dagblog - Comments for "To A Billion And Beyond!"

And I'm saying your assertion

kgb999 — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:56:10 +0000

In reply to Where do I say that had we

And I'm saying your assertion is unsustainable. Politicians would totally be fighting over whether to raise the debt ceiling. Democrats held both the House and Senate not long ago at all ... name ONE thing that passed they didn't fight over. Truth is if Democrats had been given control of the House, you'd just be explaining how a lack of super-duper-ultra majority in the Senate means that Obama has to give away the farm.

We're in this mess because ideologues and those afraid of losing the next election aren't willing to address a situation that unless it is dealt with will become a real serious problem down the road.

Those who argue against slashing benefits do so based on the belief that it is horrible policy and would cause tons on unnecessary pain for some of the most vulerable Americans. Your faction is the one that is bereft of any moral compass and justifies everything based on a need to win the next election. You are projecting again. The fact that it's political suicide is just a side-observation.

Obama's debt commission explicitly noted that Social Security has absolutely nothing to do with the deficit. And it also has nothing to do with the debt ceiling (any more than China does). Obama's commission went well outside it's mandate of addressing the national debt specifically based on the long-held religion of some of the most notorious ideologues in America ... and now Obama is embracing these ideologues who violated the public trust.

There isn't a crisis in Social Security until a credible source presents the math to prove it is a crisis. In that regard, your position on Social Security is more like the inverse of those concerned about Global Warming - there is no science to support those who want to destroy it (e.g. you). For Social Security math shows the absolute worst possible outcome in the event the economy never comes back and the rich keep refusing to pay in it that there would have to be a 20% reduction in benefits ... two decades down the road. That's a decades-distant tax increase (+1.53% to the FICA match, worst case). Not. A. Crisis.

The most hilarious part is that you call those against cutting self-funded social safety net programs with zero debate as part of an entirely unrelated negotiation over requirements to sustain general expenditures ... ideologues. That's fucking rich.

To me an ideologue playing politics because of electoral concerns is someone who, when McConnell offered a plan to cleanly raise the debt ceiling, refuses thus:

"It doesn't reduce the deficit and that's what we have to do. It just deals with the debt limit. Now Sen. McConnell wants me to wear the jacket for that."

So, to be really clear here. Obama acknowledges that the GOP has offered to deal with only the debt ceiling and none of the other nonsense. Obama flat out refused. Why? Because he doesn't want to "wear the jacket" of raising national debt. Isn't that the very definition of making a decision out of fear of losing the next election? And now he is back today demanding means testing for Medicare. Who's really playing chicken here? Obama is the one who won't let the debt limit raise without gutting Medicare. It's not the GOP.

If the Republicans are on the

brewmn — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:25:27 +0000

In reply to Oh. And Eric Cantor is

If the Republicans are on the verge of collapse, don't you think it makes sense to let that happen before we turn our guns on the not-liberal-enough leaders of the Demcoratic Party?

Funny, when Obama does

brewmn — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:18:34 +0000

In reply to Don't see too many Hogs in

Funny, when Obama does something you don't like, it's because he's an evil, thoroughly corrupt corporatist doing the bidding of Wall Street. When Harry Reid does something you don't like, even though he's never been anybody's idea of an FDR liberal, it's because Obama is an evil, thoroughly corrupt corporatist doing the bidding of Wall Street.

Politically speaking, Obama

kgb999 — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 08:09:04 +0000

In reply to And you missing my point. I

Politically speaking, Obama can hardly be called a rookie just completing his first six quarters.

That said, I would argue players just don't do what you describe WITHOUT perfect schemes drawn up by the coaches, talent holding the ball that executes flawlessly and an offensive line that opens up a sweet lane that they then capitalize on for maximum gain. Taking your view, it would kind of make Obama a showboating a-hole who takes credit for the execution of a team - like a TO.

Viewing the acquisition of money as the basis for defining a politician's game is another thing that really sucks. To me it just highlights there is nothing different or special about Obama - he's just a sold-out POS like the rest of them and leading the Democrats to more of the same. Congratulations on your boy being more effectively corrupt than the other side has yet managed to be. Go team!

Don't get me wrong, I know money is needed for a campaign. But this the only thing that can be called an impressive achievement Obama has produced for "our" side ... a side that used to include a lot of people who aren't Democrats (though far fewer these days). Non-dems didn't really see having a party rake in hand-over-fist cash as the purpose for electing Obama. Independents aren't monolithic, but I'm pretty confident going out on that limb for us. The priorities are all political bullshit.

Don't see too many Hogs in

kgb999 — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:15:00 +0000

In reply to Well that reminds me of Timmy

Don't see too many Hogs in front of the 'skins offense these days either.

Reid blocks for Obama like crazy. Pisses me off.

I'm all for reform of

Elusive Trope — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:28:42 +0000

In reply to You sound like Orin Hatch.

I'm all for reform of corporate tax law so they definitely pay their more than fair share of the tax burden. But I don't think asking an individual who is making 60K a year with health benefits to pay a little more to help pay for a national healthcare system and not continue to increase the debt, so that it becomes a problem in 2020, is asking too much. I make much less than that and would be willing to kick in a little more to help those with low low incomes or no income. I don't care if the wages are flat (I haven't seen a raise in years myself). A national health care system is a mega-pricey endeavor. And since I don't see a practical or realistic way to make companies stay in our country, I don't see doing it solely through the corporations as feasible. There just aren't that many GEs and Exxons out there to tap. I know in my next of the woods, there aren't any of those corporations who sitting on trillions. I do know there are people who are giving hundred and thousands of dollars to nonprofits who are having to fill the gaps in services the government can't provide. It makes no sense to me (as someone who works in the nonprofit world) to fight the government taking $250 in taxes and then turn around and give the free health clinic $1,500 because the piecemeal system is less efficient.

Well that reminds me of Timmy

Donal — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:17:32 +0000

In reply to And you missing my point. I

Well that reminds me of Timmy Smith. As a 'Skin, he rushed for 204 yards in SuperBowl XXII, but only ran for 602 yards in his career. Having the Hogs in front of him blowing away the Bronco's defensive blockers was a big help. Don't see too many Hogs in front of Obama though there may be some behind the scenes.

Where do I say that had we

Elusive Trope — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:16:31 +0000

In reply to Haven't we already

Where do I say that had we sent the Dems more control that there would nothing but gumdrops and rainbows. I am saying we wouldn't be fighting over whether to raise the debt ceiling. I seriously doubt Nancy P. would be telling Obama that unless he makes even bigger cuts, the Dems in the House aren't going to raise the debt limit.

The Dems would screwing around probably, arguing over minor tweaks to health care, or whether to have another stimulus. Of course, had the Dems grew their majorities in 2010, it would have sent the message that indeed Obama and the Dems did NOT go to far to the left. We would be listening to Grayson and not tea party hacks.

And I am not of the crowd that believes to modify SS does not equate gutting it. The Commission recommended some needed improvements, including to those who have to retire early because their jobs put more punishment on the body than other jobs. I don't believe to give inch on SS means inevitably and quickly a mile will be taken. Reform of SS is not always an attack. The same goes for medicare, the defense budget, etc.

We're in this mess because ideologues and those afraid of losing the next election aren't willing to address a situation that unless it is dealt with will become a real serious problem down the road. Unfortunately, too many people treat this all like they treat the climate change. It ain't a crisis until trees are bursting into flames or the sea swallows LA. Why do today what can kicked down the road ten years (because by then suddenly politicians will be able to quickly deal with complex issues).

And you missing my point. I

Elusive Trope — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:57:00 +0000

In reply to I don't get your point. The

And you missing my point. I am not saying that this represents an overwhelming mandate-confirming endorsement from the entire caucus.

Let me use a sports analogy: a rookie running back that no one gave a chance to make the team runs for 314 yards in his first game, breaking the single game record for any running back at any career point. During his second game, in the first two quarters he scampers for 163 yards, putting him on pace to blow past his first game. I say that is pretty impressive, and indicates the kid might have some serious game. Dan pipes in and says so what, there are still 62 quarters left in the season and as far as a career total, 477 yards pales in comparison to Emmitt Smith's record of 18,355 yards.

The kid may end being a bust, or he might blow out his knee, or he might go on to a so-so career, or he might end up setting season records and career records for a running back. Who knows. But an running who is able to put up 477 yards in 6 quarters deserves attention because guys just don't do that regardless of the schemes the coaches have drawn up and the talent holding the ball and blocking for the guy.

Pat on the back as you seem

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:36:13 +0000

In reply to Haven't we already

Pat on the back as you seem to be fighting this battle all alone.

It becomes increasingly dysfunctional to deny what the president himself affirms.

No one seems to even understand what the message is. Just, "everthing on the chopping block". Chop all night, sand in the day.