You're right. Noone knows exactly how this is going to be done yet, but we all know that something has to be done.
As far as housing them here, I don't see a problem with that. Right now we house murderers, rapists, and some of the worst criminals immaginable. I don't think that these prisoners from Gitmo would pose anymore of a threat that some that are already there. However, I do think that Gitmo prisoners would have a really hard time in a prison here because of other prisoners.
Obviously, there is a lot to be worked out, especially when it comes to those in Gitmo who are actually guilty, but there has to be something done soon about the ones who aren't.
That is a valid point to consider
but what about those pregnant woman who are murdered and they are pregnant and the murderer is charge with double homicide. Why is the killing of a fetus okay in one circumstance but considered murder in another. LOL! It starts to get confusing when you look at every little thing.
I just think abortion is something that does need some form of guidelines.
That is a valid argument. Thank you
What's missing is a valid premise.
nm
It is a valid political issue.
"We people" do not consider it a bunch of tissue. We believe, as does YOUR VP candidate, that life begins at conception.
you posed some valid points
I honestly have to tell you I read your post with an open mind and I understand what you are saying. I don't think we can go to war with everyone and I don't think we should. But on the other hand I think there has to be a better way of just thinking your going to be able to sit down with the most extreme who hate Americans and want to see our country destroyed and believe that by just talking with them they'll become our friends and say, "yes your right, we've been wrong all along, what can we do to help you" (well not exactly in those words), but I just think that for someone to think your going to be able to sit and reason with them is a little naive. Look what happened when we tried to reason with Saddam Hussein. He would not reason and threatened us with nuclear and biological weapons. He destroyed wildlife, oceans, and set his own oil fields ablaze. I think we do have to be strong and we need other countries to stand with us. To tell you the truth I don't know what a good solution would be, and I'll tell you one thing I do know is that whether John McCain or Barack Obama gets elected they are going to have one big mess to try and fix.
O has already provided valid evidence and
fanatics to hound and stalk him like hunted prey. Fanatics also unsuccessfully tried to use the guilt by association argument to win the election. It did not work then and is will not help them now.
Four years ago makes it no less valid and...
You are operating under the false assumption that we have had a "free market" over the past four years.
email petitions are not valid - nm
x
Starcat made a very valid point.
You don't tolerate irresponsibility when it comes to pet owners (which I agree with, by the way), yet you seem to welcome it when it comes to your political party. One has to ask why you continue to sing the praises of and support the most irresponsible administration in US history, yet you express outrage about a cat owner. Just doesn't make sense.
And as far as you being tolerant, one only needs to take a quick look at the conservative board to see how laughable that really is. You and your cohorts post the most intolerant posts I've ever seen anywhere on the internet.
I do agree with you about pet owners being responsible. I am a pet owner and keep my pets under control simply because I love them and want to keep them safe.
I agree - it's a valid issue - for the WOLF.
.
I think I meant to say you "posted" some valid points
It's late and I'm tired and been typing since 7:30 am, so fingers are getting tired.
valid points and YES, people are buying
concerning, huh?
What? She has a valid question and stating facts.
nm
Make sure your complaints are valid before spewing them.
nm
Like lack of a valid birth certificate and that he...sm
would absolutely in no uncertain terms allow pork barrel projects? I could go on and on about the FACTS as the liberals see it, but by my dictionary - and without regard to news media or the channels thereof - these are NOT facts! Just wait - you'll find out for yourself. I'll be right here to tell you "I tried to tell you so!"
More media mantra does not a valid point make.
nm
A valid point. Substitute "NeoCon" for repub
nm
Maybe she will when Obamarama produces a valid birth certificate. nm
nm
For the same reasons
they're against gays, anyone of a different religion, a woman's right to choose and all the other things that Americans in general are in favor of. They're like all the other neocon groups who are not happy unless they can force everyone else to believe like they do. That's why I wondered if it was even real. Truth telling and honesty aren't high on their list of priorities, as we've all seen from other similar hateful groups that claim they are morally better than everyone else.
For several reasons
And I'm not required to answer to you for any of them since your only purpose here is to demean people who don't agree with you. (I see that yesterday Mystic left the door wide open and invited friendly, respectful, intelligent dialogue with you below, but you chose to ignore that in favor of continuing on with your rudeness to others in your other posts.) You remind me of a pesky fly that disturbs the peace surrounding the person it invades. If this is typical Israeli behavior, then maybe it's time to take a fresh look at why Israel is having so many problems coexisting in peace with its neighbors.
For any L-I-B-E-R-A-L-S who read the L-I-B-E-R-A-L board and are interested in my reasons for posting this, I'd be glad to list them. After reading this article, these are the questions that came to my mind, and I would appreciate it if LIBERALS would add to this list any questions that are raised in their minds after reading it.
1. I'm trying to understand Hezbollah's commitment to a cease fire. I'm wondering if they would spend the time, effort and money (Iran's) to begin to rebuild if they had plans to violate the cease fire.
2. I'm wondering what impact their doing this will have on other nations of the world in relationship to how they will view Israel and the United States. Will they garner more support, and is it justified?
3. In furtherance of #2 above, will their role in the Lebanese government grow as a result of their concern (be it real or fake) for the Lebanese people whose homes have been destroyed?
4. Finally, I was wondering how long it would take the two-headed snake known as the Bush administration to compete with Hezbollah in the rebuilding of Lebanon, after arming Israel with some of the weapons that caused the destruction, and whether or not Israel will feel betrayed as a result. As you will see below, not long. (Think of all the money we spend there that could be much better used here to truly fight terrorism by keeping our ports, borders and rail systems safer. Is that really where you want your tax dollars to go? Do you want your tax dollars used to supply the weapons to tear down a nation and then supply the money to rebuild it a month later in this cat and mouse game that Bush is playing in the Middle East?)
U.S. Hopes to Rival Hezbollah With Rebuilding Effort
Administration officials say quick action is needed in response to the militant group's reconstruction plans.
By Paul Richter
Times Staff Writer
August 17, 2006
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is scrambling to assemble a plan to help rebuild Lebanon, hoping that by competing with Hezbollah for the public's favor it can undo the damage the war has inflicted on its image and goals for the Middle East.
Administration officials fear that unless they move quickly to demonstrate U.S. commitment, the Lebanese will turn more fully to the militant group, which has begun rolling out an ambitious reconstruction program that Washington believes is bankrolled by Iran.
American officials also believe that the administration must restore its influence to keep a newly assertive Syria from undermining U.S.-supported reformers in Lebanon.
A major rebuilding investment would put the United States in the position of subsidizing both the Israeli munitions that caused the damage and the reconstruction work that will repair it. Such a proposal could meet with resistance from Congress, but administration officials said that the need for action was urgent.
People have been seized by the need to do more, in a tangible way, and they're working feverishly on this, said a senior administration official who asked to remain unidentified because he was speaking about plans still in development. They know we're in a race against time to turn around these perceptions.
U.S. officials and private experts agree that the administration faces an uphill effort trying to outdo Hezbollah, which has a broad local base, well-developed social service programs and the confidence of many Lebanese.
Hezbollah is deeply integrated into Lebanese society, said Jon Alterman, a former State Department official who is head of Middle East studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
We're coming in when there's a sense that we stood by the destruction of Lebanon by an ally, with U.S. weapons, and didn't complain. So we may be too late.
Even so, Alterman said he supported the idea of trying to rebuild U.S. influence in Lebanon at a time when the political situation there is in flux.
The United States has only $50 million in the pipeline for relief and rebuilding in Lebanon, a figure dwarfed by multibillion-dollar estimates of the need. The U.S. is lagging behind some other contributors, such as Saudi Arabia, which has pledged $1.5 billion. An international donors conference is to be held Aug. 31.
But American officials say they expect to expand the effort, which is largely focused on rebuilding the airport, restoring electric power, cleaning up environmental damage and reconstructing some of the estimated 150 destroyed bridges.
The U.S. effort is aimed in part at supporting its allies in the fragile Lebanese central government, which is competing with Hezbollah for influence. Moving rapidly, Hezbollah officials fanned out across the country this week, canvassing the needs of residents and promising help. In some areas of the south, Hezbollah already had fielded cleanup teams with bulldozers.
The U.S. official said talk of a deeper rebuilding role was one of several discussions underway within the administration. He said there was talk about launching a broader diplomatic and economic initiative for the Middle East aimed at increasing involvement in mediating the Arab-Israeli conflict, as well as in regional economic development and politics.
Officials are focused on the idea that things better change, or we're going to have serious problems, he said. Many people in the region believe the United States was a co-combatant in the war, he acknowledged.
With Congress on its August break, lawmakers have not explicitly taken positions on funding for rebuilding. But some influential members have given indications.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has said he would like the United States to take a lead role in the rebuilding by giving generously and organizing meetings of donors. He has argued that the U.S. missed an opportunity by failing to do more in Lebanon last year, as Syria withdrew its troops from the country, leaving a partial vacuum.
Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, voted for a resolution that called for a postwar donors conference. But he made it clear that there should be careful planning before the U.S. committed large sums, an aide noted.
Alterman, the analyst, said providing aid posed complicated challenges in Lebanon, and that the money could easily be wasted without the United States getting any advantage from it.
Lebanon is a tough commercial environment…. It's tough coming from the outside, trying to identify reliable people, he said. We could end up getting no credit — or, worse yet, it could end up in the bank accounts of the very people who are trying to get us out.
That's just one of many reasons why I'm
3 reasons
1. He fights for us.
2. He admits his mistakes (keating 5)
3. He isn't going to just throw money at a problem.
4. He is a reformer.
Your reasons he shouldn't be:
His age - So what? I've seen perfectly healthy men drop dead at age 52 and people with cancer live to 94.
His temper - Seriously? You're going to use this one? I know three times at least tonight that I wanted to reach out and smack Obama for his smugness. I think he does a very good job of controlling it.
His running mate - I like Palin. If you don't want the "good ol' boys club" and you want a "breath of fresh air" well there ya go. She will go against the majority to fight what she believes in.
His aggression - kinda the same thing as temper. So what? You want a wimp in the White House? There is nothing wrong with being aggressive. He isn't overly aggressive, and sometimes you need a little aggression to get things done.
Of course Obama is going to know how to SAY all the right things, HE'S A LAWYER!!! THEY ARE TRAINED TO DO SO!!! But he hasn't walked the walk! He does not have the experience to be in the white house. He is going to make foolish, costly, mistakes.
As a famous person once said (take a wild guess who)
"The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."
Too bad your reasons
don't have anything to do with McCain being a good candidate.
10 Reasons..........
10 Reasons Why Conservatives' Fiscal Ideas Are Dangerous
By Sara Robinson, Campaign for America's Future
Posted on February 27, 2009, Printed on February 27, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/128900/
Yes, it's true. The conservatives -- that's right, the very same folks who just dragged us along on an eight-year drunken binge during which they borrowed-and-spent us into the deepest financial catastrophe in nearly a century -- are now standing there, faces full of moral rectitude, fingers pointing and shaking in our faces, righteously lecturing the rest of us on the topic of "fiscal responsibility."
I didn't think it was possible. I mean, they were mean enough drunk -- but hung over, in the clear light of morning, it turns out they're even worse.
I know. The choice is hard. Laugh? Cry? Scream? All three at once? It would almost be funny, if it weren't such clear evidence of a complete break with objective reality -- and their ideas of what that "fiscal responsibility" means weren't so dangerous to the future of the country.
The next episode in this surreal moral drama is set to take place next Monday, when President Obama will convene a "fiscal responsibility summit" at the White House to discuss the right's bright new idea for getting us out of this hole: let's just dismantle Social Security and Medicare.
As usual, this proposal is encrusted with a thick layer of diversions, misconceptions, factual errors and out-and-out lies. Here are some of the most pungent ones, along with the facts you need to fire back.
1. Conservatives are "fiscally responsible." Progressives just want to spend, spend, spend.
The comeback to the first assertion is easy: Just point and laugh. Any party that thought giving cost-plus, no-bid contracts to Halliburton was fiscally responsible (and let's not even get started on handing Hank Paulson $700 billion, no questions asked) deserves to be made fun of for using words that are simply beyond its limited comprehension.
And a quick look back at actual history makes them into even bigger fools. For decades now, liberal presidents have been far and away more restrained in their spending, and more likely to turn in balanced budgets. Part of this is that they've got a good grasp of Keynes, and know that the best way out of bad financial times is to make some up-front investments in the American people -- investments which have almost always, in the end, returned far more than we put in.
Conservatives believe wholeheartedly in investment and wealth-building when individuals, families, and corporations do it. But their faith in the power of money well-spent -- and the value of accumulated capital -- completely vanishes when it comes to government spending. They think it's morally wrong for government to ever invest or hold capital -- despite the long trail of successes that have enriched us all and transformed the face of the nation.
Under the conservative definition of "fiscal responsibility, " we'd have never set up the GI Bill and the FHA, which between them launched the post-war middle class (and made possible the consumer culture that generated so much private profit for so many). We wouldn't have 150 years of investment in public education, which for most of the 20th century gave American business access to the smartest workers in the world; or the interstate highway system, which broadened trade and tourism; or research investment via NASA and DARPA, the defense research agency that gave us the microchip and the Internet and made a whole new world of commerce possible. There wouldn't be the consumer protection infrastructure that allowed us to accept new products with easy confidence; or building and food inspectors who guarantee that you're not taking your life in your hands when you flip on a light or sit down to dinner.
What we're proposing now is not "spending." It's the next round of investment that will create the next great chapter in the American future. And the most fiscally irresponsible thing we can do right now is lose our nerve, and fail to prepare for what's ahead.
2. It's not gonna work. Everybody knows the Democrats spent us into this mess in the first place.
The only remaining "everybodys" who "know" this are the ones who are simply impervious to facts.
Ronald Reagan came into office with a national debt of less than $1 trillion. Mostly by cutting taxes on the rich, he grew that debt to $2.6 trillion. George H.W. Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge, but it wasn't enough to keep the debt from ballooning another 50 percent, to $4.2 trillion.
Bill Clinton''s aggressive budget balancing slowed the growth rate a bit: eight years later, he left office with a debt of $5.7 trillion -- and a tight budget in place that, if followed, would have paid whole thing off by 2006. Unfortunately, George W. Bush had no intention of following through with Clinton's plan: on his watch, the debt nearly doubled, from $5.7 to $10.6 trillion. So, nearly 80 percent of the current debt -- about which conservatives now complain -- was acquired on the watch of the three most recent conservative Presidents.
3. $10.6 trillion? But I got this e-mail that says we're looking at a national debt of $56 trillion...
Wow. That's a big, scary number, all right. It's also a perfect example of one of the classic ways people lie with statistics.
This particular mathematical confection was whipped up by Wall Street billionaire and former Nixon Commerce Secretary Pete Peterson, whose Peterson Foundation is the driving force behind the effort to defund Social Security. According to this group, "As of September 30, 2008, the federal government was in a $56 trillion-plus fiscal hole based on the official financial consolidated statements of the U.S. government. This amount is equal to $483,000 per household and $184,000 per American."
This "fact" is only true if you're willing to do a reckless amount of time traveling. The $56 trillion number is what you get if you project the entire U.S. debt a full 75 years into the future, which is how far out you have to go before you can get into numbers that big. In other words: we're not in that hole now -- but we might be in 2084, if we keep going the way we're going now.
Of course, it should be obvious that we're not going to keep going that way -- and that's the other fatal flaw. Peterson's calculations assume that there will be exactly no changes in Social Security and Medicare policy or inputs in the next 75 years -- something that has almost a zero chance of actually happening. Also, there's the usual problem with any kind of long-range projection: even a small error in the calculations at the start will compound over time, creating enormous errors at the end of the range. If he's off by even one percent (which is highly likely), the projection's worthless, even 20 years down the road.
Peterson and his posse are laying bets that Americans are too mathematically and logically challenged to notice the flaws in his reasoning -- even though the holes are big enough to drive an entire generation of retired Boomers through.
4. Whatever. It's still irresponsible to take on that much debt.
Even John McCain's economic adviser thinks this one's wrong. Here's what Mark Zandi said about the U.S. national debt on the February 1 edition of Meet The Press:
It's 40 percent of GDP now. If the projections are right, we get to 60, maybe 70 percent of GDP, which is high, but it's manageable in our historic -- in our history we've been higher, as you pointed out. And moreover, it's very consistent with other countries and their debt loads. And more -- just as important, investors understand this. They know this and they're still buying our debt and interest rates are still very, very low. So we need to take this opportunity and be very aggressive and use the resources that we have at our disposal.
To repeat: Debt is never a good thing; but history is on our side here. We've carried a lot more debt than this in the past; and so have other fiscally responsible countries. And the world's investors are still flocking to buy U.S. bonds -- even though with inflation, they're getting slightly negative interest rates, which means they're effectively paying us to use their money. If they have that much faith in our economy, we're probably not wrong to have a little faith in ourselves. By world standards, we're still looking like a very good bet.
5. But Social Security is headed for disaster. It's out of control!
It's a testament to the short attention spans of the media that the cons try to launch this talking point every six months or so -- and every damned time, the punditocracy goes running flat-out after the bait, fur flying, like an eager but not particularly bright Irish Setter. And then people like us need to collar them, make them sit, scratch their ears, and calmly explain all over again (as if it were brand-new information) that Social Security is in perfectly fine shape, and the conservatives are making much ado about nothing -- again.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that the Social Security trust fund will continue to run a surplus until 2019. (More conservative fund trustees put the date at 2017.) The fund's total assets should hold out until 2046. And that's assuming that nothing changes at all.
If it turns out we do need to make adjustments, there are two very simple ones that will more than make up the difference. One is that we could raise the cap. Right now, people only pay Social Security taxes on the first $102,000 they earn; everything over that goes into their pockets tax-free. Increasing that amount would cover even a fairly large shortfall. And in the unlikely event that fails, we can talk about raising the retirement age to 70 -- a sensible step, given how much longer we live now.
6. Ending Social Security would be well worth it, because putting those deductions back in people's pockets would provide a big enough stimulus to get us out of this mess.
Anyone who spouts this is apparently not counting on the 70 million Boomers whose wallets would snap shut permanently if you withdrew their retirement benefits just a few years before they're going to need them. As Digby put it:
Boomers are still sitting on a vast pile of wealth that's badly needed to be put to work investing in this country. But it's shrinking dramatically and it's making people very nervous. As [Dean] Baker writes, if one of the purposes of the stimulus is to restore some confidence in the future, then talk of fiddling with social security and medicare is extremely counterproductive. If they want to see the baby boomers put their remaining money in the mattress or bury in the back yard instead of prudently investing it, they'd better stop talking about "entitlement reform." This is a politically savvy generation and they know what that means.
If they perceive that social security is now on the menu, after losing vast amounts in real estate and stocks, you can bet those who still have a nestegg are going to start hoarding their savings and refusing to put it back into the economy. They'd be stupid not to.
Bad economies get that way because people no longer trust the future, and refuse to take on the risks associated with spending, lending, or investing. Social Security was created in the first place because FDR understood that a guaranteed old-age income is a major risk-reducer -- not just for elders, but also for their working adult children. And it still is. Affirming the strength of Social Security not only raises the confidence of the Boomers, as Dean and Digby have pointed out, but also of their Xer and Millennial children, who are going to have to add "looking after Mom and Dad" to their list of big-ticket financial obligations if that promise is broken.
Breaking a 70-year-old generational promise for the sake of a little temporary financial stimulus is the very definition of penny-wise and pound-foolish.
7. OK, forget I even mentioned Social Security. Besides, the real problem is Medicare.
Finally, we come down to the truth. There's no question that exponentially rising health care costs -- both Medicare and private insurance -- are unaffordable in the long term; and that getting ourselves back on track financially means getting serious about addressing that.
On close examination, even Peterson's figures eventually reveal this truth. (About 85% of his projected 2084 debt comes from expected Medicare.) Unfortunately, though, most of his materials lump Social Security and Medicare together, creating a fantasy figure that blows the real problem so far out of proportion that you can't even begin to have a rational conversation about it -- which was, of course, the whole point of ginning those numbers up in the first place.
8. Next, you're going to tell me that some kind of government-sponsored health care is the answer.
Yes, we are. The Congressional Budget Office notes that health care costs were only 7 percent of the GDP in 1970 -- and are over double that, at 14.8 percent, now.
Much of that increase came about because in 1970, most health care providers ran on a not-for-profit basis. Hospitals were run by governments, universities, or religious-based groups; in some states, private for-profit care was actually illegal. Even insurance companies, like Blue Cross, were non-profit corporations. AdminIstrators and doctors were still paid handsomely; but there were no shareholders in the picture trying to pull profits out of other people's misfortune.
The first step to restoring affordability is to kick the profiteers out of the system. (According to the most conservative estimates, this one step would drop the national health care bill by at least $200 billion a year.) The second is to put it in the hands of administrators whose first concern is providing high-quality care instead of big bottom lines; and who are accountable to the voters if they fail to perform. Our experience with Medicare and the VA -- which, between them, currently provide care to over 70 million Americans, or about 22% of the country -- proves that we are perfectly capable of providing first-class, affordable care through the government.
If Costa Rica and Canada can manage this, why can't we?
9. But this Peterson guy's a billionaire Wall Streeter. Obviously, he knows something about finance...
Let's punt this one to William Greider:
Peterson, who made his fortune on Wall Street, never raised a word about the dangers of hyper leveraged finance houses gambling other people's money. He never expressed qualms about the leveraged buyout artists who were using debt finance to rip apart companies. He didn't fund an all out effort to stop Bush from raiding the Social Security surplus to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
But now he wants folks headed into retirement who have already prepaid a surplus of $2.5 trillion to cover their Social Security retirements to take a cut and to work a few years longer to cover the money squandered on bailing out banks, wars of choice abroad, and tax cuts for the few.
Basically, we're only having this conversation in the first place because a conservative ideologue was willing to pony up $1 billion of his own money to fund a "foundation" devoted to killing Social Security. Given that most politicians -- both Democrat and Republican -- are extremely unwilling to touch the notorious "third rail of politics," it's pretty clear that next Monday's "fiscal responsibility summit" wouldn't even be happening if Peterson wasn't bankrolling the Beltway buzz on this terrible idea.
10. OK -- if killing Social Security isn't the answer, just how do you propose to get us out of this?
The idea of a White House summit on fiscal responsibility is a good one -- but only if it focuses on real solutions to our real problems.
Cutting health care costs by getting all Americans into a rationally-managed system that puts delivering excellent care above delivering shareholder profits has to be a central part of any long-term economic health strategy. We're also about 15 years overdue for a complete overhaul of our military budget, too much of which is still focused on fighting the Soviet Union instead of responding to the actual challenges we're currently facing. Finally, it's time to ask the wealthy -- who've profited more than anyone from the past 15 years, and yet haven't paid anywhere near their fair share -- to step in a pay up for the system that enabled them to build that pile in the first place.
There's plenty we can be doing to actually reduce the national debt, and really stimulate the economy for both the short run and the long haul, without ending Social Security and sending hundreds of millions of Americans into sudden panic over their retirement. True "fiscal responsibility" can never be achieved by breaking promises.
Sara Robinson is a Fellow at the Campaign for America's Future, and a consulting partner with the Cognitive Policy Works in Seattle. One of the few trained social futurists in North America, she has blogged on authoritarian and extremist movements at Orcinus since 2006, and is a founding member of Group News Blog.
Two reasons.........
Democrats want MORE votes, looking toward the next election as well. They want the Latino vote and by blocking the "legal" process, the one that uses common sense, they can look forward to more votes from the "illegal" community to put their sorry butts back into office again.....
Also, that puts ACORN in a great position to go in and do just what they have been doing all along illegally..... signing folks (make believe and otherwise) up to vote that aren't citizens or are brought over from another state to vote illegally in order to push the vote in Democrat's favor.
That is the very reaso ACORN has been under investigation for years and is STILL under investigation and have had indictments as well. They are a purely racist group in the first place........
Now, if the KKK were standing around the street corners signing up folks to vote, do you think for one minute Obama wouldn't be jumping on that one? But it's the black vote he wants added, illegal or not, and he will never see to it that ACORN is stopped from their illegal doings.
Two reasons, I think............. sm
The first and foremost is appearance. Obama's black ancestory is more prominent in his appearance and therefore makes him appear to be a black person. Secondly, I think his own statements against his mother's people spoke volumes about how he feels about his Caucasian blood.
While it is a historical event to have a black man or person of mixed race in the WH, I have to wonder, would a Chinese American or Native American have garnered as much attention were they elected? I have to say probably not, but the black man's history in this country is no more or less tragic than that of the Chinese or Native Americans.
Yes, I can understand your reasons very well!
I see the neocons have been trashing you on their board.......again, insisting that my posts were posted by YOU, which you and I both know isn't true. 
Yes, Democrat, the reasons you
that unhealthy foods are inexpensive. I've read many articles like the one below that show how difficult it can be for poorer people to get to a market where they can get healthier foods such as fruits and vegetables. The fact is, though, that people are just getting fat across the board regardless of their income level - 1/3 of the ENTIRE population is overweight. It is hardly a problem that affects only the poor.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/190061_obesity09.html
One of the reasons you are not hearing as much sm
about the Republicans, especially the current administration, is that they have been very effective at almost completely shutting up any voices of dissent. When Clinton was in office we heard about him nonstop.
|
