Huckabee: Sen. Ben Nelson is Judas Iscariot

Politics • Views: 2,894

Yesterday, in another sign of the deranged, irrational state of Republican “criticism” of health care reform, “aw shucks” theocrat Mike Huckabee compared Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson to Judas Iscariot.

But during his comments at the Omaha rally, Huckabee - a 2008 presidential candidate and potential White House hopeful in 2012 - likened Nelson’s deal to the biblical story in which Judas agreed to betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.

“I don’t want [senators] to go up there…and then somehow go back and boast, ‘Here’s some money that I got for you.’ The last time we saw that kind of historic moment it was 30 pieces of silver and that didn’t work out too well for us either,” Huckabee said.

Jump to bottom

483 comments
1 Guanxi88  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:17:04am

Somebody needs to just slap the hell outta him

2 rwmofo  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:17:49am

Huckabee has always annoyed me. Regardless, Nelson wasn't the only one to took a bribe for their vote.

3 freetoken  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:18:44am

Thus the anti-HCR bill movement must be Jesus...

These people are suffering from Messianic delusions. Does the HCR bill cover mental health?

4 rwmofo  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:19:10am

re: #2 rwmofo

Huckabee has always annoyed me. Regardless, Nelson wasn't the only one to who took a bribe for their vote.

PIMF.

5 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:19:35am

Also, since the story of Jesus's crucifixion is supposed to have redeemed humanity, didn't the last transaction of 30 pieces of silver work out okay, in the end?

6 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:19:56am

I guess when it comes from a theocrat, it stings a little more.

Clinton advisor James Carville even called Richardson's support of Obama "an act of betrayal" and told the New York Times, "Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate."

[Link: anangrydakotademocrat.blogspot.com...]

7 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:20:21am

re: #3 freetoken

Thus the anti-HCR bill movement must be Jesus...

These people are suffering from Messianic delusions. Does the HCR bill cover mental health?

Probably not. The Scientologists got to 'em.

/

8 Killgore Trout  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:20:53am

re: #5 Obdicut

Also, since the story of Jesus's crucifixion is supposed to have redeemed humanity, didn't the last transaction of 30 pieces of silver work out okay, in the end?

Also JC knew it was going to happen. Judas was all part of the plan.

9 jetpilot1101  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:21:57am

re: #5 Obdicut

Also, since the story of Jesus's crucifixion is supposed to have redeemed humanity, didn't the last transaction of 30 pieces of silver work out okay, in the end?

A very astute observation. Had Jesus not been betrayed and killed, humanity would not have been redeemed. Huckabee, who I believe is a pastor, should put down the microphone and pick up a Bible.

10 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:22:00am

re: #6 Ben Hur

I guess when it comes from a theocrat, it stings a little more.


[Link: anangrydakotademocrat.blogspot.com...]

Coming from Carville, it just sounds like he lost his damn mind.

11 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:22:14am

Senior Democrat branded a Judas in row set to split the party over Iraq


Mr Lieberman has been mocked for what has become known as "the kiss" when Mr Bush embraced him after last year's State of the Union speech and appeared to peck him on the cheek.

Lamont supporters have characterised this as a "Judas" or "Godfather" kiss and a papier maché float caricaturing the moment has dogged Sen Lieberman at campaign events.

It's political rhetoric.

12 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:22:54am

Nelson is Judas? What does that make all the liberals who oppose the bill then?

I really wish that Huckabee and all the other right wingers who bring religion into the discussion wouldn't. They keep trying to throw names around for situations wholly incompatible with the facts on the ground. It shows a blindingly and stunningly incompetent understanding of history, religion, and politics.

Besides, I'm sure that someone can dig up a similar story about Huckabee going along with some political agreement on the basis of what he or his constituency got in return (aka the 30 pieces).

13 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:23:12am

One of the Hot Air folks was saying that everyone should send little bags of thirty dimes to Nelson.

I'm sure he wouldn't mind a bunch of three-dollar campaign contributions, but it did seem like a weird form of revenge...

14 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:23:40am

re: #2 rwmofo

Huckabee has always annoyed me. Regardless, Nelson wasn't the only one to took a bribe for their vote.

Senators are supposed to work for their constituents. Since when is it a "bribe" to accept a deal that will benefit constituents?

Never mind -- I know the answer. It's a "bribe" because the right wing needs to smear Nelson any way they can.

15 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:23:49am

re: #11 Ben Hur

Indeed it is, and it is just as ignorant when used against Lieberman as it is against Nelson.

16 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:24:21am

re: #11 Ben Hur

Senior Democrat branded a Judas in row set to split the party over Iraq


It's political rhetoric.

It's pretty stupid, though.

17 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:24:59am

re: #15 lawhawk

Indeed it is, and it is just as ignorant when used against Lieberman as it is against Nelson.

Absolutely.

And it's used a lot.

18 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:25:22am

re: #16 SanFranciscoZionist

It's pretty stupid, though.

Agreed.

19 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:25:22am

re: #11 Ben Hur

Senior Democrat branded a Judas in row set to split the party over Iraq

It's political rhetoric.

Yes, it is -- debased, ugly political rhetoric.

20 Mocking Jay  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:28:48am

re: #16 SanFranciscoZionist

Hope you're feeling better, SFZ.

21 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:28:59am

re: #14 Charles

So too is porkbarrel spending (or member items as they're called in NY). Everyone loves when their politician brings home the bacon, but hates that others get some (or more). In this case, Nelson got a huge break and one that will cost a minimum of $100 million for the first 10 years of the bill. NYers are griping because they didn't get a deal like that.

Pretty soon, everyone is asking for the same deal, and it turns out that it's no deal, precisely because we can't afford that (not that we can afford the current proposal either).

Oh, and the CBO just came out and found a problem in their long term calculation - their assumptions may be wrong about how much money will be saved in the long term. The CBO most recently says that the Senate bill will reduce the deficit after 2019, but the revised version says the reduction in the deficit will be less. I think that the deficit will continue growing because the CBO is trying to treat the health care bill separate from the Medicare/Medicaid spending packages that have yet to be agreed upon - and which inflate the costs significantly.

22 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:29:30am

re: #6 Ben Hur

I guess when it comes from a theocrat, it stings a little more.

[Link: anangrydakotademocrat.blogspot.com...]

being "properly branded"....Carville is as crazy as the rest of these lunatics

23 Racer X  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:29:34am

Politicians politic, whether they are R or D.

Shocka.

24 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:30:03am

re: #19 Charles

Yes, it is -- debased, ugly political rhetoric.

Yes, and not surprising, or party specific.

I was serious upstairs when I wrote that it stings more coming from Huckabee because of his religious background.

Presumably, he more than most should know the weight of the accusation, because to his constituents, you can't get much worse.

I hate religious analogies as much as some others.

25 rnf  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:30:04am

You're being too critical. It's just a way of saying he took a bribe to betray his principles. He did, but maybe he didn't really have any principles. The remark doesn't have to be interpreted to have any religious significance.

26 barflytom  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:30:18am

They'll need to "bribe" 7 more Senators if this guy is right.....

[Link: www.nationalreview.com...]

27 rwmofo  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:30:25am

re: #14 Charles

Senators are supposed to work for their constituents. Since when is it a "bribe" to accept a deal that will benefit constituents?

Never mind -- I know the answer. It's a "bribe" because the right wing needs to smear Nelson any way they can.

I think it's a bribe when they change their vote after they're offered money.

28 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:30:51am

re: #20 JasonA

Hope you're feeling better, SFZ.

Still sniffly, but up and getting stuff done. Thanks!

29 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:32:20am

re: #27 rwmofo

I think it's a bribe when they change their vote after they're offered money.

You mean "after they're offered money" for their constituents.

30 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:32:34am

Another day, another religious decree from the RR.

31 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:32:35am

re: #27 rwmofo

I think it's a bribe when they change their vote after they're offered money.

100% bribe.

But why would anyone be surprised. It's how it's always worked.

Senator's are judged by how much gelt they bring home.

That's why I support the Blagonator.

It was business as usual.

32 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:34:17am

re: #21 lawhawk

So too is porkbarrel spending (or member items as they're called in NY). Everyone loves when their politician brings home the bacon, but hates that others get some (or more). In this case, Nelson got a huge break and one that will cost a minimum of $100 million for the first 10 years of the bill. NYers are griping because they didn't get a deal like that.

Pretty soon, everyone is asking for the same deal, and it turns out that it's no deal, precisely because we can't afford that (not that we can afford the current proposal either).

Agreed -- he was offered a deal for his constituents, and he took it. He would have been crazy not to. Calling it a "bribe" is just BS.

33 baier  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:36:38am

Coming from a man that released a criminals because they said he believed in an invisible man in the sky, I'll take what Huckabee says with a grain of salt.

34 baier  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:37:45am

re: #29 Charles

You mean "after they're offered money" for their constituents.

From other people's constituents.

35 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:37:50am

Nelson would not vote for a bad bill...his state was given 100mil so now he votes for a bad bill...call it whatever you want, too bad it has to be this way

36 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:38:48am

I need free health care to cover the high costs of injuries due to all the criminals Huckabee has released.

37 rwmofo  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:38:54am

re: #29 Charles

You mean "after they're offered money" for their constituents.

So we disagree. My view is simply that Nelson and Landrieu (seems like there was a third Senator) changed their votes ONLY after being offered money that didn't go to the other 47-48 states and went against their own stated principles. This goes against what they initially claimed - screw the taxpayers.

Plus you injected party affiliation into this. I'd say the same if a Republican had sold out as well on something as crucial and expensive as this bill.

38 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:39:01am

re: #34 baier

From other people's constituents.

that part is of no matter....the feds are loaded, they have as much money as they say they do

39 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:40:48am

re: #14 Charles
A bribe would be illegal. That would be rhetoric.

Demanding money for your state to change your vote and put the interest of your state above your nation or above your actual conclusions on the matter is merely business as usual. And of course perfectly legal. All that is wrong is not illegal.

40 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:42:53am

re: #29 Charles

You mean "after they're offered money" for their constituents.

NE Polls Shows More Trouble for Health Care?

*51 percent of those surveyed approve of the way Nelson is handling his job; 41 percent disapprove and nine percent are unsure

*Asked to name the most important one issue facing Congress, 28 percent said "health care reform;" 23 percent said "deficit spending of the government;" 14 percent said "the economy;" 11 percent said "jobs;" and 7 percent said "taxes." All told, 55 percent pointed to an economic issue as most important, 28 percent said health care reform.

*90 percent of Nebraskans said they were satisfied with their current health care; 9 percent were unsatisfied

*Asked how much they've heard about the current health care reform debate, 68 percent said "a lot," 26 percent said "some," and 4 percent said "a little."

*Asked "do you favor or oppose President Obama's plan to expand health care coverage to most Americans even if this plan increases the role of the federal government in health care and increases the cost of the deficit?" 67 percent opposed, 26 percent favored, and 7 percent were unsure.

*Respondents were asked directly about Nelson's vote. "As you may know, there is likely to be a vote soon in the US Senate on President Obama's health care plan. If Senator Ben Nelson votes in favor of this plan, would that make you more likely or les likely to support Senator Nelson when he runs for re-election?" 26 percent said "more likely;" 61 percent said "less likely;" 7 percent said "unsure;" and 6 percent said "no difference."

Will be interesting if his constituents will turn to support the bill because of the $.

41 Killgore Trout  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:43:25am

re: #39 Rightwingconspirator

A bribe would be illegal. That would be rhetoric.

Demanding money for your state to change your vote and put the interest of your state above your nation or above your actual conclusions on the matter is merely business as usual. And of course perfectly legal. All that is wrong is not illegal.

This is the was politics has always worked and it's nothing new. Politics is messy but this isn't immoral or treasonous. A little bit of perspective would really help healthcare opponents to appear more rational.

42 Killgore Trout  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:44:47am

re: #40 Ben Hur

*Asked "do you favor or oppose President Obama's plan to expand health care coverage to most Americans even if this plan increases the role of the federal government in health care and increases the cost of the deficit?


Lol!

43 metrolibertarian  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:45:10am

Because Tom Delay's congress never did anything like this. The Republican majorities from 1994 - 2006 were sparkling examples of morality.

44 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:46:00am

Deals like this are made in Washington DC every single day. It's what politicians are elected to do. If you're going to start labeling this process as "taking bribes," you're doing nothing but demonizing people because they did something you disapprove of.

This is the kind of crap that goes on at Hot Air and Michelle Malkin's blog. I would hope we can try to keep things a little more sane here.

45 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:47:05am

It'll be nice if they looked out for the millions who can't afford health care or are getting screwed over by their insurance. But this is real life.

46 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:47:42am

re: #44 Charles

Deals like this are made in Washington DC every single day. It's what politicians are elected to do. If you're going to start demonizing this process as "taking bribes," you're doing nothing but demonizing people because they did something you disapprove of.

This is the kind of crap that goes on at Hot Air and Michelle Malkin's blog. I would hope we can try to keep things a little more sane here.

Even if your constituents are overwhelmingly against?

They do work for the people.

47 borgcube  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:48:07am

re: #44 Charles

Deals like this are made in Washington DC every single day. It's what politicians are elected to do. If you're going to start demonizing this process as "taking bribes," you're doing nothing but demonizing people because they did something you disapprove of.

This is the kind of crap that goes on at Hot Air and Michelle Malkin's blog. I would hope we can try to keep things a little more sane here.

Too bad they don't vote soley on the merits of the bill before them. But I suppose that's asking too much.

48 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:48:36am

re: #44 Charles

Deals like this are made in Washington DC every single day. It's what politicians are elected to do. If you're going to start demonizing this process as "taking bribes," you're doing nothing but demonizing people because they did something you disapprove of.

This is the kind of crap that goes on at Hot Air and Michelle Malkin's blog. I would hope we can try to keep things a little more sane here.

But if some religious group gave a politician a whole bunch of money to vote against the health care bill, that would be OK, wouldn't it?

/

49 metrolibertarian  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:48:47am
Asked "do you favor or oppose President Obama's plan to expand health care coverage to most Americans even if this plan increases the role of the federal government in health care and increases the cost of the deficit?"

I am willing to bet 67% of the 67% of the people who said they opposed this because of the deficit see no problem with going to war if it increases the deficit.

50 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:48:51am

re: #42 Killgore Trout

Lol!

A little over the top, eh?

51 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:49:26am

re: #47 borgcube

Too bad they don't vote soley on the merits of the bill before them. But I suppose that's asking too much.

It's asking too much that they should actually read it before voting on it.

52 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:49:49am

re: #49 metrolibertarian

I am willing to bet 67% of the 67% of the people who said they opposed this because of the deficit see no problem with going to war if it increases the deficit.

"Bomb-bomb-bomb bomb-bomb Iran"

53 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:50:13am

re: #49 metrolibertarian

I am willing to bet 67% of the 67% of the people who said they opposed this because of the deficit see no problem with going to war if it increases the deficit.

Iraq is sooo pre-Obama.

54 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:50:34am

re: #43 metrolibertarian

Because Tom Delay's congress never did anything like this. The Republican majorities from 1994 - 2006 were sparkling examples of morality.

The problem is that while what's going on is perfectly normal, the emotion around this bill is at fever pitch.

It's like 'czars'. Something that's been going on forever, that can suddenly be sold to non-wonks who haven't been paying attention as a crisis.

55 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:51:45am

re: #41 Killgore Trout
re: #44 Charles
I hope this is taken as a sane sensible objection to the process
If it's a good bill, why demand the money? If its not a good bill, the money is just a means to buy a vote. "That's how it works" does more to explain the jam we are in than set the appropriate standard.

56 Racer X  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:51:49am

re: #48 Alouette

But if some religious pharmaceutical group gave a politician a whole bunch of money to vote against the health care bill, that would be OK, wouldn't it?

/

FTFY

57 baier  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:53:17am

re: #44 Charles

Deals like this are made in Washington DC every single day. It's what politicians are elected to do. If you're going to start demonizing this process as "taking bribes," you're doing nothing but demonizing people because they did something you disapprove of.

This is the kind of crap that goes on at Hot Air and Michelle Malkin's blog. I would hope we can try to keep things a little more sane here.

This bill will change America, and I just feel like it should be made on a moral, not financial, basis. I don't think it's appropriate to treat this bill as just another chance to bring home the bacon.

58 JanglerNPL  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:53:33am

Apropos of the Nelson provision: [Link: tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...]

Doesn't seem set in stone though. The provision may or may not stay in the final bill.

Also, the bill reduces the deficit. I don't know why people continue to try to hide from this fact. If we "can't afford" to pass this bill, then we *really* can't afford not to pass it.

59 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:53:46am

A federal ban on Huckabee pardoning criminals would have cut healthcare costs 40%.

60 Killgore Trout  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:53:51am

re: #46 Ben Hur

Even if your constituents are overwhelmingly against?

They do work for the people.

The poll you cited used laughably loaded questions. I haven't paid much attention to the polls on this one because they are so easy to manipulate but when you have to use a poll that bad you obviously have a serious problem. Creating a fictional reality doesn't help serve people who live in the real world.

61 webevintage  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:53:58am

re: #21 lawhawk

So too is porkbarrel spending (or member items as they're called in NY). Everyone loves when their politician brings home the bacon, but hates that others get some (or more).

Like Carlin once said your stuff is stuff, the other guy's stuff is shit.

62 Killgore Trout  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:54:17am

re: #50 Ben Hur

A little over the top, eh?

Yeah, that poll is pretty bad.

63 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:54:32am

"Barry from D.C." calls radio talk show.

Very cute. :)

64 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:54:40am

re: #58 JanglerNPL

Yeah. I really, really wish that every time the bills cost was mentioned, that the cost of not passing it was also mentioned.

65 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:55:31am

re: #43 metrolibertarian

The tit for tat mentality approves of two wrongs making a right.
How does that help the nation improve anything?

66 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:55:34am

re: #60 Killgore Trout

There was a poll that showed many people were against a public option, but they couldn't explain what a public option was when asked.

67 metrolibertarian  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:55:50am

re: #54 SanFranciscoZionist

The problem is that while what's going on is perfectly normal, the emotion around this bill is at fever pitch.

It's like 'czars'. Something that's been going on forever, that can suddenly be sold to non-wonks who haven't been paying attention as a crisis.

I don't particularly care about the ignorant teabaggers. I'm more referring to supposedly more "aware" people like the Talibornagain Mike Huckabee. Is there any record of him accusing fellow Republicans of betraying the supposed Jesus of Nazareth when they voted for the Medicare drug bill in 2003 at the time (not later out of political expediency)?

68 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:56:01am

re: #60 Killgore Trout

The poll you cited used laughably loaded questions. I haven't paid much attention to the polls on this one because they are so easy to manipulate but when you have to use a poll that bad you obviously have a serious problem. Creating a fictional reality doesn't help serve people who live in the real world.

Show me a poll that shows that the people of Nebraska support Obamacare.

69 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:56:25am

re: #62 Killgore Trout

Yeah, that poll is pretty bad.

Conducted by The Tarrance Group. Corporate site here.

70 avanti  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:56:28am

re: #14 Charles

Senators are supposed to work for their constituents. Since when is it a "bribe" to accept a deal that will benefit constituents?

Never mind -- I know the answer. It's a "bribe" because the right wing needs to smear Nelson any way they can.

The thing is the Nebraska Governor expressed a need for the money, Nelson got it for his constituents, than the Governor got heat and is backing down. Now Nelson says he'll pull the request when the bill is finalized if Nebraska does not now want it.
I also notice a lot of bitching about late night and holiday voting, when it's the GOP forcing the delay.

71 borgcube  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:56:32am

Whatever happens with this healthcare bill, I truly hope it calms down all of the transgendered anarchists out there. And Scrotum man too.

[Link: www.denverpost.com...]

72 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:57:09am

re: #67 metrolibertarian

I don't particularly care about the ignorant teabaggers. I'm more referring to supposedly more "aware" people like the Talibornagain Mike Huckabee. Is there any record of him accusing fellow Republicans of betraying the supposed Jesus of Nazareth when they voted for the Medicare drug bill in 2003 at the time (not later out of political expediency)?

Probably not.

73 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:57:18am

Mr. Smith Goes To Washington he ain't.

74 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:57:25am

Deals are made every day in Washington... However these kinds of "screw the national budget I'm getting mine" deals for the states are going to kill our economy and make us all beholden to a more centralized government in the long run.

Holding out for amendments to a bill "on principle" then turning around and forgetting those principles based on a windfall for your constitients is not the kind of political courage I can get excited about.

(This is not a defense of Huckabubbas comments)

75 jeffm70  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:57:57am

This is what happens when the preacher becomes a politician. Considering that Jesus's crucifixion went according to God's plan, is Huckabee saying that God's plan went awry or was it a bad plan to begin with? And if you believe that the crucifixion led to the forgiveness of our sins, I'd love to hear Huckster argument for why it didn't work out well for us.

76 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:58:04am

re: #69 Gus 802

Conducted by The Tarrance Group. Corporate site here.

And?

You don't think that Dems have pollsters?

77 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:58:20am

re: #70 avanti

The simultaneous complaining about Lieberman not getting enough time to speak, while the GOP is forcing the reading of entire amendments aloud... the hypocrisy is rich.

I do not think obstructionism is a useful tactic at this juncture.

78 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:58:42am

re: #71 borgcube

Whatever happens with this healthcare bill, I truly hope it calms down all of the transgendered anarchists out there. And Scrotum man too.

[Link: www.denverpost.com...]

There's no such thing as a calm transgendered anarchist, in my experience.

79 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:59:07am

"If Ben Nelson lived during bible times, there would have been no Jesus" - Chuck Norris and Mike Huckabee.

80 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:59:23am

re: #76 Ben Hur

And?

You don't think that Dems have pollsters?

Oh, I thought we were talking about the Nebraska poll conducted by the Tarrance Group and not polling in general.

81 srjh  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:59:31am

It's borderline bribery to me...

I know it's business as usual, but in an ideal world each political issue would be considered on its merits alone, not on "deals" for their constituents.

It's hard to criticise one person for it when everyone's doing it, but that doesn't make me comfortable about it.

82 Killgore Trout  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:59:32am

re: #68 Ben Hur

Show me a poll that shows that the people of Nebraska support Obamacare.

As I mentioned earlier I haven't been following the polls on the issue. Fact checking them involves too much work for me. However, obvious bogus polls by Republican PR firms (see #69) don't reflect reality.

83 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:59:33am
84 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:59:34am

re: #78 SanFranciscoZionist

Ghastly is calm right after he wakes up-- or so he claims.

(note to everyone: Do not search google for who I'm talking about unless you're comfortable with completely deranged sexuality.)

85 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:59:40am

re: #68 Ben Hur

Show me a poll that shows that the people of Nebraska support Obamacare.

Actually, screw Nebraska.

Show me a poll that shows Americans in general supporting it.

86 avanti  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:59:50am

re: #68 Ben Hur

Show me a poll that shows that the people of Nebraska support Obamacare.

No one supports Obamacare, he did not write the bill, so naming it after him is a political trick. Social Security is not called Rooseveltcare for example.

87 Racer X  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:59:55am

re: #71 borgcube

Whatever happens with this healthcare bill, I truly hope it calms down all of the transgendered anarchists out there. And Scrotum man too.

[Link: www.denverpost.com...]


Heh.

Initially, Democratic Party officials blamed conservative opponents of health care reform for stoking animosity directed at Democrats.

Then it became known that Schwenkler had previously worked for a Democratic candidate. Conservatives characterized the attack as an attempt to frame Republicans with the blame.

88 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:00:10am

re: #49 metrolibertarian

Because many people can distinguish between a national security interest and something that has, until now, been seen in the US as a private transaction - health care is something between an employer and employee (primarily because of the way that benefits were calculated way back when that incentivized businesses to provide health insurance rather than individuals getting it directly without the employer). The safety net of Medicare and Medicaid are themselves in need of a safety net because both will be insolvent before long (in just a few years according to the latest calculations).

So, even if you disagree with the Iraq campaign, the US has historically had no problems engaging in deficit spending for fighting its wars, but this proposal is a trillion dollar bet that we'll remake health care insurance in a way that doesn't actually reduce the costs - only who pays (the taxpayers pay a bigger chunk, which means that those of us who already have insurance will see a hit before long and those who now opt not to carry insurance will see a bigger hit in the form of new penalties if they don't sign on to the plan).

89 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:00:13am

re: #80 Gus 802

Oh, I thought we were talking about the Nebraska poll conducted by the Tarrance Group and not polling in general.

True.

Kind of walked into that one.

90 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:00:41am

re: #83 koedo

Could you be explicit about what you mean about a 'bright, cleansing light'? What would that actually look like?

91 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:01:20am

re: #89 Ben Hur

True.

Kind of walked into that one.

Here's the Gallup poll from the 16th. I barely squeaks by. 48 against with 46 for... some undecideds.

92 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:01:41am

re: #91 Gus 802

IT barely squeaks by. PIMF.

93 rwmofo  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:02:07am

re: #71 borgcube

Whatever happens with this healthcare bill, I truly hope it calms down all of the transgendered anarchists out there. And Scrotum man too.

[Link: www.denverpost.com...]

Heh. So what's the chance of me clicking on that link? rwmofo just calmly strolls on by.

94 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:02:34am

re: #82 Killgore Trout

As I mentioned earlier I haven't been following the polls on the issue. Fact checking them involves too much work for me. However, obvious bogus polls by Republican PR firms (see #69) don't reflect reality.

What is the tailgate approved list of pollsters?

I know that Rasmussen is out.

Quinnapiac? (I'm not even bothering with spell check on that one)

95 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:02:40am

re: #86 avanti

No one supports Obamacare, he did not write the bill, so naming it after him is a political trick. Social Security is not called Rooseveltcare for example.

Pyramidevelt Scheme would be more appropriate - Gen Xer

96 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:02:50am
97 subsailor68  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:02:58am

re: #58 JanglerNPL

Apropos of the Nelson provision: [Link: tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...]

Doesn't seem set in stone though. The provision may or may not stay in the final bill.

Also, the bill reduces the deficit. I don't know why people continue to try to hide from this fact. If we "can't afford" to pass this bill, then we *really* can't afford not to pass it.

Hi JanglerNPL! The claim that the bill reduces the deficit is problematic. The CBO is only able to work with numbers that are provided to it. So, if the numbers provided do not include those that may not bring about the result desired, we see a claim that - while backed by the results - is incorrect.

For example, the dollars promised to Nebraska, Louisiana, and Vermont are to offset Medicaid costs in those states (among other things). The $200 plus billion in physician reimbursement still exists - it's just been pulled from the health reform arena and tacked onto other legislation.

As such, none of these costs are factored into the CBO calculations - because they're not "part" of the proposal being scored.

In other words, just because I budget oil changes, routine maintenance, and similar expenses as "Automotive", but decide to budget "new tires" as Miscellaneous, my "Automotive" budget number may look good, because I've fudged the "new tires" expense.

98 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:03:04am

re: #91 Gus 802

Here's the Gallup poll from the 16th. I barely squeaks by. 48 against with 46 for... some undecideds.

Gallup is silly. You know, crayons.

/

99 borgcube  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:03:05am

re: #86 avanti

No one supports Obamacare, he did not write the bill, so naming it after him is a political trick. Social Security is not called Rooseveltcare for example.

You're correct. Social Security should have been named after Charles Ponzi.

100 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:03:37am

re: #86 avanti

I wish this was Obamacare. He had a lot of good ideas.

101 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:03:46am

re: #90 Obdicut

Could you be explicit about what you mean about a 'bright, cleansing light'? What would that actually look like?

You know the little lamp that's the Pixar logo? We attach a big one of those to the dome of the Capitol building. Then the lamp jumps up and down, until the building disappears into the ground.

//

102 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:04:23am

re: #95 DaddyG

Pyramidevelt Scheme would be more appropriate - Gen Xer

Eh. You really got enough to cover your parents' retirement? I don't. I'll let it run.

103 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:04:31am

re: #98 Ben Hur

Gallup is silly. You know, crayons.

/

Nooooooooooooo! OK, here's Rasmussen.

104 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:04:32am

re: #86 avanti

No, it could just as easily be called Pelosicare or Reidcare, but once the President signs it, it just as easily becomes Obamacare. He was the one pushing for health care reform throughout, and left it to Congress to figure out the details.

Should it come as no surprise that members don't know what is in it, and that reading the bill (all 2000 pages+) is seen as a delaying tactic? What is the frakking rush to pass the bill by Christmas? (which is the same rush that was self-imposed prior to the last break before Thanksgiving, and before that Labor Day, etc.)

Oh wait. I know what the rush is - having to deal with constituents during the break and knowing that they'll take heat from all sides for pushing this mess.

It would be far easier to deal with constituents with a deal in place and the President's signature since they can then pass it off as not their decision - or that they did the best they could under the circumstances.

105 Killgore Trout  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:05:05am

re: #94 Ben Hur

Yeah, I wouldn't trust Rassmusen. Maybe you could find a site that averages out the various polls on the issue. I wouldn't trust any single poll by itself.

106 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:05:15am

re: #86 avanti

No one supports Obamacare, he did not write the bill, so naming it after him is a political trick. Social Security is not called Rooseveltcare for example.

Thats because Roosevelt was smart enough not to want his name attached to it!

(you really do make it too easy!!)

107 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:05:22am

Perhaps a more fitting biblical allegory for Huckabee to reference would be Pilate's pardon of Barrabas? Although in Barrabas' defense, I don't believe he committed any further rapes or murders.

108 avanti  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:05:38am

re: #91 Gus 802

Here's the Gallup poll from the 16th. I barely squeaks by. 48 against with 46 for... some undecideds.

The fact is, most Americans wanted health care and both candidates campaigned on it, then the right scared the crap out of them. If it passes, and is found to be less scary, support will turn around. The biggest problem the GOP has with heath care is that it's the Democrats plan now,

109 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:06:24am

re: #104 lawhawk

The cries of 'what's the rush?' are starting to seem a little forced, given that it seems like it's taking forever to move the debate forwards by an inch.

110 webevintage  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:06:25am

re: #105 Killgore Trout

Yeah, I wouldn't trust Rassmusen. Maybe you could find a site that averages out the various polls on the issue. I wouldn't trust any single poll by itself.

[Link: pollster.com...]

111 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:06:42am

re: #103 Gus 802

Nooo! OK, here's Rasmussen.

Dayum.

That one's at 55% against.

And Rasmussen doesn't pass the lizard tongue test. (get it? smell with tongue).

112 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:06:50am

re: #90 Obdicut

Could you be explicit about what you mean about a 'bright, cleansing light'? What would that actually look like?


How was it the Speaker of the House put it? "The most ethical and transparent government we have ever had..." That would be a good way to put it.

113 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:07:03am

re: #105 Killgore Trout

Yeah, I wouldn't trust Rassmusen. Maybe you could find a site that averages out the various polls on the issue. I wouldn't trust any single poll by itself.

Is it real clear pol that does the averages? Some site does.

114 djughurknot  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:07:10am

re: #101 SanFranciscoZionist

[Link: movieblips.dailyradar.com...]

Since you mentioned the Pixar lamp...

115 JanglerNPL  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:07:11am

re: #97 subsailor68

But the reimbursement provisions, e.g., will be passed even if this bill isn't. So, our choices are either pass the "doc fix" and pass the bill, for a net $70odd increase in the deficit over 10 years, or pass the "doc fix" and not pass the bill, for a net $200odd increase in the deficit over ten years. After 10 years, even with the "doc fix", I think the deficit will be reduced. I may be wrong on that though.

116 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:07:18am

re: #113 Ben Hur

Is it real clear pol that does the averages? Some site does.

[Link: www.realclearpolitics.com...]

117 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:07:19am

re: #108 avanti

The fact is, most Americans wanted health care and both candidates campaigned on it, then the right scared the crap out of them. If it passes, and is found to be less scary, support will turn around. The biggest problem the GOP has with heath care is that it's the Democrats plan now,

Exactly. That's why the GOP is furiously trying to prevent it from being successful at all costs. Otherwise they have fucked themselves for an entire generation of voters.

118 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:07:37am
119 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:08:14am

re: #118 koedo

How do we pay for not having it?

120 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:08:19am

re: #105 Killgore Trout

Yeah, I wouldn't trust Rassmusen. Maybe you could find a site that averages out the various polls on the issue. I wouldn't trust any single poll by itself.

What does Nate Silver say?

I trust Nate Silver implicitly.

121 MandyManners  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:08:27am

re: #104 lawhawk

No, it could just as easily be called Pelosicare or Reidcare, but once the President signs it, it just as easily becomes Obamacare. He was the one pushing for health care reform throughout, and left it to Congress to figure out the details.

Should it come as no surprise that members don't know what is in it, and that reading the bill (all 2000 pages+) is seen as a delaying tactic? What is the frakking rush to pass the bill by Christmas? (which is the same rush that was self-imposed prior to the last break before Thanksgiving, and before that Labor Day, etc.)

Oh wait. I know what the rush is - having to deal with constituents during the break and knowing that they'll take heat from all sides for pushing this mess.

It would be far easier to deal with constituents with a deal in place and the President's signature since they can then pass it off as not their decision - or that they did the best they could under the circumstances.

Also, it's easier to quickly shove socialized medicine down our throats in response to a perceived crisis that must be solved NOW.

122 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:08:59am

re: #118 koedo


That and the other thing, you know, like how to pay for it.

Never stopped Republicans before.

123 avanti  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:09:01am

re: #96 koedo

I'd like it to be as Obama once said he'd like to do, 'let in the C-Span cameras so the American people can see who is for the American people and who is not'.

I recall Obama once said something like that, not verbatim. That's what I mean.

He said that because he is naive. He thought he could sit down with the right and discuss the issue, but the other sides only plan was to hurt Obama by obstruction. They missed a chance to get a better bill.

124 Killgore Trout  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:09:20am

re: #110 webevintage

[Link: pollster.com...]

Good one. Thanks. I always find those interesting. Looks like Harris is the wost polling outfit.

125 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:09:31am

re: #118 koedo

Here's the Gallup poll from the 16th. I barely squeaks by. 48 against with 46 for... some undecideds.

The fact is, most Americans wanted health care and both candidates campaigned on it, then the right scared the crap out of them. If it passes, and is found to be less scary, support will turn around. The biggest problem the GOP has with heath care is that it's the Democrats plan now,

That and the other thing, you know, like how to pay for it.

Your quoting looks a little odd. That's one of Avanti's comments and part of mine.

126 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:10:23am
127 SasyMomaCat  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:10:59am

re: #12 lawhawk

I really wish that Huckabee and all the other right wingers who bring religion into the discussion wouldn't. They keep trying to throw names around for situations wholly incompatible with the facts on the ground. It shows a blindingly and stunningly incompetent understanding of history, religion, and politics.

I certainly agree that politicians tend to use inappropriate metaphors that either exaggerate or minimize or simply don't fit.

Slightly OT, but sort of related, David Plotz wrote an interesting piece for Slate . . .

128 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:10:59am

re: #114 djughurknot

[Link: movieblips.dailyradar.com...]

Since you mentioned the Pixar lamp...

That's terrible. But funny.

129 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:11:07am

re: #118 koedo

Here's the Gallup poll from the 16th. I barely squeaks by. 48 against with 46 for... some undecideds.

The fact is, most Americans wanted health care and both candidates campaigned on it, then the right scared the crap out of them. If it passes, and is found to be less scary, support will turn around. The biggest problem the GOP has with heath care is that it's the Democrats plan now,

That and the other thing, you know, like how to pay for it.

Dems have healthcare reform.

GOP has social security reform. You know, when the Dems were happily labeled the partly of "no" and cheered during Bush's State of the Union that they blocked all reform?

130 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:11:15am

re: #107 drcordell

Perhaps a more fitting biblical allegory for Huckabee to reference would be Pilate's pardon of Barrabas? Although in Barrabas' defense, I don't believe he committed any further rapes or murders.


...wasn't his complete record included in the book of Parole Officer Paul? //

131 sagehen  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:11:23am

re: #48 Alouette

But if some religious group gave a politician a whole bunch of money to vote against the health care bill, that would be OK, wouldn't it?

/

But nobody gave Ben Nelson money, they gave Nebraska money. Ben Nelson the decided that what had looked like not a good bill for Nebraska... was suddenly a pretty good bill for Nebraska.

He's not concerned with whether or not it's a good bill for the other 49 -- his job is to do what he thinks is best for Nebraska. Just like it's Mary Landrieau's job to do what she thinks is best for Louisiana, with little or no consideration of how any other state is affected.

Joe Lieberman's problem is that what the people of Connecticut want isn't what the insurance companies headquartered in Connecticut want -- so which should he be looking out for?

132 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:11:33am

re: #126 koedo

That and the other thing, you know, like how to pay for it.

Never stopped Republicans before.

I'm not advocating for Republicans. I'm advocating for consumers and taxpayers.

If you hit the quote button at the top-rightcenter of the comment box you will save some time.

133 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:11:43am

re: #123 avanti

He said that because he is naive. He thought he could sit down with the right and discuss the issue, but the other sides only plan was to hurt Obama by obstruction. They missed a chance to get a better bill.

lol @ Obama trying to work with the right.
All he got was death panels and Mary aborting Jesus in return.

134 SasyMomaCat  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:11:52am

re: #127 SasyMomaCat

(dang, these threads move fast - when I started this message, there weren't but 40 some odd posts!)

135 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:12:37am

re: #134 SasyMomaCat

(dang, these threads move fast - when I started this message, there weren't but 40 some odd posts!)

Wait until a Presidential speech. Things really move then.

136 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:12:39am

re: #129 Ben Hur

Was that the social security reform that would have privatized large portions of it, putting the money into stocks?

It really seems that most of your arguments in this thread are a varation on 'tu quoque'.

137 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:13:32am
138 avanti  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:13:46am

re: #117 drcordell

Exactly. That's why the GOP is furiously trying to prevent it from being successful at all costs. Otherwise they have fucked themselves for an entire generation of voters.

I get that conservatives object to it for fiscal reasons, and because it expands the government, just as SS did. Like SS, it may become popular, even with the added costs. My problem is that I would have liked some conservative input to perhaps get a smaller, cheaper bill.
It's not all about abortion funding and death panels.

139 borgcube  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:14:40am

re: #93 rwmofo

Heh. So what's the chance of me clicking on that link? rwmofo just calmly strolls on by.

Scrotum Man was a revered and honorary Lizard around here for awhile, although I'm sure he never knew. Alas, no recent reports or sightings lately. Perhaps SFZ can drop by the next Folsom Street Fair and let us know. He's very easy to spot by the way.

No mention of Scrotum Man in that link. Go ahead, you know you want to.

140 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:15:08am

re: #126 koedo


I'm not advocating for Republicans. I'm advocating for consumers and taxpayers.

Me too. I want taxpayer money to help taxpayers with their healthcare, I don't want that money to provide free healthcare to, say, an entire foreign continent.

141 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:15:16am

re: #136 Obdicut

Was that the social security reform that would have privatized large portions of it, putting the money into stocks?

It really seems that most of your arguments in this thread are a varation on 'tu quoque'.

It would not have "privatized large portions of it, putting the money into stocks". It wouldn;t have touched a nickle of what was already in the system, nor a nickle of an individuals contribution had they wanted to stay in the system. What it would have done was give an option to an individual to invest thier money how they wished, be it stocks, IRAs or bonds

142 subsailor68  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:16:02am

re: #115 JanglerNPL

But the reimbursement provisions, e.g., will be passed even if this bill isn't. So, our choices are either pass the "doc fix" and pass the bill, for a net $70odd increase in the deficit over 10 years, or pass the "doc fix" and not pass the bill, for a net $200odd increase in the deficit over ten years. After 10 years, even with the "doc fix", I think the deficit will be reduced. I may be wrong on that though.

Good points - if you and I can feel comfortable with the scoring. I'm still worried about the unintended consequences of decisions being made now. One example is - the deals made with the senators from the states in question were made over the last few days. They entail billions of dollars overall. In Nebraska, for example, the Medicaid exemption is permanent - as in forever. There's no way CBO - or anyone else has had the time - or the figures - to calculate the potential impact of these decisions.

Thomas Sowell and other economists point out that the beauty of the free market is that millions of individuals, making billions of individual decisions - each in only those areas of concern to them - result in efficient economic operation.

There is no way that 535 senators and representatives (even when you throw in their staffs) have the ability to make effective decisions in an area that encompasses 1/6 of our GDP. This is a form of central planning, and it has never worked well.

143 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:18:04am

re: #139 borgcube

Scrotum Man was a revered and honorary Lizard around here for awhile, although I'm sure he never knew. Alas, no recent reports or sightings lately. Perhaps SFZ can drop by the next Folsom Street Fair and let us know. He's very easy to spot by the way.

No mention of Scrotum Man in that link. Go ahead, you know you want to.

Folsom is usually around the Chagim, general in September. And I have never been. Hey, Bay Area Lizards, you wanna have a field trip to the Folsom Street Fair next year, for old times' sake? I still have a t-shirt from the time the synagogue I was working for had a booth there one year.

144 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:18:40am
145 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:18:57am

How much would it have cost to just properly regulate the providers and insurer's? Never mind, you never know much about the road not taken. Not even seriously considered by this administration. I'm just glad this was not the approach with public utilities. Some idiot would call it Obamalectric company or something. Obamawater.

146 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:19:16am

re: #141 sattv4u2

What it would have done was give an option to an individual to invest thier money how they wished, be it stocks, IRAs or bonds

Imagine how much taxpayer money would be spent to keep the citizenry calm each time the market crashes.

147 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:19:25am

re: #143 SanFranciscoZionist

Folsom is usually around the Chagim, general in September. And I have never been. Hey, Bay Area Lizards, you wanna have a field trip to the Folsom Street Fair next year, for old times' sake? I still have a t-shirt from the time the synagogue I was working for had a booth there one year.

I'm guessing the nature of the event made it relatively easy to tell the Gentiles from the Jews. /

148 avanti  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:19:25am

re: #133 Basho

lol @ Obama trying to work with the right.
All he got was death panels and Mary aborting Jesus in return.

In his books he talked a lot about one side running all over the other until they were out of power, then getting their payback. Both he and I were stupid to think that cycle could be broken. He assumed that since the public wanted heath care, he could get both side to work together on it. Like the Dems opposing good ideas from the right, it's payback time.

149 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:19:32am

re: #142 subsailor68

Good points - if you and I can feel comfortable with the scoring. I'm still worried about the unintended consequences of decisions being made now. One example is - the deals made with the senators from the states in question were made over the last few days. They entail billions of dollars overall. In Nebraska, for example, the Medicaid exemption is permanent - as in forever. There's no way CBO - or anyone else has had the time - or the figures - to calculate the potential impact of these decisions.

Thomas Sowell and other economists point out that the beauty of the free market is that millions of individuals, making billions of individual decisions - each in only those areas of concern to them - result in efficient economic operation.

There is no way that 535 senators and representatives (even when you throw in their staffs) have the ability to make effective decisions in an area that encompasses 1/6 of our GDP. This is a form of central planning, and it has never worked well.

whether the bill works well is not the point to it's supporters, it's an ideological victory and that's all that matters

150 wrenchwench  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:19:35am

re: #75 jeffm70

Welcome, hatchling.

151 SasyMomaCat  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:19:37am

re: #24 Ben Hur

Actually, I think it really cheapens Huckabee further to bring this into the discussion. First, the two are not analogous. Also, it minimizes the concept of selling out those with whom you have personal relationships as this is more about you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours - not the same as selling out one's close friends. And, of all people, as a former pastor, Huckabee should know better than to use such a comparison in this situation. For him to use it cheapens what he professes to believe by dragging an account that is supposed to be at the core of what he holds sacred and using it to smear a competitor.

152 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:20:13am

re: #141 sattv4u2

Okay, so it would have privatized stuff going forwards. I think the recent meltdown of the stock market shows that there might have been some rather significant problems with that idea. Stocks are great for casual investors, but they are exactly the wrong thing for average retirement accounts.

re: #143 SanFranciscoZionist

Hee hee. Sure. I last went a few years ago-- the aroma of leather, concrete, and sin isn't the most appealing in the world-- but it'd be fun. It's Sept. 26th in 2010.

153 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:20:24am

The bottom line is that 30 million more will be covered and denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions will be restricted. The bill is thus worthwhile and better than nothing for those reasons alone.

So what if the Dems had to give local incentives to a holdout in order to get the required 60 votes? That was just part of the cost of passing the bill, and so long as Nelson acted honestly and in the interests of his constituents then the result will stand. There is no evidence that he accepted a bribe or other personal benefit.
And of course the whole Judas analogy is ugly and inappropriate, especially coming from someone who calls himself a devout Christian.

154 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:20:32am
155 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:20:34am

re: #136 Obdicut

Was that the social security reform that would have privatized large portions of it, putting the money into stocks?

It really seems that most of your arguments in this thread are a varation on 'tu quoque'.

Most of my arguements are showing that, shocker! Calling a pol a Judas is nothing new or extraordinary, but in bad taste. And won't having the demonizing affect intended.

That the money for a vote "outrage" is phony since it is business as usual.

And that both parties have their pet reform issues and each has responded similarly to the other in their opposition. Like this:

Was that the social security reform that would have privatized large portions of it, ALLOWING PRIVATE CITIZEN TO CHOOSE (or not) TO put the money into stocks?

Was that the health care reform that would have socialized a large portions of the American ecomony and putting the gov in control of your health care choices?

Koo koo ka-choo is not a free pass for double standard or hypocrisy.

156 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:20:35am

re: #145 Rightwingconspirator

Obamawater.

That's what runs off of my Obama chia pet. /

157 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:20:45am

re: #147 DaddyG

I'm guessing the nature of the event made it relatively easy to tell the Gentiles from the Jews. /

Not in the United States, Daddy-O!

158 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:21:43am

re: #138 avanti

I get that conservatives object to it for fiscal reasons, and because it expands the government, just as SS did. Like SS, it may become popular, even with the added costs. My problem is that I would have liked some conservative input to perhaps get a smaller, cheaper bill.
It's not all about abortion funding and death panels.

If the GOP was actually interested in governance instead of corporate theocracy, they could have pitched an alternative bill. One whose main tenets were a complete overhaul of the private insurance system with emphasis on guaranteed coverage and elimination of payment caps in exchange for cost controls. A plan that I think could have garnered some real support.

159 SasyMomaCat  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:21:50am

re: #25 rnf

When someone who campaigned on his/her religious persona, bringing in something like this becomes religiously charged. Theocrats use this kind of thing as a weapon where others might simply use them as a cultural or literary reference.

160 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:23:08am

re: #151 SasyMomaCat

Actually, I think it really cheapens Huckabee further to bring this into the discussion. First, the two are not analogous. Also, it minimizes the concept of selling out those with whom you have personal relationships as this is more about you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours - not the same as selling out one's close friends. And, of all people, as a former pastor, Huckabee should know better than to use such a comparison in this situation. For him to use it cheapens what he professes to believe by dragging an account that is supposed to be at the core of what he holds sacred and using it to smear a competitor.

Scroll down some more and you'll find that we agree.

161 sagehen  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:23:13am

re: #129 Ben Hur

Dems have healthcare reform.

GOP has social security reform. You know, when the Dems were happily labeled the partly of "no" and cheered during Bush's State of the Union that they blocked all reform?

And after the stock market crashed, weren't you really grateful that social security hadn't been privated and given to Wall Street?

162 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:23:17am

re: #114 djughurknot

[Link: movieblips.dailyradar.com...]

Since you mentioned the Pixar lamp...

I thought it was going to hump the "I." I have such a dirty mind.

163 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:23:19am

re: #146 Basho

Imagine how much taxpayer money would be spent to keep the citizenry calm each time the market crashes.

Yup,,, 2 "crashes" and 2 downturns since 1920, and each time the market recovered stronger than prior to the 'crash"


Stocks are LONG term. Anyone in for short term SHOULD get burnt, imho

Right now, my portfolio is worth more than at the start of 2007, because I did not panic nor touch anything

164 borgcube  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:23:34am

re: #141 sattv4u2

It would not have "privatized large portions of it, putting the money into stocks". It wouldn;t have touched a nickle of what was already in the system, nor a nickle of an individuals contribution had they wanted to stay in the system. What it would have done was give an option to an individual to invest thier money how they wished, be it stocks, IRAs or bonds

Screw that. I like the current version where we are forced to put money into our own little retirement account that then gets spent on whatever the current Congress deems appropriate and then gets replenished by new workers eventually resulting in tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded commitments backed up by a promise on paper.

At least Charles Ponzi couldn't force you to invest in his scam. Of course, he didn't have Treasury printing presses at his disposal either.

165 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:23:40am

re: #157 SanFranciscoZionist

Not in the United States, Daddy-O!

Not that I'd force skin on anyone... /

166 subsailor68  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:23:44am

re: #149 albusteve

whether the bill works well is not the point to it's supporters, it's an ideological victory and that's all that matters

Hi albusteve! Sigh, I fear you make a good point. When I see politicians making comments that simply don't make any economic sense, I do sometimes think "this has to be an ideological point, as opposed to a logical one." At least one senator (probably more) actually said that it was possible to cut Medicare funding, add people 55 and older to the roles, and provide better service. (Or words to that effect.)

167 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:23:58am

re: #143 SanFranciscoZionist

Folsom is usually around the Chagim, general in September. And I have never been. Hey, Bay Area Lizards, you wanna have a field trip to the Folsom Street Fair next year, for old times' sake? I still have a t-shirt from the time the synagogue I was working for had a booth there one year.

I have a dirty mind, but not that dirty.

168 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:24:00am
169 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:24:14am

re: #141 sattv4u2

It would not have "privatized large portions of it, putting the money into stocks". It wouldn;t have touched a nickle of what was already in the system, nor a nickle of an individuals contribution had they wanted to stay in the system. What it would have done was give an option to an individual to invest thier money how they wished, be it stocks, IRAs or bonds

Right. So you're saying it "wouldn't have privatized large portions" of Social Security. It would have given people "the option to privatize large portions of Social Security.

So, it only would have been disastrous for those who chose to do what Bush's plan allowed them to do. And it wouldn't have impacted those who chose to keep Social Security exactly as it was prior to Bush's idiotic scheme. And this supports your contention that Bush's plan was good how?

170 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:24:31am

"Nelson is like Judas. And Obama is like the anti-Christ. Except Obama really is." - Mike Huckabee

171 Biocritic  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:24:42am

Sorry, I meant Obamacare opponents, not supporters in the last post.

172 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:24:46am

re: #138 avanti

I get that conservatives object to it for fiscal reasons, and because it expands the government, just as SS did.

HEY! We don't do those analogies here buddy!

////////////////////////

173 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:25:06am

re: #152 Obdicut

Okay, so it would have privatized stuff going forwards

No ,, it would not have

Someone 25 years old could opt to STAY IN SS till retirement. It would NOT have "privatized it going forward"

174 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:25:19am

re: #158 drcordell

If the GOP was actually interested in governance instead of corporate theocracy, they could have pitched an alternative bill. One whose main tenets were a complete overhaul of the private insurance system with emphasis on guaranteed coverage and elimination of payment caps in exchange for cost controls. A plan that I think could have garnered some real support.

excuse me, that is so naive it's just laughable

175 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:25:54am

re: #172 Ben Hur

HEY! We don't do those analogies here buddy!

///

You know who else expanded government? Hitler.

///

176 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:25:54am

re: #167 Alouette

I have a dirty mind, but not that dirty.

The shul actually got a pretty good response from the Folsom booth. Lot of college kids who were new in the area signed up, or came to services.

177 SasyMomaCat  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:25:55am

re: #33 baier

Agree 100% with the sentiment regarding the prison releases. Downdinged for the insulting "invisible man in the sky" comment.

178 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:26:15am

re: #174 albusteve


excuse me, that is so naive it's just laughable

Naive that the GOP would be interested in doing anything to check or regulate corporate power in any way, shape or form?

179 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:26:22am

re: #163 sattv4u2

Yup,,, 2 "crashes" and 2 downturns since 1920, and each time the market recovered stronger than prior to the 'crash"

Stocks are LONG term. Anyone in for short term SHOULD get burnt, imho

Right now, my portfolio is worth more than at the start of 2007, because I did not panic nor touch anything

Because no one has ever lost money ever. Unless they are rubes who deserve it.
/

180 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:26:24am

re: #161 sagehen

And after the stock market crashed, weren't you really grateful that social security hadn't been privated and given to Wall Street?

That's now two people trying to slip in that ALL of your SOc Sec would have gone to wall street, and not the reality that private citizens would have a CHOICE to either keep it where it was, or remove a portion, to be determined in the reform, for private investment.

Not all private investment is in the stock market.

181 avanti  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:26:30am

re: #158 drcordell

If the GOP was actually interested in governance instead of corporate theocracy, they could have pitched an alternative bill. One whose main tenets were a complete overhaul of the private insurance system with emphasis on guaranteed coverage and elimination of payment caps in exchange for cost controls. A plan that I think could have garnered some real support.

Well, they killed the public option and abortion funding with the scare tactics, and we now are looking at a bill the health insurance companies seem to like since their stock went up 5%. They don't have to worry about competition hurting their large bottom line and are increasing their customer base.

182 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:26:35am
183 Baier  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:27:00am

re: #177 SasyMomaCat

Agree 100% with the sentiment regarding the prison releases. Downdinged for the insulting "invisible man in the sky" comment.

Fair enough:)

184 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:27:11am

re: #168 Biocritic

So, Charles: Why didn't you complain about Senator Whitehead's comment that Obamacare supporters were Aryan Nation types? Just because you left the "right" does it mean you have ceased caring about the nastiness and hate expressed by the "left?"

I have an idea. How about, instead of casting aspersions on Charles, you just say "I am angry about what Senator Whitehead said. How about you guys?"

People are actually allowed to express opinions around here without using Charles' hand to poke the fire.

185 JanglerNPL  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:27:34am

re: #142 subsailor68

Again, it's possible the Nebraska provision may be removed from conference. As for the "1/6th of the economy" bit, how much of the economy does the food industry make up? Does the existence of the FDA represent government control of that fraction of the economy? All vestiges of a "public option" have been removed from the bill, so the insurance industry will remain private (except for Medicare), but it will be more tightly regulated. I suppose one could argue that the health insurance exchange is a form of central planning, but I don't see how it's much different from the stock exchange. If you want to be listed, you have to comply with certain rules and regulations.

186 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:27:37am

re: #176 SanFranciscoZionist

The shul actually got a pretty good response from the Folsom booth. Lot of college kids who were new in the area signed up, or came to services.


I'm trying to wrap my brain around a couple of LDS Elders working the crowd at Folsom. It just won't suspend disbelief that much!

187 webevintage  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:28:05am

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

At the same time, Democrats say the apparently unbridgeable health care divide has convinced them that Republicans are dedicated solely to blocking legislative proposals for political purposes. Several said they now realized that they would have to rely strictly on their own caucus to advance such defining issues as climate change in 2010.

Ya think?

188 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:28:05am

re: #180 Ben Hur

That's now two people trying to slip in that ALL of your SOc Sec would have gone to wall street, and not the reality that private citizens would have a CHOICE to either keep it where it was, or remove a portion, to be determined in the reform, for private investment.

Not all private investment is in the stock market.

Nobody is saying all of it would be in the stock market. But it's obvious that a sizable percentage clearly would have ended up there.

189 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:28:31am

re: #175 McSpiff

You know who else expanded government? Hitler.

///

"Nancy Pelosi is literally Mussolini. We will call her 'Pelosini'."

I love that site. And the stupid letters from people who are angry about it.

190 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:28:44am

re: #178 drcordell

Naive that the GOP would be interested in doing anything to check or regulate corporate power in any way, shape or form?

no, that it would make any difference to Pelosi...in fact she would laugh at this statement too

191 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:28:51am

re: #153 Spare O'Lake

Very well and fairly said. Kudos.

re: #155 Ben Hur


Calling a pol a Judas is nothing new or extraordinary, but in bad taste

I don't think Charles was calling it new, though definitely beyond the pale of acceptability. It was when Carville did it, too. I do feel it's worse coming from Huckabee, a preacher, than from Carville.

And I'm sorry, I got a little lost in your argument-- who are you accusing of hypocrisy?

192 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:29:17am

re: #177 SasyMomaCat

Agree 100% with the sentiment regarding the prison releases. Downdinged for the insulting "invisible man in the sky" comment.

I hardly notice anymore. My husband like to refer to the Lord God Almighty as 'your imaginary friend who always lets the Jews down'.

193 borgcube  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:29:41am

re: #178 drcordell

Naive that the GOP would be interested in doing anything to check or regulate corporate power in any way, shape or form?

Yeah man, like screw the corporations man, like peace love dove man.

194 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:30:33am
195 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:31:11am

re: #187 webevintage

Democrats have to rely on their own caucus to advance the cause of climate change? Yeah, that will really work out well for Democrat Diane Feinstein, who's trying to put the kibosh on 13 wind and solar projects in California by getting 1 million acres put off limits to all development.

196 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:31:33am

re: #191 Obdicut

Very well and fairly said. Kudos.

re: #155 Ben Hur

I don't think Charles was calling it new, though definitely beyond the pale of acceptability. It was when Carville did it, too. I do feel it's worse coming from Huckabee, a preacher, than from Carville.

And I'm sorry, I got a little lost in your argument-- who are you accusing of hypocrisy?

I have way too many conversations to follow!

I didn't intend to call anyone specific a hypocrite.

I getting lost in my argument as well.

197 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:32:10am

re: #186 DaddyG

I'm trying to wrap my brain around a couple of LDS Elders working the crowd at Folsom. It just won't suspend disbelief that much!

I don't know. Your guys seem pretty tough, in a clean-cut college boy sort of way.

198 avanti  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:32:15am

re: #192 SanFranciscoZionist

I hardly notice anymore. My husband like to refer to the Lord God Almighty as 'your imaginary friend who always lets the Jews down'.

Well, that's more polite than my friends "Jesus Christ is the adult Santa Claus" I'm agnostic, but that's just rude.

199 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:32:36am

re: #194 koedo

That stuff isn't in vogue here. It's the' right is wrong and guitar musicians' mostly.

In fairness the left has gotten plenty of anti-idolitarian flak from the Lizards and the head Lizard. Just search the archives.

It seems the pendulum is favoring center left these days but that doesn't mean the left has been left of the hook.

200 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:32:38am

re: #169 drcordell

Right. So you're saying it "wouldn't have privatized large portions" of Social Security. It would have given people "the option to privatize large portions of Social Security.
So, it only would have been disastrous for those who chose to do what Bush's plan allowed them to do. And it wouldn't have impacted those who chose to keep Social Security exactly as it was prior to Bush's idiotic scheme. And this supports your contention that Bush's plan was good how?

No individual has a "large portion of Social Security", so no. hence the word INDIVIDUAL
I stayed in the market during the "meltdown", even increasing the contributions to my 401K
WHY? because my dollars were buying more stocks ($10 bought me 1 share of "X" before while it now buys me 10 shares) So as the market recovers and "X" increases my investment increases expotentially

201 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:32:55am

re: #192 SanFranciscoZionist

'your imaginary friend who always lets the Jews down'.

/that could also be several mortals...

202 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:32:55am

re: #109 Obdicut

The cries of 'what's the rush?' are starting to seem a little forced, given that it seems like it's taking forever to move the debate forwards by an inch.

Actually, it is Democrats who keep throwing deadlines out there - first it was July 4, then Labor Day, then Thanksgiving, then Christmas (always before a holiday break for Congress.

Democrats have been the ones claiming that we're in crisis mode and action must be taken immediately. Yet, each further analysis of the bills being examined throws more doubt on the fiscal prudence of the new taxing and spending regime.

203 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:33:49am

re: #198 avanti

Well, that's more polite than my friends "Jesus Christ is the adult Santa Claus" I'm agnostic, but that's just rude.

Well, my husband couldn't do that one. He believes in Santa Claus.

204 sagehen  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:34:10am

re: #180 Ben Hur

That's now two people trying to slip in that ALL of your SOc Sec would have gone to wall street, and not the reality that private citizens would have a CHOICE to either keep it where it was, or remove a portion, to be determined in the reform, for private investment.

Not all private investment is in the stock market.

Right, only *some* private citizens would choose to put their money into stocks instead. And only *some* of them would lose everything. And when they hit retirement age, with nothing, is the nation going to just shrug and say "your choice pal, no food for you, go sleep under a bridge"? Or are they going to, one way or another, end up on some form of public assistance anyway?

205 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:34:13am

re: #196 Ben Hur

No problem. My main point is:

It's different for Huckabee, a preacher who I believe sincerely has faith, to use a biblical analogy is significant.

So I do not feel bringing up previous occasions really does all that much.

206 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:34:27am

re: #190 albusteve

no, that it would make any difference to Pelosi...in fact she would laugh at this statement too

Is it possible to discuss anything without having someone bring Nancy Pelosi up? Pelosi has absolutely nothing to do with the GOP's complete lack of a substantive counter-proposal for healthcare reform.

And besides, everyone knows that the House of Reps isn't able to get jack shit done on any major issue. The Senate is where bills are made, and from Reid's courting of Snowe et al, it's clear that there was certainly room for bipartisan consensus building on this issue.

And regardless, none of this excuses the fact that the GOP is completely bereft of a single original or feasible idea for reforming the current healthcare system. They had 6 straight years of unimpeded legislative majority to accomplish a single thing with regard to healthcare. And all that accomplished was Medicare Part D. Also known as one of the single-largest unfunded entitlements ever created.

207 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:34:48am
208 jayzee  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:34:53am

Nelson isn't a Jewish name.

209 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:34:58am

re: #199 DaddyG

In fairness the left has gotten plenty of anti-idolitarian flak from the Lizards and the head Lizard. Just search the archives.

It seems the pendulum is favoring center left these days but that doesn't mean the left has been left of the hook.

Maybe we can have someone in charge of introducing the left-wing awfulness of of the day on open threads, so folks can have a good old bipartisan bash.

210 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:35:18am

re: #197 SanFranciscoZionist

I don't know. Your guys seem pretty tough, in a clean-cut college boy sort of way.


Thanks- they do tend to be wirey. Lots of church basketball and camping to toughen them up. The Tongan boys are the best. They used to use them on the South Side of Chicago.

Of course nothing is a tough as our women. (Seriously).

211 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:35:20am

re: #202 lawhawk

I'm sorry, are you really trying to claim that the GOP hasn't been used obstructionist tactics?

Also, using the word 'regime' in that sense I do not feel is a good or accurate thing to do.

212 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:35:44am

re: #188 drcordell

Nobody is saying all of it would be in the stock market. But it's obvious that a sizable percentage clearly would have ended up there.

Just like other portions of people's wealth.

Government cannot dictate people's choices. They can only give them a choice.

213 Killgore Trout  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:36:38am

re: #207 koedo

Yuo might be happier over at Michelle Malkin's site where she links to antisemitic articles on neonazi sites and spreads Birch Society conspiracies.

214 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:36:38am

re: #200 sattv4u2

No individual has a "large portion of Social Security", so no. hence the word INDIVIDUAL
I stayed in the market during the "meltdown", even increasing the contributions to my 401K
WHY? because my dollars were buying more stocks ($10 bought me 1 share of "X" before while it now buys me 10 shares) So as the market recovers and "X" increases my investment increases expotentially

Yes, I understand dollar cost averaging. My knowledge has of investing has been growing expotentially lately.... hahahahahha

I'm very glad that you're such a savvy investor, but not everyone is in your boat. Buying up shares at below average cost and waiting years for them to rebound doesn't help someone who needs their retirement funds to live off of immediately.

215 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:36:39am

re: #203 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, my husband couldn't do that one. He believes in Santa Claus.

Is Santa Claus a communist?

216 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:36:50am

re: #210 DaddyG

I would ask, respectfully, that your missionaries avoid Folsom given the travesty that was the Mormon involvement in Prop 8. Stay away from the gays for awhile, please.

217 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:37:16am

Redstate blogger is angry at Patterico for his lukewarm criticism of white supremacist Robert Stacy McCain. This attitude is everywhere on the right wing -- the idea that you should never criticize anyone on "your side," even if they're despicable racists.

[Link: www.redstate.com...]

218 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:37:18am

re: #212 Ben Hur

Just like other portions of people's wealth.

Government cannot dictate people's choices. They can only give them a choice.

I think someone forgot to tell them...

219 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:37:56am

re: #208 jayzee

Nelson isn't a Jewish name.

Most Nebraskans aren't Jewish. I would say, actually, an overwhelming percentage of Nebraskans aren't Jewish.

Although there do seem to be a half-dozen or so synagogues in the Omaha-Lincoln area.

220 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:38:00am

re: #204 sagehen

Right, only *some* private citizens would choose to put their money into stocks instead. And only *some* of them would lose everything. And when they hit retirement age, with nothing, is the nation going to just shrug and say "your choice pal, no food for you, go sleep under a bridge"? Or are they going to, one way or another, end up on some form of public assistance anyway?

Wow.

Do you think government should make all decisions, or knows what's better for me that I do? Even if I'm wrong occasionally, and make bad investments, it's my choice.

SHould the gov. reimburse the losses from the dot com bubble?

221 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:38:01am

re: #209 SanFranciscoZionist

Maybe we can have someone in charge of introducing the left-wing awfulness of of the day on open threads, so folks can have a good old bipartisan bash.


Just link Drudge. 1/2 /

222 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:38:08am
223 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:38:12am

re: #215 Basho

Is Santa Claus a communist?

Red suit. Red hat.

224 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:38:53am

re: #212 Ben Hur

Just like other portions of people's wealth.

Government cannot dictate people's choices. They can only give them a choice.

Unless you're talking about abortion. In which case the government should be making that choice.

225 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:39:02am

re: #223 Cannadian Club Akbar

Forgot this...///

226 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:39:02am

re: #211 Obdicut

I'm sorry, are you really trying to claim that the GOP hasn't been used obstructionist tactics?

Also, using the word 'regime' in that sense I do not feel is a good or accurate thing to do.

why shouldn't the GOP obstruct a bad bill?....and who the hell cares if BOs admin is called a regime?

227 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:39:30am

re: #215 Basho

Is Santa Claus a communist?

Well, he wears red, has a German name and redistributes wealth. An argument could be made.

228 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:39:33am

re: #205 Obdicut

No problem. My main point is:

It's different for Huckabee, a preacher who I believe sincerely has faith, to use a biblical analogy is significant.

So I do not feel bringing up previous occasions really does all that much.

Oh, that I agree with. I mentioned that up whatever a little while ago.

229 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:39:37am

re: #213 Killgore Trout

Yuo might be happier over at Michelle Malkin's site where she links to antisemitic articles on neonazi sites and spreads Birch Society conspiracies.


Speaking of extremes... was that response really in proportion to the comment?

Besides we all know that good Guitar musicians are the sacred cow of Lizardom. ;-)

230 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:39:37am

I'm really not in a mood to accept insults from jerks today.

231 mich-again  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:40:37am
The last time we saw that kind of historic moment it was 30 pieces of silver and that didn’t work out too well for us either,” Huckabee said.

If not for that event the Huckster alluded to, there would never have been Christianity and a tool like Mike Huckabee would have never reached such a position of prominence in the world that he could spread bullshit like that over such a wide area.

232 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:40:39am

re: #214 drcordell

Yes, I understand dollar cost averaging. My knowledge has of investing has been growing expotentially lately... hahahahahha

I'm very glad that you're such a savvy investor, but not everyone is in your boat. Buying up shares at below average cost and waiting years for them to rebound doesn't help someone who needs their retirement funds to live off of immediately.

And that person has his/her SS that they have been contributing too for 40 +/- years

233 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:41:18am

re: #227 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, he wears red, has a German name and redistributes wealth. An argument could be made.

He gives free stuff to poor children. Sounds worse than Stalin.

234 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:41:59am

re: #220 Ben Hur

Wow.

Do you think government should make all decisions, or knows what's better for me that I do? Even if I'm wrong occasionally, and make bad investments, it's my choice.

SHould the gov. reimburse the losses from the dot com bubble?

The idea behind Social Security was to have something that would be a fallback, regardless of how well or poorly your investments and career planning went for you. So we wouldn't have so many old people in abject poverty.

235 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:42:07am

re: #220 Ben Hur

Wow.

Do you think government should make all decisions, or knows what's better for me that I do? Even if I'm wrong occasionally, and make bad investments, it's my choice.

SHould the gov. reimburse the losses from the dot com bubble?

Do you understand the entire purpose of Social Security, because it's growing apparent that you don't. Social Security isn't supposed to be an investment vehicle for speculation that creates the possibility of attaining fabulous wealth. It is supposed to be a safety net for the nation's retirement age workers. It is supposed to prevent those who are too old to work from starving to death or freezing in the streets. It's not a way to make a million dollars.

236 wrenchwench  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:42:12am

re: #217 Charles

Redstate blogger is angry at Patterico for his lukewarm criticism of white supremacist Robert Stacy McCain. This attitude is everywhere on the right wing -- the idea that you should never criticize anyone on "your side," even if they're despicable racists.

[Link: www.redstate.com...]

I had to read that twice. Angry because it's criticism, not angry because it's lukewarm.

However, rather than address the issue privately, which would have, as the later blog posts on both sides have revealed, at its worse, unartful wording, Patterico for reasons known best to him decided he had to indelibly link RS McCain to the racism charge.

Like Patterico is the only one who made a link.

237 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:42:33am

re: #224 drcordell

Unless you're talking about abortion. In which case the government should be making that choice.

I'm pro-choice, so I would say no.

And being pro-choice, I don't want anyone telling me what doctor I have to go to, or what I can and can not eat as not to be a burden on the system.

I do find it ironic though that people that want the gov not involved in reproductive rights, want them involved in every other aspect of health care.

No matter, the hated rich (which I aspire to be) can always choose, with or with this bill.

238 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:42:35am

re: #216 Obdicut

I would ask, respectfully, that your missionaries avoid Folsom given the travesty that was the Mormon involvement in Prop 8. Stay away from the gays for awhile, please.


I was kidding about them being there and wondering how long it would take their heads to pop - (self effacing humor). I don't think you have to fear the LDS Church heavily proseliting the openly Gay and transgendered community.

239 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:43:05am

re: #234 SanFranciscoZionist

The idea behind Social Security was to have something that would be a fallback, regardless of how well or poorly your investments and career planning went for you. So we wouldn't have so many old people in abject poverty.

So... don't people actually, you know, read what life was like before social security, or the FDA, or whatever?

240 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:43:14am

OT

Michelle Bachman's family farm got $251,973 in federal subsidies between 1995 and 2006:

Michelle Bachman: Welfare Queen

/Socialism!

241 Killgore Trout  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:43:25am

re: #229 DaddyG

Speaking of extremes... was that response really in proportion to the comment?

Besides we all know that good Guitar musicians are the sacred cow of Lizardom. ;-)

I've come to have zero patience with the flouncers. They all consider Charles and the rest of us to be traitors to their cause. Yet they all flounce off to sites and link to neoNazi supporters like Malkin, Crazy Pam, RSM and even Pat Buchanan. They hysterically freak out over every story Birch Society spokesman Glenn Beck steals from Alex Jones.
No sympathy.

242 jayzee  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:43:28am

re: #219 SanFranciscoZionist

Most Nebraskans aren't Jewish. I would say, actually, an overwhelming percentage of Nebraskans aren't Jewish.

Although there do seem to be a half-dozen or so synagogues in the Omaha-Lincoln area.

The overwhelming majority of Americans aint Jewish either. I must have misunderstood the whole Judas thing.
/

243 avanti  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:43:30am

re: #217 Charles

Redstate blogger is angry at Patterico for his lukewarm criticism of white supremacist Robert Stacy McCain. This attitude is everywhere on the right wing -- the idea that you should never criticize anyone on "your side," even if they're despicable racists.

[Link: www.redstate.com...]

This quote from your link sums it up by essentially saying the right should ignore racism and the rest simply because the racist is on your side.

"In the Army Officer’s Guide the standard for your relationships with other officers is “every brother courageous and every sister virtuous.” We’re in a real struggle for the future of this nation and every person on our side has a role they need to play in this struggle. There is no place in this serious work for sniping at other people on our side. If you don’t like them or think their opinion is wrong, do the manly thing and ignore them. For heavens’ sake don’t take on the role of an unpaid consultant to Media Matters."

244 subsailor68  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:43:59am

re: #185 JanglerNPL

Again, it's possible the Nebraska provision may be removed from conference. As for the "1/6th of the economy" bit, how much of the economy does the food industry make up? Does the existence of the FDA represent government control of that fraction of the economy? All vestiges of a "public option" have been removed from the bill, so the insurance industry will remain private (except for Medicare), but it will be more tightly regulated. I suppose one could argue that the health insurance exchange is a form of central planning, but I don't see how it's much different from the stock exchange. If you want to be listed, you have to comply with certain rules and regulations.

Interesting points! I suppose the Nebraska provision could be removed, but it would probably also eliminate the incentive for Nelson to vote for the final product. But, ya could be right.

The FDA analogy is a little strained, as it is concerned with the safety of food and drugs - not particularly in how they are priced and distributed (at least not in any significant way). While the public option per se has been removed (at least for now), the restrictions proposed on the health insurance industry are interesting, as they focus not only on availability of the product, but on how it is to be structured, and how much the company can charge for it. Again, what are the unintended consequences?

One might be - insurance companies deciding to wind down their health products line. While it seems unlikely, if restrictions make the product line unprofitable, there's usually no other choice. We're starting to see that in my part of the country with another health care product - Medicare. More and more seniors here are finding themselves without a doctor, as physicians no longer find it feasible to take Medicare patients.

But I'm kinda with you in the major concern - what can we do that will ease the problem, without destroying the very thing we're trying to save?

245 Randall Gross  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:44:05am

re: #217 Charles

Redstate blogger is angry at Patterico for his lukewarm criticism of white supremacist Robert Stacy McCain. This attitude is everywhere on the right wing -- the idea that you should never criticize anyone on "your side," even if they're despicable racists.

[Link: www.redstate.com...]

However hypocritically it's ok criticize someone on your side if they are anti-abortion, or pro gay marriage, or for any number of other things. You can probably find posts on the same blog slamming every moderate in the Republican party. A search for RINO would probably reveal some of the depth of their hypocrisy.

246 simoom  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:44:23am

On Rachel Maddow's show last night, a couple of the guests (Thomas Friedman, Ezra Klein) advanced the idea that the the amount and unsavoriness of the sausage-making required to get bills passed has been heavily impacted by the minority party seeing great political advantage in gumming up the works of the Senate, making as little as possible of the opposition party's agenda enacted. That in the current climate of Glenn Beck and the Tea Parties, there is no political upside to cooperation.

Here is Thomas Friedman from the show (he was primarily on to discuss Copenhagen and a future green US economy):

[YouTube video of the interview - should jump to the right spot]

Thomas Friedman: But you know, to pick up on where you and Ezra left off, one of the real - and this gets to the China question - one of the frustrating things for me right now is that, you know, there‘s only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, what China has, and that‘s one-party democracy.

And that‘s what we‘ve got in America today. We‘ve got one party is playing and one isn‘t at all. And so when you have one-party autocracy, you can order optimal solutions from the top down. But you have a one-party Democracy, you have to get all 60 votes, as you were talking about, from one party.

Well, votes one through 50 cost you a lot. Votes 50 to 59 cost you a fortune. And wow, vote 60 is called Ben Nelson and that‘s a giveaway to the whole state of Nebraska, you know. And so, you basically have this in the health bill, you know, that you were talking about.

But Rachel, you also have it in the climate bill, that if there were six, eight Republicans who were ready to join this bill, the giveaways to coal and the legacy industries in this country could really be minimized. And so we‘re going to get a suboptimal bill.

How long can we, as a country, thrive when our chief competitor can order from the top down optimal and we can only produce suboptimal?

[show transcript]

Friedman was referring to Ezra Klein, who in an earlier segment was discussing the frequency, now, of parliamentary maneuvers like the filibuster. A small excerpt:

Ezra Klein: And, you know, I think what political scientists say on this now is that you can have a system, right, in which the minority party has either the incentive to see the majority fail, or it has the power to make them fail. But you really can‘t run a country if they have both.

Also, here is a site I just came across that seems to chart the frequency of filibusters in the senate, as well as display current updates as to what bills were filibustered and how often those filibusters succeeded:

[Link: filibusted.us...]

247 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:44:34am

re: #239 Basho

So... don't people actually, you know, read what life was like before social security, or the FDA, or whatever?

Can't speak for any individuals, but my experience has been that many people do not.

248 sagehen  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:44:40am

re: #220 Ben Hur

Wow.

Do you think government should make all decisions, or knows what's better for me that I do? Even if I'm wrong occasionally, and make bad investments, it's my choice.

SHould the gov. reimburse the losses from the dot com bubble?


But Social Security isn't an "investment". It's anti-poverty insurance for the elderly.

If people below retirement age lose everything, we say "very sad for you, get a job." But for old people we don't feel we can say that, and we're not heartless enough to not care if they starve or freeze to death.

It's not unreasonable for government to force people to set aside what we'd feel obligated to cough up for them if they didn't.

249 MandyManners  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:45:26am

re: #237 Ben Hur

I'm having fun up-dinging you today.

250 jayzee  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:46:04am

I, as one who really dislikes the concept of universal health care for many reasons, have mixed feeling about this Nelson thing. On the one hand, his rejection of the bill could've stopped it, on the other hand, it would have been because of abortion. Crazy.

251 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:46:08am

re: #240 Gus 802

OT

Michelle Bachman's family farm got $251,973 in federal subsidies between 1995 and 2006:

Michelle Bachman: Welfare Queen

/Socialism!

It's worse than that. Her son joined Teach for America.

/

252 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:46:19am

re: #241 Killgore Trout

I've come to have zero patience with the flouncers. They all consider Charles and the rest of us to be traitors to their cause. Yet they all flounce off to sites and link to neoNazi supporters like Malkin, Crazy Pam, RSM and even Pat Buchanan. They hysterically freak out over every story Birch Society spokesman Glenn Beck steals from Alex Jones.
No sympathy.

/if you look in Websters you will find sympathy somewhere between shit & syphilis. (an old saying in advertising)

253 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:46:27am

re: #248 sagehen

But Social Security isn't an "investment". It's anti-poverty insurance for the elderly.

If people below retirement age lose everything, we say "very sad for you, get a job." But for old people we don't feel we can say that, and we're not heartless enough to not care if they starve or freeze to death.

It's not unreasonable for government to force people to set aside what we'd feel obligated to cough up for them if they didn't.

But the gubment spends that money, too.

254 SasyMomaCat  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:46:36am

re: #160 Ben Hur

heh - I should stick with getting caught up before commenting ... :)

255 sagehen  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:46:47am

re: #227 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, he wears red, has a German name and redistributes wealth. An argument could be made.


Jack Bauer thinks Santa Claus is a terrorist.

Youtube Video
256 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:46:54am

re: #237 Ben Hur


I do find it ironic though that people that want the gov not involved in reproductive rights, want them involved in every other aspect of health care.

You're so right. The government telling a woman they can or cannot have an abortion is so analogous to the government attempting to prevent the health insurance industry from rescinding cancer-patient's insurance policies or placing a cap on their lifetime treatment costs...

257 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:47:11am

re: #251 SanFranciscoZionist

It's worse than that. Her son joined Teach for America.

/

There goes the neighborhood! //

If you read through that article it has other examples besides Bachman. What a bunch of hypocrites. Nothing new I guess.

258 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:48:03am

re: #248 sagehen

But Social Security isn't an "investment". It's anti-poverty insurance for the elderly.

If people below retirement age lose everything, we say "very sad for you, get a job." But for old people we don't feel we can say that, and we're not heartless enough to not care if they starve or freeze to death.

It's not unreasonable for government to force people to set aside what we'd feel obligated to cough up for them if they didn't.

just ,,,,, damn !

That that thinking is even out there is just ,,,, wow !

Hope you didn't mean it and just was indelicately articulated!

259 avanti  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:48:53am

re: #240 Gus 802

OT

Michelle Bachman's family farm got $251,973 in federal subsidies between 1995 and 2006:

Michelle Bachman: Welfare Queen

/Socialism!

It's not welfare if you are rich, it's a subsidy. I will say, $250K is a pretty small one compared to the corporate farms that get millions.

260 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:49:00am

re: #249 MandyManners

I'm having fun up-dinging you today.

in bed

261 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:49:23am

re: #242 jayzee

The overwhelming majority of Americans aint Jewish either. I must have misunderstood the whole Judas thing.
/

Well, then everyone involved would have to be Jewish. Except for the Romans. Who gets to be Thaddeus?

/My school does a Passion play every year, to the everlasting delight of Filipina grandmas in local parishes. THere's nothing quite like the site of a group of kids in Roman helmets, marching to the cafeteria, toting a cross, flails, and assorted robes.

262 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:50:19am

re: #258 sattv4u2

just ,,, damn !

That that thinking is even out there is just ,,, wow !

Hope you didn't mean it and just was indelicately articulated!

And that seems to be the difference between us right there.

You seem to have no problem with the government forcing you to pay your taxes that go towards funding the Iraq War, or whatever other defense spending.

But if you are *GASP* forced to also fork over taxes that go towards ensuring that our nation's elderly don't freeze to death in the gutter, it's an assault on your liberty!

263 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:50:33am

re: #241 Killgore Trout

I've come to have zero patience with the flouncers. They all consider Charles and the rest of us to be traitors to their cause. Yet they all flounce off to sites and link to neoNazi supporters like Malkin, Crazy Pam, RSM and even Pat Buchanan. They hysterically freak out over every story Birch Society spokesman Glenn Beck steals from Alex Jones.
No sympathy.

Not all who disagree with you are flouncers. I'd think you would have some sympathy after being a "lone voice in the wilderness" for several years when this blog leaned more center right?

On the other hand there was a time on another blog I frequented where I'd jump on a familar argument very hard assuming the poster was trolling when in fact many of them were honestly asking for the first time themselves.

On the other, other hand- instead of complaining about the blogs topics or insulting the host posters should present their side in an intelligent manner and let the discussion fall where it may...

264 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:50:52am

re: #259 avanti

It's not welfare if you are rich, it's a subsidy. I will say, $250K is a pretty small one compared to the corporate farms that get millions.

Right. It still counts though. That's almost 25K per year for the Bachman family farm and speaks to her true principles and hypocrisy.

265 wrenchwench  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:51:28am

re: #243 avanti

An excerpt from your excerpt:

do the manly thing and ignore them.

That description of "manly" is disgraceful.

266 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:51:28am

re: #262 drcordell

yeah ,, because I lean right I advocate having granny freezing and hungry in a gutter!

267 avanti  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:52:05am

re: #255 sagehen

Jack Bauer thinks Santa Claus is a terrorist.


[Video]

He's a pervert. He only comes once a year, and that's down a chimney.

268 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:52:16am

re: #248 sagehen

But Social Security isn't an "investment". It's anti-poverty insurance for the elderly.

If people below retirement age lose everything, we say "very sad for you, get a job." But for old people we don't feel we can say that, and we're not heartless enough to not care if they starve or freeze to death.

It's not unreasonable for government to force people to set aside what we'd feel obligated to cough up for them if they didn't.

I don't know how"feeling bad" has anything to do with it.

No one is saying it should be abolished. It should be reformed, or there will be ZERO left for anyone.

It's not the gov's $. And they use it as if it were.

The issue was allowing people to use a portion (or not) as they see fit.

Government/Beuacracy is inefficient and wasteful.

Soc Sec reform doesn't mean letting little old ladies freeze under a bridge.

269 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:52:34am

re: #203 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, my husband couldn't do that one. He believes in Santa Claus.

My husband looks just like Santa Claus.

(note: I didn't say he is)

As my grandkids say, "Everybody knows that Bubbie and Zeidie bring the presents!"

270 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:52:44am

re: #266 sattv4u2

yeah ,, because I lean right I advocate having granny freezing and hungry in a gutter!

And eating dog food!!
//

271 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:52:48am

re: #249 MandyManners

I'm having fun up-dinging you today.

I'll wear you out.

272 SasyMomaCat  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:53:09am

re: #183 Baier

updinged for a gracious response :)

273 wrenchwench  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:53:33am

re: #263 DaddyG

On the other, other hand- instead of complaining about the blogs topics or insulting the host posters should present their side in an intelligent manner and let the discussion fall where it may...

Intelligent, three-handed commenters are so hard to find....

274 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:53:34am

Anybody ever thought about keeping social security in a locked box?

275 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:53:34am

re: #270 Cannadian Club Akbar

And eating dog food!!
//

Nahh ,, dog foods too good for them. Let them lick the remnats off of discarded McDonalds bags!

Bahhhh humbug!

276 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:53:48am

re: #271 Ben Hur

I'll wear you out.

in bed

277 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:54:43am

re: #260 sattv4u2

in bed


Up-donging?

278 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:55:23am

re: #276 sattv4u2

in bed

NTTAWWT being that we're cowboys.

279 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:55:37am

re: #274 Basho

Anybody ever thought about keeping social security in a locked box?

there is no locked box in heaven, hell or earth that congress can't get their mitts into...

280 avanti  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:56:05am

re: #265 wrenchwench

An excerpt from your excerpt:

That description of "manly" is disgraceful.

Yep, I can't believe he did not see the implication of that sort of thought process, although many blogs seem to follow it.

281 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:56:09am

re: #9 jetpilot1101

A very astute observation. Had Jesus not been betrayed and killed, humanity would not have been redeemed. Huckabee, who I believe is a pastor, should put down the microphone and pick up a Bible.

It's a story, a myth, not something we saw on the 6:00 news. And Huckabee's analogy stinks, since Judas didn't use the money for anything productive at all. As far as the fairy tale goes, he hung himself and the priests used to money to bury poor people.

And Locker, if he had a bible in his hand, you would complain too! The most productive thing to do would be to keep theology out of the political process all together.

Gee, that would be novel.

282 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:56:29am

re: #262 drcordell

And that seems to be the difference between us right there.

You seem to have no problem with the government forcing you to pay your taxes that go towards funding the Iraq War, or whatever other defense spending.

But if you are *GASP* forced to also fork over taxes that go towards ensuring that our nation's elderly don't freeze to death in the gutter, it's an assault on your liberty!

Is it fair to have the view that the US millitary has made better use of the funds allocated to it than most of the US social service organizations without being accused of wanting to starve and freeze grandma?

Besides the constitutional role of common defense is pretty well spelled out. Historically general welfare is a bit more tricky to define.

283 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:56:42am

re: #255 sagehen

Jack Bauer thinks Santa Claus is a terrorist.

Is "24" still even on the air?

I stopped watching when they nuked LA.

284 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:56:58am

re: #266 sattv4u2

yeah ,, because I lean right I advocate having granny freezing and hungry in a gutter!

Well, you just stated that you find it outrageous that anyone could accept the government "forcing" payment of taxes to ensure granny doesn't freeze to death.

I never said anything about you "wanting" granny to freeze. But you have clearly stated that you do not wish to ensure she doesn't freeze.

285 tank816  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:57:26am

re: #217 Charles

This attitude is everywhere on the right wing -- the idea that you should never criticize anyone on "your side," even if they're despicable racists.

People link this to Reagan, who thought party unity was important in the face of Congressional minorities and unfriendly media. But of course this is also true of the Left. It's just politics. (I'm not sure how this works with their attacks on RINOs and DINOs.)

I'm not sure where to ask this question, but this seems like as good a place as any.... You took issue with someone who wrote that you abandoned the Right and took up the Left. You said you didn't say you joined the Left. And yet, in the months that I've been reading you, the only time I've seen you say anything negative about the Left was in regards to Dan Rather and Mary Mapes. I didn't even see anything about Reid's over-the-top comparison of Obamacare opponents to defenders of slavery, for instance. (And now Reid is saying Senators should have the Christmas spirit and pass this thing!)

Could you cast your net a little wider, maybe?

286 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:57:41am

re: #283 Alouette

Is "24" still even on the air?

I stopped watching when they nuked LA.

New "day" in January.

287 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:57:41am

re: #282 DaddyG

Is it fair to have the view that the US millitary has made better use of the funds allocated to it than most of the US social service organizations without being accused of wanting to starve and freeze grandma?

Besides the constitutional role of common defense is pretty well spelled out. Historically general welfare is a bit more tricky to define.

Oh ,,, you and you facts. And here I was, kicking granny to the gutter! Spoilsport!
/

288 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:57:47am

re: #279 brookly red

there is no locked box in heaven, hell or earth that congress can't get their mitts into...

like Butch and Sundance when they blew up the whole mail car to get the door open...the feds are unstoppable

289 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:58:21am

re: #273 wrenchwench

Intelligent, three-handed commenters are so hard to find...


That's what she said...

290 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:58:44am

re: #273 wrenchwench

Intelligent, three-handed commenters are so hard to find...

In Bed.

291 jayzee  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:59:01am

re: #281 Walter L. Newton

It's a story, a myth, not something we saw on the 6:00 news. And Huckabee's analogy stinks, since Judas didn't use the money for anything productive at all. As far as the fairy tale goes, he hung himself and the priests used to money to bury poor people.

And Locker, if he had a bible in his hand, you would complain too! The most productive thing to do would be to keep theology out of the political process all together.

Gee, that would be novel.

The concept that Judas' betrayal was actually an act of virtue was part of the Last Temptation of Christ if I recall. The toughest task, betraying Jesus, went to the strongest most faithful disciple, Judas if I recall correctly.

292 SasyMomaCat  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:59:17am

re: #192 SanFranciscoZionist

Yikes! Surely knowing your beliefs, he is saying this tongue in cheek as atheist/agnostic humor? Wow . . . just, wow!

293 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:59:19am

re: #235 drcordell

Do you understand the entire purpose of Social Security, because it's growing apparent that you don't. Social Security isn't supposed to be an investment vehicle for speculation that creates the possibility of attaining fabulous wealth. It is supposed to be a safety net for the nation's retirement age workers. It is supposed to prevent those who are too old to work from starving to death or freezing in the streets. It's not a way to make a million dollars.

I'm not advocating abolishing SocSec.

294 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:59:32am

re: #288 albusteve

like Butch and Sundance when they blew up the whole mail car to get the door open...the feds are unstoppable

& insatiable...

295 barflytom  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:59:42am

re: #86 avanti

No one supports Obamacare, he did not write the bill, so naming it after him is a political trick. Social Security is not called Rooseveltcare for example.

You mean there are negative connotations to attaching Obama's name to something ? So he's not the Messiah after all.....

Youtube Video
296 rwmofo  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:59:51am

re: #274 Basho

Anybody ever thought about keeping social security in a locked box?

No but I've thought about having Angelina Jolie over for a BBQ.

297 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 11:59:56am

re: #282 DaddyG

Is it fair to have the view that the US millitary has made better use of the funds allocated to it than most of the US social service organizations without being accused of wanting to starve and freeze grandma?

Besides the constitutional role of common defense is pretty well spelled out. Historically general welfare is a bit more tricky to define.

Nowhere did I accuse anyone of "wanting" grandma to freeze to death.

And I would say justifying the Iraq war as "providing for the common defense" is a much bigger stretch than justifying Social Security as "promoting general welfare."

298 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:00:40pm

re: #281 Walter L. Newton

The most productive thing to do would be to keep theology out of the political process all together.

Gee, that would be novel.

Perhaps we could write a constitutional amendment to that effect? /

299 sagehen  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:00:53pm

re: #283 Alouette

Is "24" still even on the air?

I stopped watching when they nuked LA.


I haven't watched for a while, but I think it's based in DC now.

300 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:00:59pm

re: #284 drcordell

Well, you just stated that you find it outrageous that anyone could accept the government "forcing" payment of taxes to ensure granny doesn't freeze to death.
I never said anything about you "wanting" granny to freeze. But you have clearly stated that you do not wish to ensure she doesn't freeze.

Where did I say that? In every post, I stated that the proposal was an OPTION, that anyone could continue paying into SS. YOU brought the "freezing granny' because she needed the funds 'immediatly". If granny had been paying into SS from all the years she worked, how is she not getting "her" money back "immediatly"?

301 subsailor68  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:01:02pm

re: #253 Cannadian Club Akbar

But the gubment spends that money, too.

Yes it does. Here's the Social Security web sites very answer to that question:

Q27: Do the Social Security Trust Funds earn interest?

A: Yes they do. By law, the assets of the Social Security program must be invested in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest. The Trust Funds hold a mix of short-term and long-term government bonds. The Trust Funds can hold both regular Treasury securities and "special obligation" securities issued only to federal trust funds. In practice, most of the securities in the Social Security Trust Funds are of the "special obligation" type. (See additional explanation from SSA's Office of the Actuary.)

In other words, IOU's. The surplus is taken and replaced with treasury securities (regular and special obligation). The government pays interest on these, and at some point they - like the same ones China owns - will come due.

Social Security FAQs.

302 avanti  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:01:08pm

re: #282 DaddyG

Is it fair to have the view that the US millitary has made better use of the funds allocated to it than most of the US social service organizations without being accused of wanting to starve and freeze grandma?

Besides the constitutional role of common defense is pretty well spelled out. Historically general welfare is a bit more tricky to define.

Please don't use the military as a example of careful spending. As a retired Navy vet, I could tell you stories that would curl your hair about pissing money away.
Of course Congress helps by providing weapons they don't want or need to keep the local defense contractors happy.

303 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:01:09pm

re: #296 rwmofo

No but I've thought about having Angelina Jolie over for a BBQ.

the 2 have equal chance of happening...

304 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:01:35pm

re: #293 Ben Hur

I'm not advocating abolishing SocSec.

Right. So why would it be beneficial to allow SocSec recipients to begin making their own investment decisions? If they make a poor decision and lose their money, they have placed themselves right into the position that SocSec itself was created to eliminate.

305 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:02:03pm

re: #293 Ben Hur

I'm not advocating abolishing SocSec.

neither was I ,,, NOT ONCE

yet I now have granny freezing in the gutter
Amazin!

306 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:02:07pm

re: #291 jayzee

The concept that Judas' betrayal was actually an act of virtue was part of the Last Temptation of Christ if I recall. The toughest task, betraying Jesus, went to the strongest most faithful disciple, Judas if I recall correctly.

Please, that is a concept that goes much further back than the movie "Last Temptation of Christ." It goes back at least to a document that was written between 300 CE and 400 CE. Why is it that people think everything was invented yesterday. Gosh, we are so important, aren't we?

[Link: www.usatoday.com...]

307 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:02:24pm

re: #301 subsailor68

Ding.

308 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:02:27pm

re: #300 sattv4u2

Where did I say that? In every post, I stated that the proposal was an OPTION, that anyone could continue paying into SS. YOU brought the "freezing granny' because she needed the funds 'immediatly". If granny had been paying into SS from all the years she worked, how is she not getting "her" money back "immediatly"?

And if she never payed in, what exactly occurs next under your scheme.

309 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:03:13pm

re: #284 drcordell

So, since you don't want to see Granny freeze (nor do I for that matter), what do you propose to do about the multitrillion dollar unfunded obligation that is Social Security?

We don't have sufficient funds to cover future expected obligations regardless of what spending occurs on national defense.

That means one of four possibilities:
1) do nothing and let the problem be on someone else's watch (the plan for the past couple of decades outside of a few lone voices like Moynihan);
2) raise the retirement age to accept funds to reflect longer life expectancies;
3) cut benefits;
4) a combination of raising retirement age and cutting benefits.

I personally think that raising the retirement age makes more sense since people are living far longer than they were a generation ago, let alone when SS was first implemented.

Also, the retirement security net includes more retirement vehicles like 401ks, Keoghs, Roth and standard IRAs, etc. SS is meant to be a safety net, but it can't be sustained in the way we currently see it.

310 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:03:16pm

re: #298 DaddyG

Perhaps we could write a constitutional amendment to that effect? /

You know precisely what I meant, and you know I didn't mean that.

311 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:03:49pm

re: #297 drcordell

Nowhere did I accuse anyone of "wanting" grandma to freeze to death.

And I would say justifying the Iraq war as "providing for the common defense" is a much bigger stretch than justifying Social Security as "promoting general welfare."

would you say the same thing about Iran?

312 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:04:23pm

re: #299 sagehen

I haven't watched for a while, but I think it's based in DC now.

Well, they'd have to go somewhere if LA is a smoking ruin. Was there a reason that "Ground Zero" was Encino?

313 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:04:38pm

re: #291 jayzee

The concept that Judas' betrayal was actually an act of virtue was part of the Last Temptation of Christ if I recall. The toughest task, betraying Jesus, went to the strongest most faithful disciple, Judas if I recall correctly.


The Bible refers to him as a son of perdition. Not too complementary of his choices. There are so many extra scriptural ideas that it is hard to tell the doctrine from the folk beliefs. Comments like Huckabees don't help.

314 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:04:39pm

re: #308 McSpiff

And if she never payed in, what exactly occurs next under your scheme.

If she never paid in, how would that change IF my scheme was or was not in the works?

315 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:04:54pm

Every night when President Obama says his prayers before resting his head on the pillow, he prays that the Republicans run a Huckabee/Palin ticket in 2012.

316 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:05:17pm

re: #300 sattv4u2

Where did I say that?

You said it right here, in response to this:

"It's not unreasonable for government to force people to set aside what we'd feel obligated to cough up for them if they didn't."

just ,,, damn !

That that thinking is even out there is just ,,, wow !

How else should that be interpreted? You explicitly state that you are shocked that people support the concept of Social Security. AKA the government forcing people to set aside what we'd feel obligated to cough up for them if they didn't.

317 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:05:41pm

re: #304 drcordell

Right. So why would it be beneficial to allow SocSec recipients to begin making their own investment decisions? If they make a poor decision and lose their money, they have placed themselves right into the position that SocSec itself was created to eliminate.

We should outlaw bad decisions?

SocSec is running out of money. People tend to manage their money better than a gov that pays $250 for an ashtray.

318 Randall Gross  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:05:42pm

Well breaktime is over, back to wrapping gifts. 4 more to go and I"m done, but this might take awhile since I'm all thumbs when it comes to wrapping paper and tape..

319 avanti  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:05:42pm

re: #306 Walter L. Newton

Please, that is a concept that goes much further back than the movie "Last Temptation of Christ." It goes back at least to a document that was written between 300 CE and 400 CE. Why is it that people think everything was invented yesterday. Gosh, we are so important, aren't we?

[Link: www.usatoday.com...]

Yep, as in the Gospele of Judas:

"The Gospel of Judas, on the other hand, portrays Judas in a very different perspective than do the Gospels of the New Testament, according to a preliminary translation made in early 2006 by the National Geographic Society: the Gospel of Judas appears to interpret Judas's act not as betrayal, but rather as an act of obedience to the instructions of Jesus. This assumption is taken on the basis that Jesus required a second agent to set in motion a course of events which he had planned. In that sense Judas acted as a catalyst. The action of Judas, then, was a pivotal point which interconnected a series of simultaneous pre-orchestrated events."

320 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:05:59pm

re: #313 DaddyG

The Bible refers to him as a son of perdition. Not too complementary of his choices. There are so many extra scriptural ideas that it is hard to tell the doctrine from the folk beliefs. Comments like Huckabees don't help.

Please see my re: #306 Walter L. Newton

321 subsailor68  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:06:43pm

re: #312 Alouette

Well, they'd have to go somewhere if LA is a smoking ruin. Was there a reason that "Ground Zero" was Encino?

Hi Alouette! Yes. The terrorists made a shopping trip to Gelsen's, and when they came out with nothing left but pocket change, their anger was all encompassing and fearful to behold.

(Mostly because they only had one small shopping bag among them.)

322 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:06:56pm

re: #312 Alouette

Well, they'd have to go somewhere if LA is a smoking ruin. Was there a reason that "Ground Zero" was Encino?

It was Valencia IIRC, they basically nuked Six Flags.

323 jayzee  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:07:09pm

re: #306 Walter L. Newton

Please, that is a concept that goes much further back than the movie "Last Temptation of Christ." It goes back at least to a document that was written between 300 CE and 400 CE. Why is it that people think everything was invented yesterday. Gosh, we are so important, aren't we?

[Link: www.usatoday.com...]

Never saw the movie, just read the book. Don't know where Nikos got his ideas from. I assure you, I am not important.

324 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:07:26pm

re: #297 drcordell

Nowhere did I accuse anyone of "wanting" grandma to freeze to death.

And I would say justifying the Iraq war as "providing for the common defense" is a much bigger stretch than justifying Social Security as "promoting general welfare."

We disagree. What a surprise / - and yet I haven't stooped to saying without (fill in the blank) GOP legislation our elderly could be freezing in the gutter.

325 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:07:30pm

re: #318 Thanos

Well breaktime is over, back to wrapping gifts. 4 more to go and I"m done, but this might take awhile since I'm all thumbs when it comes to wrapping paper and tape..

your inner Zen will carry you through

326 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:08:02pm

re: #311 albusteve

would you say the same thing about Iran?

Do I see Iran as a threat to the national security of the United States that warrants invasion? No.

Not saying that they deserve praise and admiration. But a nation can be deserving of a watchful eye without necessitating invasion.

327 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:08:42pm

re: #211 Obdicut

I'm sorry, are you really trying to claim that the GOP hasn't been used obstructionist tactics?

Also, using the word 'regime' in that sense I do not feel is a good or accurate thing to do.

Would you prefer tax and spend scheme? Because that's what the House and Senate plans are - hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes, fees, and penalties, along with the spending to match.

As for obstructionism, would you actually be calling for the Republicans to throw in the towel and dump what few principles they have left by going along with this mess? Any criticism and parliamentary tactics that were fair game for Democrats to use are surely sufficient for the Republicans? Or is that too off the table?

This bill is a mess from a fiscal standpoint, and it's a position that is shared by both left and right (albeit for different reasons perhaps). Calling into question various provisions should be obligatory - particularly the taxing provisions that kick in years before the health care changes so as to allow a cushion that will evaporate as savings never materialize.

328 sagehen  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:09:07pm

re: #312 Alouette

Well, they'd have to go somewhere if LA is a smoking ruin. Was there a reason that "Ground Zero" was Encino?


Did that happen after I stopped watching? I remember one nuke in the middle of the desert (season 1?) and another out near Valencia, I didn't think they'd gotten so close in...

I gave up when the storyline with his father and brother had too many plotholes to handwave.

329 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:09:27pm

re: #316 drcordell

How else should that be interpreted? You explicitly state that you are shocked that people support the concept of Social Security. AKA the government forcing people to set aside what we'd feel obligated to cough up for them if they didn't.

I explicitly stated that I am shocked that you advocated the gov't FORCING people How do you extrapolate that i'm advocating granny to freeze in a gutter with me not wanting the gov't to FORCE me to pay MY money into a system for MY security net!?!?!?

Go back and read what I highlighted in this as well as my FULL response

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

330 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:09:36pm

re: #323 jayzee

Never saw the movie, just read the book. Don't know where Nikos got his ideas from. I assure you, I am not important.

My comment was for the "universal you," not the particular you. I am amazed over and over how people "just" discover something and it's like they were the first to ever think that, and they go tripping off, evangelical as all get out... Most of what you know has been known a long time ago.

As I say, sorry for the misunderstanding, it was meant as a general instructive statement.

331 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:09:52pm

re: #326 drcordell

Do I see Iran as a threat to the national security of the United States that warrants invasion? No.

Not saying that they deserve praise and admiration. But a nation can be deserving of a watchful eye without necessitating invasion.

Are there any threats to the national security of the United States?

332 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:09:58pm

re: #302 avanti

Please don't use the military as a example of careful spending. As a retired Navy vet, I could tell you stories that would curl your hair about pissing money away.
Of course Congress helps by providing weapons they don't want or need to keep the local defense contractors happy.

I didn't say they were careful - I said they were more effective than many of our social security agencies. The faintest of praise I'd admit.

Your point stands and I've been small government minded for a very long time.

333 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:10:02pm

re: #314 sattv4u2

If she never paid in, how would that change IF my scheme was or was not in the works?

Because the current scheme doesn't give you the option of not paying in? And you're the one who suggested people be given the option of not paying into SS and simply investing the money as you see fit?

Look, I'm going to describe a situation, and I want you to explain the role that SS plays in it, if any. Hopefully this will clear it up:

Workers are given the choice of paying into SS or investing that money on their own. Joe opts out of investing in SS and instead choices to invest in a series of increasingly poor companies. Upon retirement, Joe's return on his investment is $0. He has earned no money from the stock market, and is essentially living paycheck to paycheck at the time of retirement. Joe retires. His meager savings run out. How exactly does he pay for his food, heat and rent at this point?

334 sagehen  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:10:12pm

re: #314 sattv4u2

If she never paid in, how would that change IF my scheme was or was not in the works?

Because if your scheme was in place, that might be the *reason* she never paid in (having "made her own choices" instead).

335 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:11:23pm

re: #331 Ben Hur

Are there any threats to the national security of the United States?

probably Israel

336 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:11:26pm

re: #326 drcordell

Do I see Iran as a threat to the national security of the United States that warrants invasion? No.

Not saying that they deserve praise and admiration. But a nation can be deserving of a watchful eye without necessitating invasion.

I agree with Cordell... I don't see Iran as any threat to us (or anyone else). There are folks in the Middle East that will blow them off the face of the planet if needed, and, if they do even sneeze in our direction, we are very capable of following the same tact.

337 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:11:26pm

re: #319 avanti

Yep, as in the Gospele of Judas:

Let that be a lesson to you. When things go south don't wait 300 years to get a PR firm. /

338 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:11:49pm

re: #334 sagehen

Because if your scheme was in place, that might be the *reason* she never paid in (having "made her own choices" instead).

And again, how is that handled now, "scheme" NOT being in place !?!?!?

339 jayzee  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:11:55pm

re: #309 lawhawk

So, since you don't want to see Granny freeze (nor do I for that matter), what do you propose to do about the multitrillion dollar unfunded obligation that is Social Security?

We don't have sufficient funds to cover future expected obligations regardless of what spending occurs on national defense.

That means one of four possibilities:
1) do nothing and let the problem be on someone else's watch (the plan for the past couple of decades outside of a few lone voices like Moynihan);
2) raise the retirement age to accept funds to reflect longer life expectancies;
3) cut benefits;
4) a combination of raising retirement age and cutting benefits.

I personally think that raising the retirement age makes more sense since people are living far longer than they were a generation ago, let alone when SS was first implemented.

Also, the retirement security net includes more retirement vehicles like 401ks, Keoghs, Roth and standard IRAs, etc. SS is meant to be a safety net, but it can't be sustained in the way we currently see it.

You think Roth will be around forever? I'm dubious. I also think we should increase the tax defered amount allowable in 401ks, IRAs etc., but that won't happen with this administration.

340 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:11:55pm

re: #317 Ben Hur

We should outlaw bad decisions?

SocSec is running out of money. People tend to manage their money better than a gov that pays $250 for an ashtray.

Duhhhhhhhhhghhhhhhhh. Let me try and run this past you one. more. time.

We as a society have decided that we are going to provide a safety net for elderly citizens regardless of their poor decisions. Social Security is a safety net. One that will be there even if the person has squandered their other retirement savings due to bad decisions.

Allowing a person the possibility of making a bad decision with the money that is supposed to be there in spite of their previous bad decisions is completely counter-intuitive. Can you not see this?

341 sagehen  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:12:00pm

re: #317 Ben Hur

We should outlaw bad decisions?

If the rest of us are going to be stuck with the tab for the results of those decisions... then yes.

342 SasyMomaCat  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:13:09pm

re: #234 SanFranciscoZionist

The idea was noble - unfortunately, a large number of people from the areas where I grew up (rural South) consider SS to be their retirement fund. It would be my guess that this is not the only place where that rings true. My parents fall into this category. They have worked hard all of their lives and now, because they have always counted on social security and never put anything at all into retirement, that's all they have.

We seem (from my limited POV) to be in a transition period where the attitudes toward SS are shifting. People in my generation don't even expect SS to be around when we reach our "golden years."

343 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:13:18pm

re: #338 sattv4u2

And again, how is that handled now, "scheme" NOT being in place !?!?!?

How can you not pay into SS now?

344 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:13:22pm

re: #330 Walter L. Newton
I was instructed. Thanks.

345 JamesWI  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:13:24pm

Funny, when Republican governors opposed to the stimulus bills accepted the money anyway, all of them talked about how they wouldn't turn down money for their constituents. Now that a Democrat does something similar, it's a bribe and he's Judas. Interesting . . .

346 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:14:41pm

re: #341 sagehen

If the rest of us are going to be stuck with the tab for the results of those decisions... then yes.

And who gets to decide if a decision is bad? cause it sure ain't the public.

347 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:14:52pm

re: #343 McSpiff

How can you not pay into SS now?


Religious exemption. But you can't change your mind later and go back on.

348 jayzee  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:14:53pm

re: #330 Walter L. Newton

My comment was for the "universal you," not the particular you. I am amazed over and over how people "just" discover something and it's like they were the first to ever think that, and they go tripping off, evangelical as all get out... Most of what you know has been known a long time ago.

As I say, sorry for the misunderstanding, it was meant as a general instructive statement.

No problem here at all.

349 JanglerNPL  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:14:53pm

re: #244 subsailor68

Thanks for your thoughtful replies. I see the salient differences between the FDA and insurance regulation, though I think things like banning rescission fall under a broad interpretation of "safety"--how "safe" is insurance if you can pay premiums for years and then have your coverage rescinded when you get sick?

I think it's extremely unlikely that the insurance industry will cease to be profitable, even with these new restrictions.

Also, I believe there are provisions in the Senate bill that address the shortage of providers, though I do not know the details. I think it's definitely a legitimate concern.

350 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:15:10pm

re: #345 JamesWI

Funny, when Republican governors opposed to the stimulus bills accepted the money anyway, all of them talked about how they wouldn't turn down money for their constituents. Now that a Democrat does something similar, it's a bribe and he's Judas. Interesting . . .

it's universal, bipartisan

351 Wozza Matter?  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:15:20pm

re: #345 JamesWI

dfing ding ding

352 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:15:20pm

Dem congressman switches sides .... joins GOP

[Link: www.politico.com...]

353 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:15:27pm

re: #343 McSpiff

How can you not pay into SS now?

you can't (as long as you employed, that is) I never said you couldn't. Currently, I also never said you shouldn;t

CURRENTLY!

354 MandyManners  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:15:34pm

re: #331 Ben Hur

Are there any threats to the national security of the United States?

Yeah. Old white men.

355 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:15:40pm

re: #343 McSpiff

How can you not pay into SS now?

/it's called unemployment & it's catching on big time...

356 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:15:47pm

re: #345 JamesWI

Funny, when Republican governors opposed to the stimulus bills accepted the money anyway, all of them talked about how they wouldn't turn down money for their constituents. Now that a Democrat does something similar, it's a bribe and he's Judas. Interesting . . .

Yeah but Mary would have aborted Jesus. How are you not following the logic train?

357 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:16:12pm

re: #340 drcordell

Duhhhghhh. Let me try and run this past you one. more. time.

We as a society have decided that we are going to provide a safety net for elderly citizens regardless of their poor decisions. Social Security is a safety net. One that will be there even if the person has squandered their other retirement savings due to bad decisions.

Allowing a person the possibility of making a bad decision with the money that is supposed to be there in spite of their previous bad decisions is completely counter-intuitive. Can you not see this?

Well, I made the decision to have 9 kids. It is their obligation to support me but not everybody else who made the decision to have no kids.

358 avanti  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:16:18pm

re: #337 DaddyG

Let that be a lesson to you. When things go south don't wait 300 years to get a PR firm. /

Walter would know for sure, but even Christ was not written about until long after the fact. (Walter is the Yoda to my Luke when it comes to religious history)

359 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:16:30pm

re: #354 MandyManners

Yeah. Old white men.


Don't worry they will be a minority in 2050.

360 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:16:37pm

re: #329 sattv4u2

I explicitly stated that I am shocked that you advocated the gov't FORCING people How do you extrapolate that i'm advocating granny to freeze in a gutter with me not wanting the gov't to FORCE me to pay MY money into a system for MY security net!?!?!?

There are only two choices. Either granny gets a safety net because the Government forces everyone to pay into SS. Or granny doesn't get a safety net because the Government doesn't force everyone to pay into SS.

There are pretty much only two choices there chief. I'm not saying you want granny to freeze to death. But you clearly have a problem being forced to pay taxes that go towards ensuring granny doesn't freeze to death. I don't feel I have mischaracterized your statements in the least.

361 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:17:15pm

re: #351 wozzablog

dfing ding ding

I see the payoffs with regard to the healthcare bill, entirely different then the above example....consider these are senators and there are votes at stake...big difference imo

362 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:17:26pm

re: #353 sattv4u2

you can't (as long as you employed, that is) I never said you couldn't. Currently, I also never said you shouldn;t

CURRENTLY!

Could I get your thoughts on my #333?

363 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:17:50pm

re: #357 Alouette

Well, I made the decision to have 9 kids. It is their obligation to support me but not everybody else who made the decision to have no kids.

I know you said that sort of tongue in cheek, but there is SO much truth to it,
Years ago we looked to family 1st for help. Increasingly, we look for the gov't to solve every problem

364 limewash  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:18:08pm

re: #64 Obdicut

Yeah, I wish they would report something with this simple chart I saw today that was pretty good in showing the benefits of the current bill.

[Link: andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com...]

365 Wozza Matter?  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:18:16pm

re: #354 MandyManners

every snark is half true...........

There are more old white men hoarding guns'n'ammo just waiting for the feds to come knockin and try to euthanise gran'ma by force than there are Islamic terrorists in the US at the moment currently engaged in plotting..........

just sayin'

366 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:18:19pm

re: #354 MandyManners

Yeah. Old white men.

biden? byrd? brzezenski?

367 subsailor68  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:18:23pm

re: #333 McSpiff

Because the current scheme doesn't give you the option of not paying in? And you're the one who suggested people be given the option of not paying into SS and simply investing the money as you see fit?

Look, I'm going to describe a situation, and I want you to explain the role that SS plays in it, if any. Hopefully this will clear it up:

Workers are given the choice of paying into SS or investing that money on their own. Joe opts out of investing in SS and instead choices to invest in a series of increasingly poor companies. Upon retirement, Joe's return on his investment is $0. He has earned no money from the stock market, and is essentially living paycheck to paycheck at the time of retirement. Joe retires. His meager savings run out. How exactly does he pay for his food, heat and rent at this point?

Interesting scenario. Here's another one:

Joe, and everyone else in America, has social security taxes withheld from their paychecks for their entire working lives. The federal government takes the money Joe and everyone else puts in and does two things: first, it pays out that required by the current retiree population. Second, it 'borrows' the remainder - the surplus - replacing the money Joe and everyone put in with treasury notes, or IOU's. Finally, Joe gets ready to retire. Unfortunately, fiscal and monetary mismanagement by successive generations of Congresses and Administrations has led to the recognition that the system is utterly bankrupt, along with everything else, because the IOU's have come due and nobody anywhere in the world is willing to buy another dollar's worth of U.S. debt.

So, Joe is in the same damn situation as in the first scenario, but he doesn't feel so bad, because everyone else in the entire country is in the same boat.

368 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:18:54pm

re: #355 brookly red

/it's called unemployment & it's catching on big time...

I only worked for cash for the last several years, now I don't even work

369 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:19:09pm

re: #357 Alouette

Well, I made the decision to have 9 kids. It is their obligation to support me but not everybody else who made the decision to have no kids.

I hope that's not something you consider a bad decision (most of the time)! I figure my 7 kids will be taxpaying citizens soon enough. I teach them to be self-dependent and charitable. What chafes me is when someone assumes I'm stingy because I like small government and believe that private organizations can dispense assistance more efficiently and effectively in most cases of need.

370 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:19:29pm

re: #346 brookly red

And who gets to decide if a decision is bad? cause it sure ain't the public.

hey if you are gonna ding down a question at least answer it...

371 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:19:35pm

re: #362 McSpiff

Could I get your thoughts on my #333?

I've answered it many times, the same way we take care of the indigent now (and historically) in this country,

ALSO ,, see #357 and #363

372 sagehen  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:19:41pm

re: #338 sattv4u2

And again, how is that handled now, "scheme" NOT being in place !?!?!?

Granny gets her social security check every month, because she didn't have a choice about paying in.

Look, there's no way granny got to be retirement age without ever acquiring a payback right in soc sec... either she had a job that paid into her acct, or she's included from her husband's acct (which is just one more thing gay couples can't get, but I digress). That's how it's handled now.

If she had the option of not paying in, if she invested instead in stocks that tanked, then we're right back to "does she freeze and starve in the gutter, or does she get public funds because we can't stand to see her freeze and starve in the gutter."

373 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:20:19pm

re: #369 DaddyG

if you have another kid, do you become DaddyH?

374 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:20:21pm

re: #358 avanti

Walter would know for sure, but even Christ was not written about until long after the fact. (Walter is the Yoda to my Luke when it comes to religious history)

You are correct. I suspect the written accounts were based on oral tradition. We know there was a lot of passing down, debating and editing going on. (Unless God spoke the kings English...)

375 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:20:33pm

BBIAB... putting in some weather stripping... yippee... Obama just created another job...

376 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:21:29pm

re: #371 sattv4u2

I've answered it many times, the same way we take care of the indigent now (and historically) in this country,

ALSO ,, see #357 and #363

So you suggest that instead of people paying for themselves, at least partial via SS, that we allow them to piss away their cash on whatever risky snake oil they choose, and then pay for them in the end anyways because we can't let granny freeze. And this will save money right?

377 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:22:07pm

re: #375 Walter L. Newton

BBIAB... putting in some weather stripping... yippee... Obama just created another job...

you get a stimulus check, right?

378 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:22:17pm

re: #367 subsailor68

I'm updinging your next 100 posts because I can only give that one 1 !

379 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:23:17pm

re: #360 drcordell I'm not upset with the Government taxing us for a safety net. That is a good idea.

What upsets me is the legislature using the safety net as a fungible source of spending income and leaving the savings account empty and falling.

380 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:24:02pm

re: #376 McSpiff

So you suggest that instead of people paying for themselves, at least partial via SS, that we allow them to piss away their cash on whatever risky snake oil they choose, and then pay for them in the end anyways because we can't let granny freeze. And this will save money right?

You just copied and pasted the definition of supply-side economics.

381 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:24:09pm

re: #373 _RememberTonyC

if you have another kid, do you become DaddyH?


Daddy Freakin' Amazed - (we're not fertile anymore) :-)

382 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:24:19pm

Dang! That Judas can sing!

383 Wozza Matter?  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:24:35pm

re: #352 _RememberTonyC

WOuld be interested to see his voting record - the RINOS vote R most of the time, but the heat he (the DINO) is getting seems to sggest he wasn't exactly helpful on any of the Demo policies.

384 subsailor68  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:24:37pm

Well all, it's been great to see everyone, but it's time to head out for the day. I hope everyone has a wonderful evening!

385 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:24:51pm

re: #376 McSpiff

So you suggest that instead of people paying for themselves, at least partial via SS, that we allow them to piss away their cash on whatever risky snake oil they choose, and then pay for them in the end anyways because we can't let granny freeze. And this will save money right?

Yeah ,, becauase EVERY single person that invests in stocks since the beggining of the market has lost EVERY single penny invested, EVERY time

386 limewash  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:24:57pm

re: #184 SanFranciscoZionist

Biocritic,

He didn't even say that --> [Link: mediamatters.org...]

387 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:25:19pm

re: #282 DaddyG

constitutional role of common defense is pretty well spelled out. Historically general welfare is a bit more tricky to define.

Yes and no. A hard case can be made for or against most military involvements being 'for the common defense', although the term has certainly been expanded in the past century. I would disagree with people who believe that any war falls under 'common defense', and that essentially nothing that costs money should count toward 'general welfare'.

388 avanti  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:25:19pm

Just in. The GOP made a deal on the health care vote, now set for 8 AM Christmas eve, not in the evening.

389 sagehen  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:25:26pm

re: #357 Alouette

Well, I made the decision to have 9 kids. It is their obligation to support me but not everybody else who made the decision to have no kids.

Morally, sure. Legally, not so much.

If they turned out to be a bunch of ingrates, you'd really be up a creek without that social security.

390 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:25:35pm

re: #375 Walter L. Newton

BBIAB... putting in some weather stripping... yippee... Obama just created another job...

CONGRATS Walter

391 JamesWI  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:26:17pm

re: #361 albusteve

I see the payoffs with regard to the healthcare bill, entirely different then the above example...consider these are senators and there are votes at stake...big difference imo

Well, with the Senators, they had a couple provisions in the bill they were opposed to and wanted taken out. Instead of taking out provisions that more Democrats supported than opposed, they put things in the opposing Senators would want.

With the stimulus (Obama's, not Bush), there was plenty of grandstanding that the governors were opposed to the very idea of the stimulus, yet when the money came in they grabbed it.

I just don't see how the Senator situation is more sketchy.

392 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:26:51pm

re: #379 DaddyG

I'm not upset with the Government taxing us for a safety net. That is a good idea.

What upsets me is the legislature using the safety net as a fungible source of spending income and leaving the savings account empty and falling.

I agree. I just don't see how one gets from this to the position of abolishing gov't all together.

393 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:26:54pm

re: #291 jayzee

The concept that Judas' betrayal was actually an act of virtue was part of the Last Temptation of Christ if I recall. The toughest task, betraying Jesus, went to the strongest most faithful disciple, Judas if I recall correctly.

It's obviously a complex concept theologically. But how is a betrayal a betrayal, if it's not really a betrayal?

394 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:27:32pm

re: #292 SasyMomaCat

Yikes! Surely knowing your beliefs, he is saying this tongue in cheek as atheist/agnostic humor? Wow . . . just, wow!

He's an apathetic agnostic, and sometimes likes to yank my chain. It all works out, somehow.

395 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:28:03pm

re: #392 Basho

I agree. I just don't see how one gets from this to the position of abolishing gov't all together.

ummm, who did that !?!?
Did you break an ankle when you landed after jumping to that conclusion?

396 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:28:11pm

re: #392 Basho

I agree. I just don't see how one gets from this to the position of abolishing gov't all together.

Personally I've advocated limiting not abolishing. I'm not much into anarchy.

397 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:28:37pm

re: #391 JamesWI

Well, with the Senators, they had a couple provisions in the bill they were opposed to and wanted taken out. Instead of taking out provisions that more Democrats supported than opposed, they put things in the opposing Senators would want.

With the stimulus (Obama's, not Bush), there was plenty of grandstanding that the governors were opposed to the very idea of the stimulus, yet when the money came in they grabbed it.

I just don't see how the Senator situation is more sketchy.

of course you don't because you ignore the bottom line

398 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:29:57pm

re: #389 sagehen

If they turned out to be a bunch of ingrates, you'd really be up a creek without that social security.

Hence why I take all my family values from the Palins.

399 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:30:09pm

re: #389 sagehen

Morally, sure. Legally, not so much.

If they turned out to be a bunch of ingrates, you'd really be up a creek without that social security.

I had enough kids so that if some are deadbeats, others are happy to take care of me.

Hey, they just flew me to NY for a blowout birthday party, so I'm not complaining!

400 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:30:15pm

re: #396 DaddyG

Personally I've advocated limiting not abolishing. I'm not much into anarchy.

Don't take it personally

BASHO downdinged Alouette in #357 becuase she stated her 9 kids will take care of her!

401 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:30:16pm

re: #317 Ben Hur

We should outlaw bad decisions?

SocSec is running out of money. People tend to manage their money better than a gov that pays $250 for an ashtray.

We can't outlaw bad decisions. But allowing people to piss away their Social Security money on the investment of their choice sort of negates the whole concept of Social Security. Let them piss away other money on the investment of their choice.

402 JamesWI  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:30:40pm

re: #397 albusteve

of course you don't because you ignore the bottom line

The bottom line for both the Senators and the Governors is the money coming to their state.

403 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:30:57pm

re: #400 sattv4u2

Don't take it personally

BASHO downdinged Alouette in #357 becuase she stated her 9 kids will take care of her!

Yeah, me but not him.

404 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:31:20pm

re: #402 JamesWI

The bottom line for both the Senators and the Governors is the money coming to their state.

wrong again

405 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:31:35pm

re: #331 Ben Hur

Are there any threats to the national security of the United States?

Are there any domestic needs the United States should meet?

406 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:31:51pm

re: #403 Alouette

Yeah, me but not him.

Sorry ,,, did I get your gender wrong!?!?

407 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:32:31pm

re: #405 SanFranciscoZionist

Are there any domestic needs the United States should meet?

only my own

408 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:32:43pm

re: #393 SanFranciscoZionist

It's obviously a complex concept theologically. But how is a betrayal a betrayal, if it's not really a betrayal?


I've never resonated with that particular theory because it feeds into the idea that God rigs the game. I'm not attracted to notions of predestination either. I think we have agency and God simply knew sooner or later someone somewhere would need salvation so He prepared a Savior. It could have been Judas, Paul or Fred who betrayed Him at supper lunch or breakfast. As it happened there is a great deal of symbolism and meaning in Jesus using the passover symbols to illustrate the sacred nature of covenants at the same time he was preparing his disciples for the inevitable.

409 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:33:11pm

re: #385 sattv4u2

Yeah ,, becauase EVERY single person that invests in stocks since the beggining of the market has lost EVERY single penny invested, EVERY time

You're seriously expecting that out of 300 million people, a fair number of them will not get burned? After we just went through the housing bubble and associated crash? After Madoff? Why would anyone take the government options when you have creeps like Bernie promising returns 2x or 3x the return? If I'm going to be stuck paying for people either way, then yes I'd like them to chip in. Because you haven't yet proposed any solution where the government doesn't end up paying idiots to ensure their survival. It's a choice between SS and welfare. And I know how many fans welfare has here...

410 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:33:27pm

re: #403 Alouette

Yeah, me but not him.

re: #406 sattv4u2

Sorry ,,, did I get your gender wrong!?!?

Oh ,, nevermind ,,, I just misread

I understand now

BASHO ,, you want a couple of Alouettes kids to care for you ???

411 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:33:54pm

re: #385 sattv4u2

Yeah ,, becauase EVERY single person that invests in stocks since the beggining of the market has lost EVERY single penny invested, EVERY time

Now you're just starting to flail. The overall point is that who knows whether or not a person will make a wise investment decision with their social security money. They might do something smart, but they very well might do something extremely stupid.

412 jayzee  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:34:30pm

re: #401 SanFranciscoZionist

We can't outlaw bad decisions. But allowing people to piss away their Social Security money on the investment of their choice sort of negates the whole concept of Social Security. Let them piss away other money on the investment of their choice.

The whole SS system is broken though. It's running out of money, that is a really really big issue. I'm still stymied over that betrayal question.

413 Barflytom  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:34:36pm

re: #105 Killgore Trout

Yeah, I wouldn't trust Rassmusen. Maybe you could find a site that averages out the various polls on the issue. I wouldn't trust any single poll by itself.

Rasmussen does tend conservative on issue questions, but perhaps it's because when you frame a question to make people think of the costs as well as the benefits, you find the conservative viewpoint is more realistic. Asking "are you in favour of free healthcare ?" is obviously going to get a different response to "are you in favour of government run healthcare paid for out of your taxes ?".
I hope it's obvious which description is closer to reality.
The Rasmussen voting intention polls usually seem to be pretty accurate, and I'm inclined to think their approval polls are at least consistent, even if they overstate or understate the level of support - the trend is probably right. And FWIW, Obama's numbers took a bit of a dive in today's Presidential tracking poll.

[Link: www.rasmussenreports.com...]

414 Basho  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:35:00pm

re: #411 drcordell

Now you're just starting to flail.

Understatement of the thread.

415 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:35:46pm

re: #411 drcordell

Now you're just starting to flail. The overall point is that who knows whether or not a person will make a wise investment decision with their social security money. They might do something smart, but they very well might do something extremely stupid.

HAHAHAH ,, I'm starting to flail

THIS from the guy that equated me investing MY money means
granny, who needs her SS "immedialtly" would be freezing in a gutter!

416 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:36:16pm

re: #382 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

We want to know!

Youtube Video

OT note: I worked on a college production of JCS...

417 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:37:15pm

re: #407 albusteve

only my own

Gotcha. Money to be spent only for the common defense and this one guy from New Mexico.

//Wait, are we SURE the Constitution says that? ;)

418 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:37:30pm

re: #414 Basho

Understatement of the thread.

Offset the overstatement that if the gov't doesn't FORCE me to fork over my money granny will IMMEDIATLY be in the gutter freezing!

419 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:37:46pm

Drive-by SS comment:

As a nation, we dont' get the SS that we paid for. We get the social security that we gave birth to and raised, or brought in as immigrants.

That's why the WWII generation got such generous benefits, but the Boomers will not do so well.

420 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:39:13pm

re: #419 EmmmieG

Drive-by SS comment:

As a nation, we dont' get the SS that we paid for. We get the social security that we gave birth to and raised, or brought in as immigrants.

That's why the WWII generation got such generous benefits, but the Boomers will not do so well.

updinged ,,, you should park for awhile!

421 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:39:58pm

re: #415 sattv4u2

HAHAHAH ,, I'm starting to flail

THIS from the guy that equated me investing MY money means
granny, who needs her SS "immedialtly" would be freezing in a gutter!

What exactly would you do if your entire investment portfolio had been invested with Bernia Madoff? How would you survive without a government handout if you were too old to work? Kids, family? What if they had wisely followed your advice and invested in the same scammer? Because thats what happened with Madoff, entire families were wiped out financially.

Face it, if you didn't have any money to be FORCED OVER and STOLEN by the evil government, you'd expect a handout from it just like those you're attempting to belittle.

422 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:42:07pm

re: #415 sattv4u2

HAHAHAH ,, I'm starting to flail

THIS from the guy that equated me investing MY money means
granny, who needs her SS "immedialtly" would be freezing in a gutter!

You are still failing to see that "you" controlling "your SS money" also means that every other idiot in this country would have the possibility of doing the same. And that would result in a definite percentage of people who squandered their SS benefits with poor investment decisions.

Now, that person would then have 2 options. To potentially starve/freeze to death because they lack any Social Security income. Or to then receive another form of government assistance to prevent such an outcome.

Which, brings us back to the original question. Why the HELL would I allow them to squander their social safety net funds with their own poor investment decisions?

423 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:42:12pm

re: #421 McSpiff

What exactly would you do if your entire investment portfolio had been invested with Bernia Madoff

How many times do you need me to answer the SAME exact formatted question, even if you phrase it in different ways?

424 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:42:56pm

re: #418 sattv4u2

Offset the overstatement that if the gov't doesn't FORCE me to fork over my money granny will IMMEDIATLY be in the gutter freezing!

No, dumbass. Nobody ever said that. You can keep repeating it over and over and over and over and over again, but that doesn't make it true.

425 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:43:13pm

re: #421 McSpiff

What exactly would you do if your entire investment portfolio had been invested with Bernia Madoff? How would you survive without a government handout if you were too old to work? Kids, family? What if they had wisely followed your advice and invested in the same scammer? Because thats what happened with Madoff, entire families were wiped out financially.

Face it, if you didn't have any money to be FORCED OVER and STOLEN by the evil government, you'd expect a handout from it just like those you're attempting to belittle.

Hmmmm... where did sattv4u2 ever use the terms "FORCED OVER and STOLEN?"

426 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:43:23pm

re: #423 sattv4u2

What exactly would you do if your entire investment portfolio had been invested with Bernia Madoff

How many times do you need me to answer the SAME exact formatted question, even if you phrase it in different ways?

You haven't provided an answer once. You've simply sat back and cracked granny jokes when you realized you were backed into a corner.

427 jayzee  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:43:43pm

re: #421 McSpiff

What exactly would you do if your entire investment portfolio had been invested with Bernia Madoff? How would you survive without a government handout if you were too old to work? Kids, family? What if they had wisely followed your advice and invested in the same scammer? Because thats what happened with Madoff, entire families were wiped out financially.

Face it, if you didn't have any money to be FORCED OVER and STOLEN by the evil government, you'd expect a handout from it just like those you're attempting to belittle.

What Madoff did was illegal and the same government that is responsible for managing SS and other programs was also tasked with investigating his firm on a number of occasions. They found no irregularities. Kind of comforting though isn't it? So on one hand, we have to distrust the government, on the other hand, entrust them with our handling our national retirement plan.

428 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:44:53pm

re: #422 drcordell

re: #421 McSpiff

Lets try this a different way

Given the option, what percentage of the country do you beleive would opt out of SS IF given the choice

I would

Both of you obvioulsy would not

SO ,,,,,, how many would opt out?
5%
10%
20%
50%
100%

429 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:45:08pm

re: #425 Walter L. Newton

Hmmm... where did sattv4u2 ever use the terms "FORCED OVER and STOLEN?"

FORCED was #418. I added the 'OVER' to make my sentence somewhat grammatically correct. I thought he had used STOLEN as well, but I'm not seeing it at the moment.

430 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:45:28pm

re: #428 sattv4u2

re: #421 McSpiff

Lets try this a different way

Given the option, what percentage of the country do you beleive would opt out of SS IF given the choice

I would

Both of you obvioulsy would not

SO ,,, how many would opt out?
5%
10%
20%
50%
100%

It's a trick question!

431 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:45:49pm

re: #327 lawhawk

That you think that the GOP is really being obstructionist due to principles is kind of astonishing to me.

That's giving them an enormous amount of credit that I have seen absolutely no proof that they deserve. It seems much more likely that they are being obstructionist because, as was posted at length, they can make political hay by doing so.

432 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:46:56pm

re: #426 McSpiff

(B) You haven't provided an answer once (A). You've simply sat back and cracked granny jokes when you realized you were backed into a corner.

A), I didn't bring Granny into it, DRCORDELL did
B) do some research

433 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:47:11pm

re: #429 McSpiff

FORCED was #418. I added the 'OVER' to make my sentence somewhat grammatically correct. I thought he had used STOLEN as well, but I'm not seeing it at the moment.

Thought so. It's so much fun to watch how "quotes" become expanded on and cribbed by other commenters as they move down the thread. Makes me wonder why that happens? Sort of like putting words in someone's mouth... ya think?

434 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:47:20pm

re: #428 sattv4u2

re: #421 McSpiff

Lets try this a different way

Given the option, what percentage of the country do you beleive would opt out of SS IF given the choice

I would

Both of you obvioulsy would not

SO ,,, how many would opt out?
5%
10%
20%
50%
100%

I have no idea. But when you're dealing with 300 million people, 1% of the population opting out and failing represents the entire population of California relying on welfare.

435 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:48:16pm

re: #428 sattv4u2

re: #421 McSpiff

Lets try this a different way

Given the option, what percentage of the country do you beleive would opt out of SS IF given the choice

I would

Both of you obvioulsy would not

SO ,,, how many would opt out?
5%
10%
20%
50%
100%

I'm sure quite a high percentage of people would opt-out of Social Security, and feel quite grand about it. Until they reached retirement age, and hit unforseen economic hardship and realized that they have no savings, no income and need a way to survive. And then they would begin looking for some form of assistance.

Nobody likes being taxed. The fact that people would avoid paying taxes if given the choice doesn't really prove anything. You think people would have supported the Iraq War if they had a specific line in their paycheck showing how much of their money went towards war funding?

436 jayzee  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:48:24pm

re: #431 Obdicut

That you think that the GOP is really being obstructionist due to principles is kind of astonishing to me.

That's giving them an enormous amount of credit that I have seen absolutely no proof that they deserve. It seems much more likely that they are being obstructionist because, as was posted at length, they can make political hay by doing so.

I think it is very likely that most of the GOP in congress are opposed to this because they think it is a bad idea.

437 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:50:41pm

I have time for one more comment before my house if full of other people's children. (It''s voluntary.)

I'm for social security because I'm totally cynical. If we didn't do social security, all the folks who either couldn't or wouldn't set aside money would become indigent old people. Then the papers would publish sad stories about them, and the government would come through with funds for them.* At least this way they contribute to the funds.

*If congress had thought the way then that they do now, they would have made social security temporary, so they could renew it every few years and taken credit all over again.

I'm not against helping the needy, I'm just casting a cynical eye on how our government and society have come to interact.

438 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:50:59pm

re: #433 Walter L. Newton

Thought so. It's so much fun to watch how "quotes" become expanded on and cribbed by other commenters as they move down the thread. Makes me wonder why that happens? Sort of like putting words in someone's mouth... ya think?

O you caught me Walter, you rascally devil. I'm glad you haven't lost your ability to complete miss the forest while looking for leaves.

439 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:51:27pm

re: #424 drcordell

No, dumbass. Nobody ever said that. You can keep repeating it over and over and over and over and over again, but that doesn't make it true.

As they say in sports, lets go to the videotape!!


[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

It's not unreasonable for government to force people

It really doesn't cost anything to pay attention!

440 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:51:50pm

re: #438 McSpiff

O you caught me Walter, you rascally devil. I'm glad you haven't lost your ability to complete miss the forest while looking for leaves.

Leave it to me... just trying to help... thanks for the compliment.

441 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:52:45pm

re: #434 McSpiff

I have no idea. But when you're dealing with 300 million people, 1% of the population opting out and failing represents the entire population of California relying on welfare.

I see ,, so if 1% opts out,, EVERY SS recipient becomes indigent
AND ,,, EVERY single one of those 1% will be wiped out in the market!

wow

442 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:52:48pm

re: #435 drcordell

I'm sure quite a high percentage of people would opt-out of Social Security, and feel quite grand about it. Until they reached retirement age, and hit unforseen economic hardship and realized that they have no savings, no income and need a way to survive. And then they would begin looking for some form of assistance.

Nobody likes being taxed. The fact that people would avoid paying taxes if given the choice doesn't really prove anything. You think people would have supported the Iraq War if they had a specific line in their paycheck showing how much of their money went towards war funding?

You should be a little more ecumenical towards sattv4u's position, since you are an expert on being FORCED.

443 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:54:21pm

re: #439 sattv4u2

As they say in sports, lets go to the videotape!!

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

It's not unreasonable for government to force people

It really doesn't cost anything to pay attention!

Are you fucking stupid? It's clearly obvious that I agree with the government forcing people to pay into SS. I've been re-iterating my stance over and over and over and over again.

What was never said was that "if the gov't doesn't FORCE me to fork over my money granny will IMMEDIATLY be in the gutter freezing!"

Find me where I said that.

444 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:54:56pm

re: #442 Walter L. Newton

You should be a little more ecumenical towards sattv4u's position, since you are an expert on being FORCED.

You still can't stop carrying Sumner Redstone's water, can you?

445 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:56:09pm

re: #444 drcordell

You still can't stop carrying Sumner Redstone's water, can you?

And you can't take personal responsibility for yourself yet, can you? And your comments and opinions on this thread is proof positive of that.

446 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:56:54pm

re: #441 sattv4u2

I see ,, so if 1% opts out,, EVERY SS recipient becomes indigent
AND ,,, EVERY single one of those 1% will be wiped out in the market!

wow

Speaking of putting words in people's mouth... I said if 1% opt out and fail. That's one group of people. I mean them separately from people who opt out and succeed. Which is a second. And those two of course are totally seperate from people who stay in.

3 Groups:
1. Opt out and fail (need government assistance after retiring, separate from retiring)
2. Opt out and succeed (as in retire without government assistance)
3. Stay in (pay into SS during career, receive SS benefits upon retirement)

447 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:57:04pm

re: #424 drcordell
No, dumbass
re: #443 drcordell
Are you fucking stupid

we're done! Thanks for playing, Ludwig

448 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:58:21pm

re: #446 McSpiff

Speaking of putting words in people's mouth... I said if 1% opt out and fail. That's one group of people. I mean them separately from people who opt out and succeed. Which is a second. And those two of course are totally seperate from people who stay in.

3 Groups:
1. Opt out and fail (need government assistance after retiring, separate from retiring)
2. Opt out and succeed (as in retire without government assistance)
3. Stay in (pay into SS during career, receive SS benefits upon retirement)

PIMF: (seperate from SS)

449 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:59:24pm

re: #441 sattv4u2

I see ,, so if 1% opts out,, EVERY SS recipient becomes indigent
AND ,,, EVERY single one of those 1% will be wiped out in the market!

wow


When someone says "X might happen to a percentage of the population," that does not mean they said "it will happen to EVERYONE."

When someone says "X percentage of the population might lose money in the stock market," that does not mean they said "EVERYONE who has EVER invested in the stock market will lose ALL their money."

You are incapable of processing anything someone has said without resorting to absurd hyperbolic statements.

450 barflytom  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 12:59:28pm

re: #421 McSpiff

I don't think anyone's suggesting that people should have the option of gambling their SS contributions on pork belly futures instead. It's not as if the concept of managed pension funds is something new. The difference is that the money then goes to investment in some useful activity, as opposed to being spent by congress the instant it is received. The non-existent SS "trust fund" makes Madoff look a bit small time. Paying future benefits out of future tax revenue is almost the definition of a Ponzi scheme. There's also the gross unfairness to people who die shortly after retirement. Their heirs receive nothing, as opposed to having the possibility of inheriting some capital. (Assuming of course that the retirees aren't forced to buy annuities).

451 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:00:15pm

re: #445 Walter L. Newton

And you can't take personal responsibility for yourself yet, can you? And your comments and opinions on this thread is proof positive of that.

And sattv4u2 expects the rest of the country to trust him that he's a reasonable investor, and then bail him out if he isn't. Really, neither side in this discussion can claim to hold the 'Personal responsibility' high ground in the this debate.

452 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:00:35pm

re: #446 McSpiff

I see , so you decided not to naswer the direct question, but had no problem speculating how many wouild "fail"

AND ,,, if only 1% failed how could that be the same # as the state of California

You take 300 million people, say 1% will fail (3 million) and then say the 1% is only of those that would opt out

SO ,,, are you saying 300 million would opt out? How could that be? There are but 340 +/- in the country. I would say a fair number of those are children who dio NOT pay in
Nice math ,.,,,

453 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:03:04pm

re: #452 sattv4u2

I see , so you decided not to naswer the direct question, but had no problem speculating how many wouild "fail"

AND ,,, if only 1% failed how could that be the same # as the state of California

You take 300 million people, say 1% will fail (3 million) and then say the 1% is only of those that would opt out

SO ,,, are you saying 300 million would opt out? How could that be? There are but 340 +/- in the country. I would say a fair number of those are children who dio NOT pay in
Nice math ,.,,,

Woops, totally right about my math. I had in my head that 1% of 300 million was 30 million instead of 3 million. I was also suggesting that 1% of the US populations opts out and fails. the 99% either stay in or opt out and succeed. But yes my math, and thus my reference to CA was horribly, horribly wrong.

454 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:04:38pm

re: #452 sattv4u2

I see , so you decided not to naswer the direct question, but had no problem speculating how many wouild "fail"

AND ,,, if only 1% failed how could that be the same # as the state of California

You take 300 million people, say 1% will fail (3 million) and then say the 1% is only of those that would opt out

SO ,,, are you saying 300 million would opt out? How could that be? There are but 340 +/- in the country. I would say a fair number of those are children who dio NOT pay in
Nice math ,.,,,

And for your direct question: How many would opt out and fail, thus requiring full welfare? More than SS has failed to pay out to.

455 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:06:46pm

Look man, I can only keep typing the same things OVER and OVER and OVER again at you for so long.

All you have done throughout this entire thread is accuse me of saying something that I didn't even say! And when pressed on any single piece of mis-informed garbage you spewed, you simply wash rinse and repeat.

re: #418 sattv4u2

Offset the overstatement that if the gov't doesn't FORCE me to fork over my money granny will IMMEDIATLY be in the gutter freezing!

re: #418 sattv4u2

Offset the overstatement that if the gov't doesn't FORCE me to fork over my money granny will IMMEDIATLY be in the gutter freezing!

re: #415 sattv4u2

HAHAHAH ,, I'm starting to flail

THIS from the guy that equated me investing MY money means
granny, who needs her SS "immedialtly" would be freezing in a gutter!

re: #305 sattv4u2

neither was I ,,, NOT ONCE

yet I now have granny freezing in the gutter
Amazin!

re: #287 sattv4u2

Oh ,,, you and you facts. And here I was, kicking granny to the gutter! Spoilsport!
/

456 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:07:56pm

Of course let's not forget the SS $ aren't really there. They are being raided to use for other things. Not the most secure investment in the world - forced or not.

457 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:09:08pm

re: #455 drcordell

Bravo!

458 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:09:27pm

re: #454 McSpiff

There are probably something in the order of 150 million workers in the USA that currently pay into the system
If 1/3 were to opt out (i'm picking that number becuase out of the three of us, you me and Cordell, 1 would and 2 would not)

That means 50 million opted out

if 1% fails, thats 500,000 people

Out of a population of 350 MILLION, the rest of us could handle that as we have through our histrory ,,, EASILY
ESPECIALLY considering with more people investing more money in the markets and CDs and bonds, the market and all others would be stronger, thus better returns

459 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:11:13pm

re: #455 drcordell

You did 418 twice!
AND ,,, well ,,, you ARE the one that introduced the granny freezing in the gutter scenario!
SO ,,,, if you don't want your words re-used ,,, ummm,, don't USE them!

460 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:11:54pm

re: #458 sattv4u2

On the other hand, if 2/3 opt out and 10% fail, we start to have a problem. Using made up numbers any scheme can work or fail.

461 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:15:17pm

re: #262 drcordell

And that seems to be the difference between us right there.

You seem to have no problem with the government forcing you to pay your taxes that go towards funding the Iraq War, or whatever other defense spending.

But if you are *GASP* forced to also fork over taxes that go towards ensuring that our nation's elderly don't freeze to death in the gutter, it's an assault on your liberty!

I thought this is where that whole freezing granny thing got started...

462 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:17:02pm

re: #460 McSpiff

On the other hand, if 2/3 opt out and 10% fail, we start to have a problem. Using made up numbers any scheme can work or fail.

Hence the question I posed in #428

I'll answer it, even if you don't care too
People don't like "change'. Overwhemingly, they also want to be taken care of and want someone else making big decisions for them

I say 10% or less would actually 'opt out" due to those factors

So ,,,, 15 million opt out

1% fail (equals) 150,000


Again ,, we can take care of them ,, always have anyway!

463 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:17:26pm

re: #461 DaddyG

I thought this is where that whole freezing granny thing got started...

#262

464 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:18:27pm

Tell you what sattv4u2, I'll split the difference with you. I'd be willing to support a plan to allow people to move away from SS, if they were required to invest that money in insured investments. So if I knew there was no possibility of me picking up the tab for someone thinking the they were going to ride their investment in MCI or Enron to riches id be fine with it.

465 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:22:00pm
You did 418 twice!
AND ,,, well ,,, you ARE the one that introduced the granny freezing in the gutter scenario!
SO ,,, if you don't want your words re-used ,,, ummm,, don't USE them!

No, I didn't. That's the whole point of what I just wrote. That your entire presence on this thread has been one giant concern-troll where you fail to address substantive issues and instead repeat a phrase that I never stated.

Here is exactly the comment in question you pathetically keep mis-citing:

re: #459 sattv4u2
re: #258 sattv4u2

just ,,, damn !

That that thinking is even out there is just ,,, wow !

Hope you didn't mean it and just was indelicately articulated!


re: #262 drcordell

And that seems to be the difference between us right there.

You seem to have no problem with the government forcing you to pay your taxes that go towards funding the Iraq War, or whatever other defense spending.

But if you are *GASP* forced to also fork over taxes that go towards ensuring that our nation's elderly don't freeze to death in the gutter, it's an assault on your liberty!

Notice I never said you want granny to freeze to death. I said that you find it outrageous that you are forced to pay taxes to ensure that granny doesn't freeze to death. Which you clearly stated in your previous comment.

466 jayzee  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:24:43pm

re: #464 McSpiff

Tell you what sattv4u2, I'll split the difference with you. I'd be willing to support a plan to allow people to move away from SS, if they were required to invest that money in insured investments. So if I knew there was no possibility of me picking up the tab for someone thinking the they were going to ride their investment in MCI or Enron to riches id be fine with it.

I think you're on track. Not necessarily insured however, but NOT individual stocks. Perhaps some kind of fund choices (like with 401Ks or other plans). The issue in my opinion is that while we are concerned with losses in equity investments, we are not concerned with them at all in the current publicly supported model as the government merely rights an IOU to cover the difference AND they take much more from many than they give back.

467 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:25:43pm

re: #465 drcordell

I refer you to #447

468 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:26:31pm

re: #461 DaddyG

I thought this is where that whole freezing granny thing got started...

Yes. It is exactly where it got started. And I fail to see how that statement can be construed to mean that I think sattv4u wants granny to freeze to death.

Go look upthread to the comment he replied to:


"...we're not heartless enough to not care if they starve or freeze to death. It's not unreasonable for government to force people to set aside what we'd feel obligated to cough up for them if they didn't."

just ,,, damn !

That that thinking is even out there is just ,,, wow !

Hope you didn't mean it and just was indelicately articulated!

469 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:27:22pm

re: #464 McSpiff

Tell you what sattv4u2, I'll split the difference with you. I'd be willing to support a plan to allow people to move away from SS, if they were required to invest that money in insured investments. So if I knew there was no possibility of me picking up the tab for someone thinking the they were going to ride their investment in MCI or Enron to riches id be fine with it.

Perhaps a percentage of it, as their own personal safety net, but I would be against mandating 100% goes to gov't approved "insured investments"

470 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:28:13pm

re: #466 jayzee

I think you're on track. Not necessarily insured however, but NOT individual stocks. Perhaps some kind of fund choices (like with 401Ks or other plans). The issue in my opinion is that while we are concerned with losses in equity investments, we are not concerned with them at all in the current publicly supported model as the government merely rights an IOU to cover the difference AND they take much more from many than they give back.

Insured might not have been the best choice of words, but I think we're on the same page. I fully agree SS has been busted by the government, I'm just not convinced that a mandatory, public option isn't best. I mean I've had people point out their beanie baby collection to me as a "great investment".

471 drcordell  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:28:42pm

re: #467 sattv4u2

I refer you to #447

In summary, Sattv4u's argument:

"You said I think granny should freeze to death!!!!!"

"This coming from the guy who says I think granny should freeze to death!!!"

"I can't believe you said I want granny to freeze to death!"

"See above comment re: granny freezing to death"

472 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:31:29pm

re: #469 sattv4u2

Perhaps a percentage of it, as their own personal safety net, but I would be against mandating 100% goes to gov't approved "insured investments"

Like I said, if you want to give up the gov't safety net, fine. But I need a promise as someone-who-isn't-you that you won't come begging for my cash after your beanie baby investment tanks. That to me would be agreeing to invest in things with a guaranteed return.

473 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:36:06pm

re: #466 jayzee

re: #470 McSpiff

What about a portion of private investment go to a gov't insured fund, sort of like the banks and the FDIC. Lets say out of every $1,000 each person who OPTS OUT of Ss invests, a dollar goes into a fund. This money cannot be touched by the gov't UNLESS someone becomes insolvent and needs a hand up until they get back on their feet
Everyone that OPTED OUT pays into it, and anyone that OPTED OUT has an insurance policy just in case

DRAW BACK,, people may make risky investments knowing they have the safety net,, BUT ,, as I stated in #462 People don't like "change'. Overwhemingly, they also want to be taken care of and want someone else making big decisions for them

That restated, those that have opted out most likely wouldn't be "day traders'

((hell ,,, for that matter,.,, you could make day trading exempt as an authorized investment vehicle)

474 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:40:30pm

re: #471 drcordell

and you wonder why your "karma is awful"

re: #424 drcordell
No, dumbass
re: #443 drcordell
Are you fucking stupid

That stated,, I didn't add to your negative karma this thread

holiday spirit, and all that!

475 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:43:52pm

re: #473 sattv4u2

I think we're in agreement about this, and its just a matter of how to implement specific policies.

476 jayzee  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:44:40pm

re: #470 McSpiff

Insured might not have been the best choice of words, but I think we're on the same page. I fully agree SS has been busted by the government, I'm just not convinced that a mandatory, public option isn't best. I mean I've had people point out their beanie baby collection to me as a "great investment".

They're NOT? You're right though, people really don't understand money all that much (until they lose it-unfortunately). I work with a lot of folk who seem pretty bright and it amazes me what they don't know about it or how to invest for retirement. Disclaimer-I lost an enormous amount of money buying "sure thing" stocks on margin a couple of yrs ago and will not make that mistake again.

477 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:46:11pm

re: #473 sattv4u2

But I really like the idea of basing it on the FDIC model. That makes a hell of a lot of sense to me.

478 prairiefire  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:59:39pm

re: #476 jayzee

My husband and I were once tempted when the dot.com bubble was going on. Didn't act on that, but did on the energy bubble and lost a stack.
Damn bubbles. CD's used to pay a bit, but inflation was through the roof.
Sticking with the plodding mutual fund, waiting for that compounded interest!

479 elizajane  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:18:41pm

Talk about hyperbole. The "last time we saw that kind of moment" was Judas? What, in the past 1976 years everybody has acted entirely altruistically, without regard for personal (or district) gain?
Is it possible that, for Huckabee, history begins and ends in the confines of the Bible?

480 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:10:20pm

The more I look into health care reform, the more I see three things.

1. The present system is spiraling in terms of cost to an extent that it will simply not be sustainable in the future - the near future when the medical bills of baby boomers are considered. So the problem really does need to be addressed for that alone.

2. Endless accounts of how the insurance industry screws people. And a moments thought about it indicates that it must work that way if they are going to turn a profit. Right? For each dollar you spend on medicine, they make money. Even in the best systems, without abuses, their very existence means that large amounts of health dollars are going to have to make it into coffers and not health benefits.

3. The only people hurt by health care reform are parasitic industries anyway. So figthing for their right to shaft you seems ludicrous to me.

481 Vercimber  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:05:50pm

It's ironic that he points out how poorly things went the last time this happened. If it weren't for Judas, we would have never heard of Mark Huckabee, or any of these other lunatics.

482 BlackFedora  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:23:21pm

"The last time we saw that kind of historic moment it was 30 pieces of silver and that didn’t work out too well for us either,” Huckabee said."

Really? Didn't it lead to the work on the cross and thus a ransom being paid for our souls? Huckabee is a minister, right? Just sayin'

Not equating health care reform with Jesus but damn... stupid.

483 ZeroGain  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 9:47:23am

"...it was 30 pieces of silver and that didn’t work out too well for us either..."

Wait, what? I thought Jesus had to die for us to forgive our sins... is he saying Jesus died unnecessarily?


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
2 days ago
Views: 105 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 270 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1