GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-04-2012, 09:03   #26
JFrame
Senior Member
 
JFrame's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Mid-Atlantic, US of A
Posts: 31,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
I won't dispute that. There are plenty of people that know policy details and agree with Romney's positions (even though they are still WAY to vague and without detail ... exactly HOW again is he going to do a 20% tax cut across board, add 2 trillion to defense spending, not cut medicare/medicaid/SS (arguably even increase spending), and NOT add dramatically to the debt? Clue: It is IMPOSSIBLE without assuming some magical/mythical growth and/or significant changes to deductions that primarily would impact middle class negatively). But for every one of these people in our circles who know the policies and are intelligent enough to parse them ... there are 10 that think Romney looked "more Presidential" or was "more energetic" or "had nicer hair" .... etc. To these folks, Romney "won" and might have been swayed.

edit: folks like Goaltender66 (post #10 above I believe) are doing thoughtful and legitimate analysis based on their beliefs on policy. While I don't AGREE with some of the beliefs, he is at least making information, policy based arguments. If we were a world full of Goaltender66 critical thinking skills (not necessarily of same conclusions though ) ... we would be in much better place. But instead .... we have Honey Boo Boo and Kim Kardashian voting.
Speaking of critical thinking skills...

Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
I'll add that other left leaning broadcasting exists too (ala MSNBC), but no where as near as virulent as what you get non-stop from right wing media).

.
__________________
"When newspapers are controlled, it's amazing how ignorant and immune from pressure the government can be." -- Amartya Sen

--

Last edited by JFrame; 10-04-2012 at 09:04..
JFrame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 09:06   #27
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by JFrame View Post
Speaking of critical thinking skills...
.
Wow ... you're clever. You are officially classified as a "low information" voter now.

Do you actually think that is a "gotcha"?

Ironically ... that post was in response to your statement in that thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JFrame View Post
...I got tired of having to "read between the lines" (when such lines were even made available) to discern even a glimmer of truth ...
.
That ... my friends ... is EXACTLY an illustration of a "low information" voter who lacks the ability (or maybe just desire ... but same effect) of thinking critically. They don't want to hear fact based news and have to "read between the lines" and make inferences and decisions to form their opinions. They would rather have a blatantly partisan media source like right-wing radio, fox news (or even MSNBC) GIVE them their opinions.

Last edited by douggmc; 10-04-2012 at 09:22..
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 09:07   #28
JFrame
Senior Member
 
JFrame's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Mid-Atlantic, US of A
Posts: 31,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
Wow ... you're clever. You are officially classified as a "low information" voter now.

Do you actually think that is a "gotcha"?

Why expend additional energy when one can just echo back the inane comments that expose someone for the leftist moonbat that they are?


.
__________________
"When newspapers are controlled, it's amazing how ignorant and immune from pressure the government can be." -- Amartya Sen

--
JFrame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 09:27   #29
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by JFrame View Post
Why expend additional energy when ...

.
Exactly ... which is why I've ignored the other probably 4 times(?) you've whipped that same quote of mine out on unrelated threads like you have some golden nugget "gotcha". It is hilariously lame (because it is only in your own mind a "gotcha") and not worth my time and energy ... as you noted. So ... perhaps I'll just stop responding to it again.

Debate me on something meaningful and topical and I'll respond. Otherwise/until then, I hereby banish you back to rube-ville and willl essentially ignore you.
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:06   #30
Goaltender66
NRA GoldenEagle
 
Goaltender66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the cultural penumbra of DC
Posts: 14,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by beforeobamabans View Post
It's a reach to attribute this to the entire Libertarian movement when it's one or two guys on PI promoting this aberrant view.
Fair point, though I have heard it in other venues than GTPI. Regardless, I apologize for being overbroad.

Quote:
I detest Obama and am in mourning over the damage he has done to this country. I have already stated on PI that I will hold my nose and vote for Romney, but man, the GOP really blew an opportunity to change things in a major way.
The thing is, I don't know that a major change *can* be made given the facts on the ground. I would absolutely love for the vast majority of government to be cut down to nothing. Let me offer an anecdote:

I recently went through my passport renewal process. As part of the process I'm given the choice of the regular passport book, a passport card, or both. In talking with the clerk at the passport office I find out the card is a credit-card sized credential used only for land travel between the US and Canada or Mexico, or sea travel to those ports plus the Caribbean. It's useless for air travel (except as ID to board the plane, but it won't get you through customs.). I was asking why I would need this extra $30 card if I had a book. I was told "convenience."

Turns out that border control stopped allowing travellers across the Mexican/Canadian borders to simply use drivers licenses and birth certificates and started requiring passports. Frequent travellers started complaining about this, so in response the State Department applied a brand new level of bureaucracy and created an all-new RFID-enabled passport card. And while it's supposedly secure enough for ground travel, you can't use it for air travel...you have to have the full passport book.

To me this is yet one more example of bureaucracy existing to perpetuate itself. Instead of working to lower the cost of the passport book, they complicate the options with something only useful in limited, specific circumstances.

My point is that all of this crap isn't going to go away overnight. I would love to dismantle the entire US Department of Education, but the reality is that building full of bureaucrats isn't going anywhere any time soon. So instead, until we conservatives can change attitudes, why not try to transform the Dept of Ed from a jobs program for union teachers into something that can advocate for decent curricula in our schools? Then gradually reduce the role of that bureaucracy until it withers away.

I honestly can't think of another politically feasible way to accomplish a reduction in government on the scale that we need. As long as people like Trew2Life are demanding their bennies, we're kind of stuck in what we can do.
__________________
The US Air Force has started including tax protester literature in the emergency supplies of their aircraft. If the plane crashes in a remote area, the crew is instructed to read the pamphlets and Goalie will be along shortly to rebut them.
Goaltender66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:07   #31
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
Exactly ... which is why I've ignored the other probably 4 times(?) you've whipped that same quote of mine out on unrelated threads like you have some golden nugget "gotcha". It is hilariously lame (because it is only in your own mind a "gotcha") and not worth my time and energy ... as you noted. So ... perhaps I'll just stop responding to it again.

Debate me on something meaningful and topical and I'll respond. Otherwise/until then, I hereby banish you back to rube-ville and willl essentially ignore you.
Nice delusions of grandeur there Douggie.

JFRAME, I didn't know you were headed to DU...
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:28   #32
wjv
Senior Member
 
wjv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 12,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
I still won't vote for Romney because I don't trust his record and rhetoric but he did objectively win this debate.
And helping re-elect Obama is such a superior plan. . . .
__________________
Bill
Pacific NW


The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.
- H. L. Mencken -
wjv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:31   #33
Glock30Eric
.45 ACP
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Southern Maryland
Posts: 3,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjv View Post
And helping re-elect Obama is such a superior plan. . . .
Thank you for trashing the Republic of America as you want to incorporate communism system by telling people who to vote for. You are very awesome!!! You are helping to destruct the America as we know with either Obama or Romney! High five!!

Seriously, please don't tell a person if he doesn't want to vote Romney then he is helping Obama to be re-elected.

I'm going to vote Ron Paul or Gary Johnson because both represents me better than Obama or Romney. I am living to the republic and not in accordance with your lesser of two games which it is the bottom line of a communism system or even worse a tyranny system.

Enjoy the America as you have know while it last.

Last edited by Glock30Eric; 10-04-2012 at 10:36..
Glock30Eric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:33   #34
JFrame
Senior Member
 
JFrame's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Mid-Atlantic, US of A
Posts: 31,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo View Post
Nice delusions of grandeur there Douggie.

JFRAME, I didn't know you were headed to DU...



Leftists tend to ignore those they cannot defeat -- and they especially hate being hoisted on their own petard.


.
__________________
"When newspapers are controlled, it's amazing how ignorant and immune from pressure the government can be." -- Amartya Sen

--
JFrame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:34   #35
JFrame
Senior Member
 
JFrame's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Mid-Atlantic, US of A
Posts: 31,571
double
__________________
"When newspapers are controlled, it's amazing how ignorant and immune from pressure the government can be." -- Amartya Sen

--

Last edited by JFrame; 10-04-2012 at 10:38..
JFrame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:35   #36
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
Fair point, though I have heard it in other venues than GTPI. Regardless, I apologize for being overbroad.


The thing is, I don't know that a major change *can* be made given the facts on the ground. I would absolutely love for the vast majority of government to be cut down to nothing. Let me offer an anecdote:

I recently went through my passport renewal process. As part of the process I'm given the choice of the regular passport book, a passport card, or both. In talking with the clerk at the passport office I find out the card is a credit-card sized credential used only for land travel between the US and Canada or Mexico, or sea travel to those ports plus the Caribbean. It's useless for air travel (except as ID to board the plane, but it won't get you through customs.). I was asking why I would need this extra $30 card if I had a book. I was told "convenience."

Turns out that border control stopped allowing travellers across the Mexican/Canadian borders to simply use drivers licenses and birth certificates and started requiring passports. Frequent travellers started complaining about this, so in response the State Department applied a brand new level of bureaucracy and created an all-new RFID-enabled passport card. And while it's supposedly secure enough for ground travel, you can't use it for air travel...you have to have the full passport book.

To me this is yet one more example of bureaucracy existing to perpetuate itself. Instead of working to lower the cost of the passport book, they complicate the options with something only useful in limited, specific circumstances.

My point is that all of this crap isn't going to go away overnight. I would love to dismantle the entire US Department of Education, but the reality is that building full of bureaucrats isn't going anywhere any time soon. So instead, until we conservatives can change attitudes, why not try to transform the Dept of Ed from a jobs program for union teachers into something that can advocate for decent curricula in our schools? Then gradually reduce the role of that bureaucracy until it withers away.

I honestly can't think of another politically feasible way to accomplish a reduction in government on the scale that we need. As long as people like Trew2Life are demanding their bennies, we're kind of stuck in what we can do.
I appreciate and share some of your disenfranchisement with wasteful spending and bureaucratic crap. Your anecdote about the passport is spot on. I would say that I don't agree specifically with your D. of Ed. opinion though.

With that said though, both of those things (like doing away with the ~250 million dollar funding/year to "Big Bird") won't do SQUAT to our budget issues. It is simply mathematically impossible. You alluded to "bennies" though ... and I'll assume you mean SS/Medicare/Medicaid. Now THAT is the big bucket of spending that is meaningful ... along with DoD.

ONLY these two areas (entitlements and DoD) make up between 2/3 and 3/4 of our budget. We could cut the the rest of expenditures (25 - 30 of spending), and leave entitlements and DoD as is ... and STILL be running a deficit. So ... while it feels good to complain about D. of Ed., passports, and "Big Bird" ... it is nothing more than an illusion and meaningless.

I'm of the opinion that we need to:
a) Drastically cut DoD. Call me crazy ... but I'd be OK with a budget that doubles the next highest country's instead of one that is more than the next 5 combined. We could cut DoD spending by 50% and still be 2x more than the next country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures I'm ex-Military FWIW. I believe in appropriate use of military force and in peace through power ... i.e., walk softly and carry a big stick. But the MiC in this country is ridiculous and the false patriotic propaganda pushed by so many to perpetuate it "discusting" We need smart DoD spending. Not quantity over quality.

b) Means test SS. Sorry ... if you don't need it, you don't get it. In other words, on a scale based on net worth/income ... you index down the eligibility to receive SS benefits. This sucks ... I know. Somebody is gonna feel pain in some manner or another ... no way around it.

c) Raise SS eligibility age based on a scientific lifespan index assessment that is adjusted periodically. Dropping dead at 67 a couple years after you retire is not as common as it used to be. Thank Medicare! Nor can can we expect to retire at 62 (unless you've smartly self-funded your retirement ... which is great then you can) when we expect to live to 90+. So ... need to account for longer lifespans.

d) Return tax brackets to those during mid-90s. We are disingenuous to only take a spending cut approach to solve our problems. Hey .. after all ... a top bracket of 39% is way better than what we had during those wonderful booming 1950s we always refer to .. right? Those great days of economic growth and thriving middle class? Cough .. cough: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213

Last edited by douggmc; 10-04-2012 at 11:01..
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:36   #37
wjv
Senior Member
 
wjv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 12,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock30Eric View Post

Seriously, don't tell a person if he doesn't want to vote Romney then he is helping Obama.
You can vote for anyone you want but the FACT is that only one of two people will become the next president.

If you don't like Obama, but you don't vote for the ONLY person who can replace him, you ARE helping Obama win.

Sorry if the truth hurts. .
__________________
Bill
Pacific NW


The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.
- H. L. Mencken -
wjv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:37   #38
JFrame
Senior Member
 
JFrame's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Mid-Atlantic, US of A
Posts: 31,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
Exactly ... which is why I've ignored the other probably 4 times(?) you've whipped that same quote of mine out on unrelated threads like you have some golden nugget "gotcha". It is hilariously lame (because it is only in your own mind a "gotcha") and not worth my time and energy ... as you noted. So ... perhaps I'll just stop responding to it again.

Debate me on something meaningful and topical and I'll respond. Otherwise/until then, I hereby banish you back to rube-ville and willl essentially ignore you.

Great! I love it when leftists give me immunity!

(I also love that you're trying to laugh this off, but I can virtually see your teeth clenched in rage every time you get your idiotic words thrown back at you... )



.
__________________
"When newspapers are controlled, it's amazing how ignorant and immune from pressure the government can be." -- Amartya Sen

--
JFrame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:45   #39
Glock30Eric
.45 ACP
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Southern Maryland
Posts: 3,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjv View Post
You can vote for anyone you want but the FACT is that only one of two people will become the next president.

If you don't like Obama, but you don't vote for the ONLY person who can replace him, you ARE helping Obama win.

Sorry if the truth hurts. .
You are feeding to that system: Only Obama or Romney will be the next President. You are trashing the US Constitution and you are feeding to that crap. Sorry that truth is more painful for you.

We are beyond of no return. Therefore I couldn't see any ways to reverse the system right now, so it is either you are feeding to it or to be opposite to it and stand up for the right cause.

Enjoy your cheerleadering for the destruction of America as we know.

Last edited by Glock30Eric; 10-04-2012 at 10:46..
Glock30Eric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:45   #40
wjv
Senior Member
 
wjv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 12,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post

The thing is, I don't know that a major change *can* be made given the facts on the ground. I would absolutely love for the vast majority of government to be cut down to nothing.
Unfortunately it takes time to turn things around. The Ron Paul supporters seem to believe that if Paul was elected, he would cut the budget in half on the first day and all would be fine.

But it doesn't work like that. When you dig a deep hole over several decades, it can take a long long time to climb out of that hole.

A person can run up thousands in CC debt in a short period of time. But it might take years to pay off that debt. The USA is in the same situation. We don't have any free (discretionary) money to "pay down" the debt.

Even cutting spending is a difficult task because of legal obligation that were incurred with that spending. Sure there is some low hanging fruit (PBS, Grants to study the sex life of the fruit fly). But the serious money will require total restructuring of programs such as SS and medicare, which no one has the guts to do. Especially Congress! And the President can't accomplish those types of changes without Congress. . .
__________________
Bill
Pacific NW


The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.
- H. L. Mencken -
wjv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:52   #41
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjv View Post
Unfortunately it takes time to turn things around. The Ron Paul supporters seem to believe that if Paul was elected, he would cut the budget in half on the first day and all would be fine.

But it doesn't work like that. When you dig a deep hole over several decades, it can take a long long time to climb out of that hole.

A person can run up thousands in CC debt in a short period of time. But it might take years to pay off that debt. The USA is in the same situation. We don't have any free (discretionary) money to "pay down" the debt.

Even cutting spending is a difficult task because of legal obligation that were incurred with that spending. Sure there is some low hanging fruit (PBS, Grants to study the sex life of the fruit fly). But the serious money will require total restructuring of programs such as SS and medicare, which no one has the guts to do. Especially Congress! And the President can't accomplish those types of changes without Congress. . .
I would just add that the "low hanging" fruit you refer to is largely mathematically irrelevant too. It might make us warm and fuzzy ... and sound REALLY good to the aforementioned "low information voters" in a debate ... but it is of no real fiscal consequence. Further .. a lot of the "low hanging fruit" cutting would arguably result in disproportionate "pain".

Last edited by douggmc; 10-04-2012 at 10:54..
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:53   #42
Glock30Eric
.45 ACP
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Southern Maryland
Posts: 3,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjv View Post
Unfortunately it takes time to turn things around. The Ron Paul supporters seem to believe that if Paul was elected, he would cut the budget in half on the first day and all would be fine.

But it doesn't work like that. When you dig a deep hole over several decades, it can take a long long time to climb out of that hole.

A person can run up thousands in CC debt in a short period of time. But it might take years to pay off that debt. The USA is in the same situation. We don't have any free (discretionary) money to "pay down" the debt.

Even cutting spending is a difficult task because of legal obligation that were incurred with that spending. Sure there is some low hanging fruit (PBS, Grants to study the sex life of the fruit fly). But the serious money will require total restructuring of programs such as SS and medicare, which no one has the guts to do. Especially Congress! And the President can't accomplish those types of changes without Congress. . .
Absolutely right on spot. The legislative branch of US is our weakest link. They could have easily denied/overrun everything that Obama, Bush, Clinton, Carter have done to America. They didn't and they have allowed it to happen in form as a representative for us.

Ron Paul as President and to replace majority of people in the legislative branch could make a big different in the path where we are heading to.

We could slow down Obama or Romney if we appoint right people in the legislative branch. I don't think that would ever happens.
Glock30Eric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:55   #43
wjv
Senior Member
 
wjv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 12,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock30Eric View Post
You are feeding to that system: Only Obama of Romney will be the next President. You are trashing the US Constitution and you are feeding to that crap. Sorry that truth is more painful for you.
Right now only Obama or Romney will be the next President. And that NOT TRASHING THE CONSTITUTION!

Trashing the Constitution is the Ron Paul supporters who's party:

- Failed to get a viable campaign organization
- Failed to get a viable candidate
- Failed to get any substantial vote in the primary
- Failed to get a candidate on the ballot

But now think their guy was somehow cheated and should be on the ballot anyway.

I would happily vote for a conservative third party candidate who got on the ballot via the CONSTITUTIONAL methods.

It can be done. Ross Perot almost did it, till he backed out.

You complain about the Rs and the Ds, but the Ls have their own set of problems that are stopping them from becoming mainstream. Maybe people don't want a foreign policy that says "withdraw from the rest of the world", or a drug policy that says "make it all legal". And what's Paul's view on immigration?

If you want to place blame, look at the people that the Ls are putting up as THEIR candidates.

Put somebody better up and maybe your party will actually get someone on the ballot. Till then, deal with reality. Obama or Romney will be the next President. Voting for a "snowball in hell chance of winning" candidate doesn't improve the situation, and it doesn't make a statement that anybody will bother listening to.
__________________
Bill
Pacific NW


The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.
- H. L. Mencken -

Last edited by wjv; 10-04-2012 at 10:58..
wjv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:58   #44
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,651
Silly but still funny ...
Political Issues
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 11:13   #45
beforeobamabans
FYPM
 
beforeobamabans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Crossroads of America
Posts: 5,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
Fair point, though I have heard it in other venues than GTPI. Regardless, I apologize for being overbroad.

The thing is, I don't know that a major change *can* be made given the facts on the ground.
Hey, no need to apologize, this is the Internet!

You're probably right that only gradualism will be acceptable to the masses but we can always hope for more, can't we?
__________________
G17, G26, G30SF, Gen4 G23

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." Ben Franklin
beforeobamabans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 11:15   #46
Goaltender66
NRA GoldenEagle
 
Goaltender66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the cultural penumbra of DC
Posts: 14,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
I appreciate and share some of your disenfranchisement with wasteful spending and bureaucratic crap. Your anecdote about the passport is spot on. I would say that I don't agree specifically with your D. of Ed. opinion though.

With that said though, both of those things (like doing away with the ~250 million dollar funding/year to "Big Bird") won't do SQUAT to our budget issues. It is simply mathematically impossible. You alluded to "bennies" though ... and I'll assume you mean SS/Medicare/Medicaid. Now THAT is the big bucket of spending that is meaningful ... along with DoD.

ONLY these two areas (entitlements and DoD) make up between 2/3 and 3/4 of our budget. We could cut the the rest of expenditures (25 - 30 of spending), and leave entitlements and DoD as is ... and STILL be running a deficit. So ... while it feels good to complain about D. of Ed., passports, and "Big Bird" ... it is nothing more than an illusion and meaningless.

I'm of the opinion that we need to:
a) Drastically cut DoD. Call me crazy ... but I'd be OK with a budget that doubles the next highest country's instead of one that is more than the next 5 combined. We could cut DoD spending by 50% and still be 2x more than the next country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures I'm ex-Military FWIW. I believe in appropriate use of military force and in peace through power ... i.e., walk softly and carry a big stick. But the MiC in this country is ridiculous and the false patriotic propaganda pushed by so many to perpetuate it "discusting" We need smart DoD spending. Not quantity over quality.

b) Means test SS. Sorry ... if you don't need it, you don't get it. In other words, on a scale based on net worth/income ... you index down the eligibility to receive SS benefits. This sucks ... I know. Somebody is gonna feel pain in some manner or another ... no way around it.

c) Raise SS eligibility age based on a scientific lifespan index assessment that is adjusted periodically. Dropping dead at 67 a couple years after you retire is not as common as it used to be. Thank Medicare! Nor can can we expect to retire at 62 (unless you've smartly self-funded your retirement) when we expect to live to 90+. So ... need to account for longer lifespans.

d) Return tax brackets to those during mid-90s. We are disingenuous to only take a spending cut approach to solve our problems. Hey .. after all ... a top bracket of 39% is way better than what we had during those wonderful booming 1950s we always refer to .. right? Those great days of economic growth and thriving middle class? Cough .. cough: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213
I dunno...I can't imagine keeping the Department of Education at the expense of the US Military.

That said, raising the retirement age is certainly a given, and Romney said as much in at least one primary debate. I don't know where we got the idea that when you're 65 you should automatically qualify for a life of leisure at least partially paid from the public dole, but there we go. And there's a valid point about means testing, but even there I see a political problem. In essence, means testing involves even more income redistribution in an already redistributive program. That makes it harder to scale down.

If it were me, I'd restructure the program thusly:

1) Stop requiring the SSA to invest collected fund in US Treasuries. This kind of accounting sleight-of-hand is what's complicating everything to begin with.

2) Come up with an age limit for inclusion in the current system. In other words, tell everyone who is 60+ "hey, you will continue to participate in SS as planned. Create another age tranche (say, 40-59) and offer up a choice: "we will repay to you every penny you've ever paid for Social Security, with which you may make tax-deferred investments in a 401(k) vehicle of your choosing, or just take the money and put it in a savings account." Expensive? Sure, but not as expensive as paying those people benefits for 25 years.

3) If you're under 40, gradually shift FICA contributions from the SS system to private investment vehicles, percentages weighted by age (younger have a higher % paid into SS, older have higher % into private investments) until the outstanding obligations are all paid off.

Theoretically we'd get to a point where we'd reimburse the younger folks for money paid into SS and we could end the program. There are certainly issues involved in this, but again at least it's a blueprint for a way out of this mess.

Inre military spending, the main conversation isn't that we have a large military but what we need it *for*. The reality is that we live in an unstable world where we are a target. I don't think Fortress America is a realistic concept, not any longer.

There are also some big problems with military cuts. Say for instance we decide we aren't going to buy any more tanks. Leaving aside the implications of shutting those factories down (unemployment, etc), what happens when we suddenly *need* a bunch of tanks? Our defense industry is full of brilliant people but it still takes a significant amount of time to spin up production of a tank. Specialized tooling needs to be put into place, qualified people need to be hired and trained, materials need to be procured, etc etc. And no contractor is going to let all of that capital sit idle.

Another factor is that of innovation. Continued spending into R&D feeds innovation that won't happen if we just continue a maintenance level of spending.

So yeah, military spending can be wasteful, and indeed I think it's inherently so (you were in the military and you've probably seen this firsthand). My suggestion is to look at the implications on the other side of the ledger...what risks do we face if we do not have a ready force with at least a somewhat active industry behind it?

Inre tax brackets, a 39% bracket is not a pro-growth tax rate. Clintonistas like to tout mid-90s tax rates as evidence of some kind of economic necessity, but I don't believe that's a valid argument. Remember, Clinton's tax rates were elevated from Reagan's tax rates and were also retroactive. If the goal is to gain revenue to help pay for Obama's spending spree, to me it seems far better to structure the tax code to encourage growth, which means lowering rates and removing deductions from the IRC. Increasing economic activity has the side effect of increasing tax revenue since the tax base has expanded. I don't think the tax base will expand with a 39% top marginal rate.
__________________
The US Air Force has started including tax protester literature in the emergency supplies of their aircraft. If the plane crashes in a remote area, the crew is instructed to read the pamphlets and Goalie will be along shortly to rebut them.

Last edited by Goaltender66; 10-04-2012 at 11:16..
Goaltender66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 11:18   #47
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjv View Post
Put somebody better up and maybe your party will actually get someone on the ballot. Till then, deal with reality.
To those who are going to whine and blame libertarians and blame just about everybody else in the world on November 6, I would like to say this:

Put somebody better up and maybe your party will actually win a presidential election. Till then, deal with reality.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 11:36   #48
marchboom
Senior Member
 
marchboom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 2,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
This Paulite thinks Romney won the debate. The thing is, he should have. Obama is so weak on economic and monetary issues that anyone could. I still won't vote for Romney because I don't trust his record and rhetoric but he did objectively win this debate. If he didn't then he would be the worst candidate ever.

My .02 as the GTPI Paul weathervane.
By not voting for Romney, you are supporting obama, whether you believe it or not. This election is not a game and it's not about who wins a debate. Its about whether or not we, as a nation, survive the way our founding fathers wanted it to.

We are down to 2 candidates and there just is no logical reason not to vote for Romney. obama will destroy this country.
__________________
NRA Life Member
VHA
NHRA
The obama administration and the democrat party...the ultimate in domestic corruption and dedicated to the destruction of the United States.
marchboom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 11:40   #49
kensb2
pistol n00b
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Apache, OK
Posts: 1,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
To those who are going to whine and blame libertarians and blame just about everybody else in the world on November 6, I would like to say this:

Put somebody better up and maybe your party will actually win a presidential election. Till then, deal with reality.
Uh, uh, my dad can beat up your dad!!
Or better yet, 'I'm rubber and you're glue. Things bounce off of me and stick to you".

How are you going to just regurgitate the exact same info? You'd likely gain more credibility here if you actually attempted to defend your side of the ball in an intelligent manner, rather than do what you did.
kensb2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 11:41   #50
JMag
Senior Member
 
JMag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: USA:Love it or leave!
Posts: 11,013


What Romney showed last night was that he was not (nor Obama) the caricature the MSM has created and he has the tools to get the job done. Anyone refusing to recognize that is simply not wanting to admit the obvious or simply incapable of it.
__________________
JMag
"The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
Sir Winston Churchill
JMag is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 22:08.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,342
375 Members
967 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42