|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 25, 2010 20:47:11 GMT -8
This one looks at liberals, conservatives, tea-partiers, Democrats, and Republicans and asks the questions, "What does each group stand for and what does group want?" It's interesting to note that it was written by somebody from The Weekly Standard and yet was published in the New York Review of Books. Only slightly opinionated, and full of valuable insights. . . . plus some truths that both major parties should keep in mind (but probably won't!  ) www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/books/review/Caldwell-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 26, 2010 8:21:19 GMT -8
Interesting article AW. Actually, very depressing. Shows that there is a total lack of understanding among the various groups and a complete unwillingness to even try. It seems that, no matter who is in power, there will be no cooperation between the various groups.  Maybe it is time for a benign dictator because I don't see much hope in the near future. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 11, 2010 9:07:42 GMT -8
Interesting article. I disagree with two of the author's premise that a shift of independents from two years ago is some kind of permanent embrace of conservatism. That has not been shown. A much more plausible conclusion is the terror of this awful recession has caused a repudiation of those in power-now.
Secondly the author has not shown that the Tea Party is anything other than an expression of terror by a group of people who see their power slipping away demographically. The Tea Party wants to change the demographics, but they cannot control the changes that are coming. And they are truly afraid of what is coming.
If the conservatives get what they want and eliminate entitlements, privatize social programs like social security, they will be creamed. They will be nuked into the stone age.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Nov 11, 2010 9:46:00 GMT -8
Interesting article. I disagree with two of the author's premise that a shift of independents from two years ago is some kind of permanent embrace of conservatism. That has not been shown. A much more plausible conclusion is the terror of this awful recession has caused a repudiation of those in power-now. Secondly the author has not shown that the Tea Party is anything other than an expression of terror by a group of people who see their power slipping away demographically. The Tea Party wants to change the demographics, but they cannot control the changes that are coming. And they are truly afraid of what is coming. If the conservatives get what they want and eliminate entitlements, privatize social programs like social security, they will be creamed. They will be nuked into the stone age. The Tea Party members have various complaints, but it seems to me that they all revolve around a failure of the government to honor the Constitution. Remember what Pelosi said when asked to cite which part of the Constitution authorizes the government to require citizens to buy a privately created product (i.e., health insurance)? She said; "Are you kidding? Are you kidding?" Well, NO, the speaker was not kidding, and neither are millions of Americans who are shocked that a member of Congress would so publicly declare the U.S. Constitution null and void. And there was the Representative who said, in response to much the same question, that he wasn't worried about the U.S. Constitution. Does one have to be worried about declining demographics (a Democratic Party talking point, by the way) to wonder why elected federal officials are so cavalier about the document that supposedly limits their actions? Speaking of observing or violating the terms of a constitution, it might be enlightening to take a look at the 1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union (http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html). It's not exactly what our Founding Fathers had in mind, but there are some good sections, such as the one establishing freedom of the press. Too bad Joseph Stalin basically said, "Are you kidding?" with respect to abiding by such a provision. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 11, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -8
I think we forget that the TEA Party has no real form or foundation. It has no real formal agenda and it just wants smaller government and a smaller tax burden while executing its legal Constitutional responsibility. It has not natural political, racial or religious base. It is just people fed up!
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 11, 2010 14:34:18 GMT -8
I think we forget that the TEA Party has no real form or foundation. It has no real formal agenda and it just wants smaller government and a smaller tax burden while executing its legal Constitutional responsibility. It has not natural political, racial or religious base. It is just people fed up! They want smaller government until you ask them about giving up Social Security. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 11, 2010 14:45:41 GMT -8
I think we forget that the TEA Party has no real form or foundation. It has no real formal agenda and it just wants smaller government and a smaller tax burden while executing its legal Constitutional responsibility. It has not natural political, racial or religious base. It is just people fed up! They want smaller government until you ask them about giving up Social Security. You don't have to give up Social Security to make government smaller. Look at your TSP for a clue! |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Nov 11, 2010 14:56:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 11, 2010 14:57:53 GMT -8
They want smaller government until you ask them about giving up Social Security. You don't have to give up Social Security to make government smaller. Look at your TSP for a clue! What makes you think I have a TSP? The Navy Exchange had no TSP as far as I know. I left the navy Exchange in 1990. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 11, 2010 15:04:36 GMT -8
About 100 sextillion dollars worth of "Citizens United" commercials is my explanation. But seriously, Washingtonians have often voted to raise taxes. We are not as blue a state as you think and the Republican persons from east of North Bend to the Spokane Valley voted against it. You win some and you lose some. I vote my conscience, which is what you do I am sure. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 11, 2010 15:19:09 GMT -8
You don't have to give up Social Security to make government smaller. Look at your TSP for a clue! What makes you think I have a TSP? The Navy Exchange had no TSP as far as I know. I left the navy Exchange in 1990. That was before it was part o the Federal systems. TSP is or could be the very biggest part of Federal Retirement. It is for me. I am suggesting that an individual owned account like TSP would be a way to get Social Security on track and provide a bigger nest egg for the member. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Nov 11, 2010 15:42:15 GMT -8
About 100 sextillion dollars worth of "Citizens United" commercials is my explanation. But seriously, Washingtonians have often voted to raise taxes. We are not as blue a state as you think and the Republican persons from east of North Bend to the Spokane Valley voted against it. You win some and you lose some. I vote my conscience, which is what you do I am sure. Hmmm. Union thuggery couldn't make up the difference this time, I guess. California may not be quite as deep blue as some may be comfortable thinking, either.... tinyurl.com/26obzoo  |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 12, 2010 6:35:03 GMT -8
I think we forget that the TEA Party has no real form or foundation. It has no real formal agenda and it just wants smaller government and a smaller tax burden while executing its legal Constitutional responsibility. It has not natural political, racial or religious base. It is just people fed up! They want smaller government until you ask them about giving up Social Security. Social Security could easily be fixed in a myriad of ways. The Democrats seem unwilling to touch it, however. In fact, any time it is brought up they bring out their big guns (ie: unions with their ad money) to shoot down any proposal brought to the table. I could fix Social Security if I were allowed to push through legislation. Eventually, they'll have to do something, but the Democrats are waiting until it reaches a true crisis point (complete insolvency). And what would I do to fix Social Security? I'd go with a couple of things. One, I would take a percentage of the money (say about 10%) paid in by people under 40 and put that in an account for each individual and let them decide how to invest it. Two, I would raise the ceiling for Social Security taxes from the current $110,000 or so to $500,000. Three, I would elimianate payouts to those who have incomes over $250,000 (a, "Means test," if you will). While the last two items are not what many conservatives (and even some Democrats) want, it would go a long way towards solving the problem long term. The personal accounts would be a first step towards eventually having a system where each person pays into their own accounts, eliminating the Ponzi scheme platform that the current system uses. Vote for me and I'll fix this mess... |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 12, 2010 19:06:05 GMT -8
They want smaller government until you ask them about giving up Social Security. Social Security could easily be fixed in a myriad of ways. The Democrats seem unwilling to touch it, however. In fact, any time it is brought up they bring out their big guns (ie: unions with their ad money) to shoot down any proposal brought to the table. I could fix Social Security if I were allowed to push through legislation. Eventually, they'll have to do something, but the Democrats are waiting until it reaches a true crisis point (complete insolvency). And what would I do to fix Social Security? I'd go with a couple of things. One, I would take a percentage of the money (say about 10%) paid in by people under 40 and put that in an account for each individual and let them decide how to invest it. Two, I would raise the ceiling for Social Security taxes from the current $110,000 or so to $500,000. Three, I would elimianate payouts to those who have incomes over $250,000 (a, "Means test," if you will). While the last two items are not what many conservatives (and even some Democrats) want, it would go a long way towards solving the problem long term. The personal accounts would be a first step towards eventually having a system where each person pays into their own accounts, eliminating the Ponzi scheme platform that the current system uses. Vote for me and I'll fix this mess... That worked for my 401K and the 30% or so I have lost. Unfortunately, investing in the stock market means trusting people I distrust. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 13, 2010 8:09:00 GMT -8
Social Security could easily be fixed in a myriad of ways. The Democrats seem unwilling to touch it, however. In fact, any time it is brought up they bring out their big guns (ie: unions with their ad money) to shoot down any proposal brought to the table. I could fix Social Security if I were allowed to push through legislation. Eventually, they'll have to do something, but the Democrats are waiting until it reaches a true crisis point (complete insolvency). And what would I do to fix Social Security? I'd go with a couple of things. One, I would take a percentage of the money (say about 10%) paid in by people under 40 and put that in an account for each individual and let them decide how to invest it. Two, I would raise the ceiling for Social Security taxes from the current $110,000 or so to $500,000. Three, I would elimianate payouts to those who have incomes over $250,000 (a, "Means test," if you will). While the last two items are not what many conservatives (and even some Democrats) want, it would go a long way towards solving the problem long term. The personal accounts would be a first step towards eventually having a system where each person pays into their own accounts, eliminating the Ponzi scheme platform that the current system uses. Vote for me and I'll fix this mess... That worked for my 401K and the 30% or so I have lost. Unfortunately, investing in the stock market means trusting people I distrust. I think that an option of putting the money in a sock and hiding it in your mattress could be one of the choices. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 13, 2010 8:20:40 GMT -8
Social Security could easily be fixed in a myriad of ways. The Democrats seem unwilling to touch it, however. In fact, any time it is brought up they bring out their big guns (ie: unions with their ad money) to shoot down any proposal brought to the table. I could fix Social Security if I were allowed to push through legislation. Eventually, they'll have to do something, but the Democrats are waiting until it reaches a true crisis point (complete insolvency). And what would I do to fix Social Security? I'd go with a couple of things. One, I would take a percentage of the money (say about 10%) paid in by people under 40 and put that in an account for each individual and let them decide how to invest it. Two, I would raise the ceiling for Social Security taxes from the current $110,000 or so to $500,000. Three, I would elimianate payouts to those who have incomes over $250,000 (a, "Means test," if you will). While the last two items are not what many conservatives (and even some Democrats) want, it would go a long way towards solving the problem long term. The personal accounts would be a first step towards eventually having a system where each person pays into their own accounts, eliminating the Ponzi scheme platform that the current system uses. Vote for me and I'll fix this mess... That worked for my 401K and the 30% or so I have lost. Unfortunately, investing in the stock market means trusting people I distrust. Typical liberal...   ;D You wouldn't HAVE to put it in the stock market. You could put it in to bonds or money market accounts. It would be YOUR account to invest as you choose. Putting it in safe, lower return accounts would be an option for you - you'd just have to live with less at the end. I've lost money in my 401k, but I've also made money back, too. It's a marathon, not a spint. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 13, 2010 9:31:23 GMT -8
"One, I would take a percentage of the money (say about 10%) paid in by people under 40 and put that in an account for each individual and let them decide how to invest it."That worked for my 401K and the 30% or so I have lost. Unfortunately, investing in the stock market means trusting people I distrust. Typical liberal... ;D You wouldn't HAVE to put it in the stock market. You could put it in to bonds or money market accounts. It would be YOUR account to invest as you choose. Putting it in safe, lower return accounts would be an option for you - you'd just have to live with less at the end. I've lost money in my 401k, but I've also made money back, too. It's a marathon, not a spint. I am pulling it out. |
|
)
;D