Monday, March 03, 2014

Flexibility is good. Sometimes.

Obama: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”
Medvedev: “I understand, I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

If Russia acts like pooheads in Ukraine, Lil' Obama will stamp his feet, glare at the cameras menacingly, and threaten actions he cannot possibly back up. Well, what a mess the low information, feel good, "your just racist!" electorate have dropped on us.

58 comments:

CrabbyOldMan said...

The quality of our public officials reflects the quality of the voters. Someone said that the country gets the leaders it deserves.
What if we had the following requirements to be eligible to vote or hold public office:
1. A photo I.D., 2. Filed current tax return, 3. Not a felon 4. Not a bankrupt 5. No public assistance within the past however many years 6. Not delinquent on taxes 7. Passed literacy test 8. Not mentally incompetent 9. No bad military discharge 10. Not delinquent on any government guaranteed loan...

Tater said...

Crabby, you forgot 11. Not born in Kenya

Later!

jim marquis said...

So, what's your solution? Should we ready the launch codes?

Haverwilde said...

Jim has a good idea. Let's ready the launch codes.
Target: Washington D.C. nobody would miss those sons and daughters of bitches that are destroying this nation.

SoLow said...

Hey Crabby - I got convicted of a felony in 1993 after a gay man placed his hands on my testicles and politely offered me the best "oral sex" I had ever received. (You do the math on what the felony charge was...) I subsequently got discharged from the USMC (against my will) with a General Under Honorable Conditions classification. I have a photo ID, I file my taxes annually, I'm not bankrupt, I've never been on public assistance, I consider myself quite literate and mentally competent.

Are you really saying I shouldn't have the right to vote?

CrabbyOldMan said...

Please correct me if I am wrong SoLow.
According to the story you told last time, you and your buddies were leading a fag along to sponge drinks. Then you all left the bar and the fag made his move (surprise, surprise) so you then beat the shit out of him.
That got you a felony assault conviction and a discharge other than the normal honorary one.
Do I have this wrong?
If I am not substantially correct, I hereby apologize.
If I am correct, no and you should not unless and until you are pardoned.

rbb said...

Maybe he should just look into his eyes to get a sense of his soul.

Ya know, like the last guy did.

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.

"I was able to get a sense of his soul.

I'm sure that help a lot when pooheads invaded Georgia.

free0352 said...

My solution is don't make idle threats of "consequences" or "red lines" unless indeed you are ready to activate the launch codes.

Idle threats make you look reeeeealy weak. And in turn, when Obama does that it makes all of America look weak.

But what can be expected of Democrats, who are a case study in estrogen.

free0352 said...

Sorry SoLow, I don't think felons should vote.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Everyone else with common sense agrees with Free0352's comments about threats. Sadly, Jug Ears and the War Hero have no common sense.

Nate said...

These comments are big on rhetoric, small on solutions. Typical of the Republican party at the moment.

SoLow said...

I think Crabby was a DA in his past life... He surely speaks as if he was.

Haverwilde said...

Nate is occasionally correct. The GOP is not big on solutions. In fact the GOP old guard is almost as big a source of the problems facing this country as the democrats.
It is humorous, in a black humor sort of way, that he keeps defending his right to be enslaved by the democratic socialist regime that now controls this country.
Obama leads the most corrupt administration in American history.

Nate said...

Haverwilde,

The reality is that the conservative movement is a victim of its own success. Taxes dropped, the government (overall) has shrunk and "big" government is now thoroughly distrusted (if not discredited). Alas it seems that Americans as a whole still want their medicare, and social security checks (talk to leeching old man about that). It looks like we'll have to pay for it. Maybe U.S. companies will shell out, since they've cut their pension programs. Haha cough they are too busy shifting their tax revenue to Ireland (marginal rate <5%).

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit, the Left has left us with a lot of turds that just will NOT flush down.
You are correct that even the fools and parasites are coming to understand that big government sounds good in the faculty lounges but is a bad idea in the real world.
I have shown that FDR's Social Security was and remains a bad deal, and I have said I would gladly take the cash I and my employers have loaned the government in exchange for my "insurance" benefits. Ditto for JFK's medicare.
Does someone have to explain why it would be a good idea to make the taxes in the U.S. as competitive as Ireland's?

CrabbyOldMan said...

" ...big on rhetoric, small on solutions." is the last thing I would have expected to hear from one of Jug Ears' supporters. The irony is just staggering!

Nate said...

Does someone have to explain why it would be a good idea to make the taxes in the U.S. as competitive as Ireland's?

Well, if you are willing to accept a 41% marginal rate for people earning above $58k, and a 20% rate for income below then we too could treat our corporations so generously!

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit, are you saying that you would rather see money invested in Ireland than in the United States?
The high individual tax rates in Ireland would be required to pay for the welfare state.
I guess that the Irish figured out that investment increases the income available to tax waaay more than confiscating and consuming (via social programs)the income that otherwise would have been invested. You're such a nit.

Nate said...

LOM,

On the contrary, of course I want to see investment continue in the US. However I don't think you understand how this works. These companies aren't investing in Ireland, any more than they invested in other the Cayman islands. Multinationals that do most of their business in countries like the U.S. create subsidiaries in tax havens (like Ireland), and assign them intellectual property (patents and such). They then assign arbitrary royalties to the subsidiary that correspond roughly to their profits in higher tax regions. Thus on the books, the multinational is barely profitable in the higher tax region and extraordinarily profitable in the tax haven. Thus since companies (unlike you and I) pay taxes on profits, they shift the profits to low tax regions and avoid taxes in the U.S.

This isn't about investment, or competition, this is about tax cheats that love to use U.S. infrastructure, education systems, and talent but refuse to pay for it.

Haverwilde said...

Nate, Nate, Nate:

"The reality is that the conservative movement is a victim of its own success....... the government (overall) has shrunk"

Is this another of the Left's 'up is down,' 'black is white,' 'War is peace,' kind of statements? We have had a decade of the most explosive growth in government in my lifetime.

Soon we will be borrowing 1/2 of every dollar spent... That is not a conservative victory, that is a victory for the corrupt politics of the left.

Rickvid in Seattle said...

Nice to see the children and adults playing again.
Funny how the leftists smirk so and think themselves so smugly superior when chiding about conservatives taking social security, Medicare, and other payments from programs we often deride. They think they have us pegged as hypocrites. What their pea brains, seared consciences, and integrity-challenged thinking omits is that the government took the money from us by force in the first place. Somehow it is supposed to be some moral deficiency to take back a modicum of what we might have had if left to our own devices. Lefties seem to think that it is the place of government to be Big Charity, taking care of people’s day-to-day lives, and that they are doing a really good job of it. However, the efficiency level of government programs, on the whole, would lead to prison time for charity execs.
The left takes it from us, suing men with guns in the end, and gets all snotty when we want some of it back. Pissants, the whole lot of them.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Oh Nit!!
You’re the last one on this planet who should be telling someone else that they don’t know how things work.
OF COURSE the multinationals shift income to the countries with the lowest tax rates. I find it funny when you regurgitate something that is obvious to even the moderately well informed like it is some cosmic revelation.
Would you rather the U.S. government get, say, 5% of something rather than 25% of nothing?
By the way, you can’t call anyone a tax “cheat” who does not violate the law. Tax cheats are to be found among those of the Messiah’s Disciples who did not bother to file a return or else falsified what they did file.

free0352 said...

These comments are big on rhetoric, small on solutions. Typical of the Republican party at the moment

Solution? Doing and saying nothing was the solution. How hard is it to just keep your yap shut? It isn't hard. Put out some statement like "The United States is closely monitoring the situation in Ukraine. We expect all nations to abide by international law." Period, that's it. No more.

And as for doing something, simply reactivate the initiative to install the missile shield thing. Speaking softly, and caring a big stick. Democrats speak loudly, and carry cotton balls.



Nate said...

Would you rather the U.S. government get, say, 5% of something rather than 25% of nothing?

There are hundreds of companies that can't take advantage of this trick to shift revenue to tax havens, and we can't just change the corporate tax rate for multinationals and not for everyone else.

Ireland and the U.S. have approximately the same tax burden (~20%) of GDP, and in Ireland individuals start paying 41% at $58k, while the U.S. federal rate only goes up to 39.6% for people making $406k. Ireland's low corporate taxes require high income taxes for tax revenue. The broad question is where should we derive our tax revenue?

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nate, stop being such an ignorant turd and think about why Ireland has the tax structure it does.
Do you think it could have something to do with starting at being an underdeveloped country with very high unemployment that desperately wanted to bring in investment and thereby create (and retain) jobs?
Do you think that Irish politicians had blown enough smoke up the asses of the working class over several generations to addict them to an expensive welfare state?
Let's think about this for a minute. What would the solution be?
But naw, that couldn't be right. It must be that the Koch brothers and the Irish conspired to find a way to let eeeviil corporations (from all over the world) avoid paying their rightful share of leftard follies.

Nate said...

LOM,
Ireland's unemployment rate is 12.5%, which puts it in the bottom tier of unemployment in the EU near the likes of Greece.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_unemployment_rate

I don't think there is any evidence that correlates corporate tax rate and unemployment. However look who I'm talking to. Conservatives don't trust that science crap.

Haverwilde said...

Nate: "Ireland's unemployment rate is 12.5%, which puts it in the bottom tier of unemployment in the EU near the likes of Greece." Which puts Ireland one step above the US. The government's figures are a joke. The Wall Street Journals figure of 37% is way too high. A better figure is about 13%
Thanks to your lord and master Obama. He is making sure that the chains of poverty will continue so that you leftist will have a plantation population in order to maintain power.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit, don't trust that science crap. is an amazing comment from a Disciple.
Nit, assume that you want to invest your money in a widget factory somewhere. Would you be interested in what the highest marginal tax rate is for each possible choice or what the total tax burden is?

See pages 348 and 349 of http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2002/11/cj22n2-9.pdf

It can be seen that the total tax rate is the variable with the greatest relative importance. The standard regression coefficient of about 1 implies that a total tax rate of about 1 implies that a total tax rate of one standard deviation above the mean is related to a long term unemployment rate that is about 3.25 percentage points higher.
The aim of this study is to assess the impact of taxation on unemployment…the total tax rate turned out to be a significant and important determinant of the total, short-term and long-term unemployment rate.
Additional calculations revealed that a reduction of the total tax rate of about one standard deviation…leads to a reduction in long term unemployment in the order of 3.2 percentage points.

I assume everybody is familiar with “Figures don’t lie, but liars use figures”.
All those counter intuitive arguments that compare unemployment with the highest marginal corporate tax rates in an attempt to “prove” that high corporate taxes do not depress employment are just more fibs by leftist charlatans to convince the stupid and the gullible.

Nate said...

LOM,

In your twisted mind, poverty was first invented in the Lyndon Johnson administration.

assume that you want to invest your money in a widget factory somewhere. Would you be interested in what the highest marginal tax rate is for each possible choice or what the total tax burden is?

According to the tax laws, it doesn't seem to matter much, since the income can be shifted to the lowest tax region.

That is an interesting whitepaper, although I'll admit to not having the time to read it in its entirety (some of us have to work to support leechers like yourself). However the synopsis indicates the relationship is between taxation rate and unemployment. However you are arguing that corporate taxes are singularly responsible, since Ireland has high individual income taxes to make up for their lack of corporate tax. Again, my fundamental question is who should pay the taxes?

is an amazing comment from a Disciple

What is amazing to me is that one party can't agree on discoveries made in the middle of the 19th century (evolution), that humans behavior impacts the climate of world we live in, and that the universe wasn't created in 7 days.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit, no one has ever claimed Landslide Lyndon invented poverty, but many have demonstrated that he made it worse.
The article looked at variables that include the degree of unionization, the degree of government regulation of labor markets and the tax burden. All act to increase unemployment. The tax burden was the MOST influential. Kindly point out where I said the tax burden is singularly responsible.
It is interesting to note that all the practices that increase unemployment are those very things advocated by the supposed champions of the working man!
The problem the Irish apparently addressed was choosing between paying low taxes on an unemployment check of high ones on actual wages.
My fundamental answer is that one first has to have an income with which to pay any taxes.
What would be wrong with a flat tax whereby everyone pays at the same rate on all income?
I don’t know what the hell you are trying to say in your final paragraph. I pay no attention to religious arguments that are founded in faith, since I am not a religious person. That applies to both creationism and global warming, as both are faith based beliefs contrary to fact.

Nate said...

no one has ever claimed Landslide Lyndon invented poverty, but many have demonstrated that he made it worse.

Do you have any evidence for that? Most indications are that poverty has stayed mostly stable for 1960s-2008 or so despite increased competition with foreign unskilled labor, especially since China's MFN status in the WTO.

What would be wrong with a flat tax whereby everyone pays at the same rate on all income?

As long as we define income (i.e. revenue) the same for everyone, this might be ok. Otherwise the flat tax would annihilate the working class, since the percentage would be close to double what they pay now.

CrabbyOldMan said...

SEE http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/27/the-2nd-most-memorable-sotu-lbj-declares-war-on-poverty/
January 8, 1964 Landslide Lyndon’s State of the Union Address:
This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America … Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it. ( emphasis mine) No single piece of legislation, however, is going to suffice.”
And so he and a heavily Democratic Congress crafted legislation that created Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, Head Start, Job Corps, VISTA and Title I – programs that still exist today…

ALSO SEE http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/08/war-on-poverty-50-years-on-victory-nowhere-in-sight/

Five decades later, the war is far from won, and Uncle Sam is nowhere near resting. Back in 1964, 36 million Americans lived in poverty; today it's close to 47 million. Of course, the U.S. population has grown dramatically over the last 50 years, and the percentage of Americans in poverty has declined in that time span, from 19 percent to 15 percent.
What's more, the percentage of children living in poverty is essentially unchanged since 1964, and by some estimates, Uncle Sam has spent $15 trillion on anti-poverty programs over the last five decades. Indeed, as a percentage of federal outlays, such spending has soared by 286 percent since LBJ’s day.
One other factor also bears mentioning: Radical changes in culture and faith since the 1960s, and the attendant consequences on family structures, earnings potential and government spending. In 1964, only 11 percent of Americans families with children were headed by a single parent. By 2012, that figure had risen to 35 percent: more than a third of all American households.


Keep in mind "not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it."
Can anybody seriously claim that the problem is not worse?

Haverwilde said...



Nate said: "What is amazing to me is that one party can't agree on discoveries made in the middle of the 19th century (evolution), that humans behavior impacts the climate of world we live in, and that the universe wasn't created in 7 days."
One small part of the GOP is denying reality because of religion.

Whereas, The entire leftist organization is denying reality. So don't be surprised Crabby if Nate can't see the truth in your posting. It is against his Leftist Religion. And he might have to question the fundamental basis of his leftist religion. He is very much like those religious fanatics he pokes fun at.

Nate said...

Can anybody seriously claim that the problem is not worse?

The decrease in poverty as a percentage of population seems to be an indication that it is better not worse.

The problem isn't solved, and like the "wars" on drugs, terrorism, it probably never will be. The question is whether these programs have a measurable positive impact, and whether they could be replaced by more effective ones, normalizing for other systematic impacts. Beyond this question, I wonder if they help economic mobility. It is certainly possible that programs that improves the likelihood that poor people become rich and middle class are worth supporting.


Haverwilde said...

Nate, if you really want to "improve(s) the likelihood that poor people become rich and middle class...."
Then you will have to join the GOP or the Libertarians. Every act the Democrats make is meant to perpetuate poverty. It is the source of their power!
I have spent my professional life watching the leftist demand every benefit they can scrounge for the poor, except the benefit of upward mobility. I worked with Public Assistance asking them to only provide the means to get jobs and access the 'American Dream.' I was thwarted by the Democratic power base that wants the poor to remain poor, as a means to maintain their power.
So, you have a choice. Work for what is best for America, or work to support the leftist regime in power. I know I am wasting my time stating this. You have already made up your mind. You are a Leftist. you cannot accept the fact that your side is dead wrong.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit:
1. relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it
2. Back in 1964, 36 million Americans lived in poverty; today it's close to 47 million
3. What's more, the percentage of children living in poverty is essentially unchanged since 1964,

Wasn't "1." supposed to have halted the increase in the absolute number of poor, particularly poor children?

Doesn't "2." show that the curing and preventing was just more of Lying Lyndon's hot air?

Does the same percentage of a larger number mean that there are actually more poor children now?

Am I correct that someone (Einstein?) said something like madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

Nate said...

LOM,

Are you just stupid or or did you just completely ignore the argument that percentage of the population is are more meaningful metric than absolute numbers? Why do you keep arguing against strawmen?

Maybe this has more to do with poverty than government programs?

Nate said...

Then you will have to join the GOP or the Libertarians. Every act the Democrats make is meant to perpetuate poverty. It is the source of their power!

I frankly refuse to believe that any significant percentage of Americans are purposefully dependent on government aid. I believe that the vast majority of Americans use the safety net to help pull themselves out of poverty and avoid the most disastrous consequences (malnutrition, homelessness) of job loss, disability and injury.

I have spent my professional life watching the leftist demand every benefit they can scrounge for the poor, except the benefit of upward mobility.

What do you propose? Nations that have a great deal of inequality also don't have economic mobility.

I was thwarted by the Democratic power base that wants the poor to remain poor, as a means to maintain their power.

Do elaborate on some details on this one.

CrabbyOldMan said...

I point out (for those who haven’t guessed, that I am probably as disdainful of organized religion as Nit is.
Havirwilde said …Nate can't see the truth…It is against his Leftist Religion. And he might have to question the fundamental basis of his leftist religion. He is very much like those religious fanatics he pokes fun at.
Then Nit proved what Havirwilde said by.I frankly refuse to BELIEVE that any significant percentage of Americans are purposefully dependent on government aid.
One only has to look at history to destroy Nit’s belief. It makes me wonder if he has a clue why experts so strongly discourage feeding wild animals.
Nit, has it occurred to you that Krugman’s chart (to which you link) supports the argument that welfare discourages many at the lower levels to work at all, thereby driving down the average?
Well if ya can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with bullshit Krugman!
Some farmer math: 799 billion dollars (2012) / 47 million “poor people” = 17,000 per person.
This article is worth reading in its entirety:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/over-60000-welfare-spentper-household-poverty_657889.html#
New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note...

Even if the numbers were only half what the Republicans claim, they still demonstrate that your religion is a false faith. See Einstein.
I did completely ignore your argument that percentage of the population is are more meaningful metric than absolute numbers. I did so because the amount of the relative “improvement”, about 25% of the starting number, is insignificant considering the staggering cost and all the other things we could have done with the money. The numbers strongly suggest to me that most of it went to middle class wrist patters and paper shufflers who feed at the public teat.

Haverwilde said...

Well Nate, as I said your religion will not allow you to believe that your Leftist policies are dead wrong. So you said “I frankly refuse to believe that any significant percentage of Americans are purposefully dependent on government aid.” I never said that, I said you Leftist are ‘purposefully’ making a ‘significant percentage of Americana’ dependent on government aid! But again your Leftist religion trumps all. The Leftist ‘safety net’ is now a lifestyle.

“Nations that have a great deal of inequality also don't have economic mobility” that is Bull Shit!
You don’t build economic mobility by stealing more wealth from the rich, but by building upward mobility in the masses of folks. That has nothing to do with inequality. It is not a ‘zero sum game’ that the Left believes.

To answer your question Nate:
Psychological and Economic principles come into play.
You reward behaviors and outcomes you wish to increase, and you punish, tax, or charge for behaviors and outcomes you want to decrease.
You pay to get your car repaired, you praise your child for good behavior. You scold a child for bad behavior, society fines bad behavior like speeding, or punishes bad behavior like stealing.

So what do leftists do: They reward people on the dole, and punish people who try to get off it. Perhaps not by a stated policy, but by the effect of the rules the Left has established.
Government assistance, Food stamps–now convertible to cash, Section 8 housing, Free health insurance. So how does one break free of that?

I know the housing scene very well. Full time workers in grocery stores, big box stores, seafood industry living in small one bedroom apartments. Next door, Section 8 housing, much nicer units, renting for almost twice as much. But the tenants only pay a small percentage of that housing cost. In fact, it is Section 8 housing that is the device that jacks up the rents. The maximum amount that Section 8 will pay, becomes the starting point for rents. It is only substandard units that rent for less.

You want me to elaborate on details of how the Democratic power base keeps people poor.
I worked at a One-stop center. Job Service, Public Assistance etc. We know that the best time to catch a person from going into long term public assistance is right at the beginning. So we asked that there be a change. When someone comes in for assistance the focus should be getting the person the financial, educational, and support needed to gain employment. Not focusing on every program, entitlement, etc. for which the person could apply.
The management set the vision, and the Leftist workers, thwarted it at every opportunity.
I have no problem with a safety net. We need one. But when a person needs to get a job paying $4,000 a month to equal what they get on assistance, it is not a safety net it is a lifestyle.

Nate said...

Haver,

It is pretty hard to force government aid down people's throats.

$4k a month in assistance? Unemployment is $480 a month in the Commonwealth of Virginia.


They reward people on the dole, and punish people who try to get off it.

Are you in favor of a universal minimum income? This mitigates that outcome. I'm open to this idea.

The Leftist ‘safety net’ is now a lifestyle.

Welfare is only available for five years. Not exactly a long term approach to living.


One only has to look at history to destroy Nit’s belief. It makes me wonder if he has a clue why experts so strongly discourage feeding wild animals.

Oh so are you comparing the working class to animals? What is this history you are referring to?

My favorite part of this whole debate is that my statement that I believe in the American people constitutes a religious belief. I guess you folks don't really know what a religion is, and I suppose that I believe in the nation and the people that make it great makes me a... communist?!?!? I guess you have to believe you live in a nation full of leechers to be a true 'merican. A leftist simultaneously believes that we need to enslave people to government aid and that Americans are too great of a people to become reliant on aforementioned aid.

Haverwilde said...

Nate,
You really are as much as an asshole as I thought you were.

Every statement you made is a nasty spin on serious comments.
"It is pretty hard to force government aid down people's throats." But you can make it so they can choose to get off the aid.

"Welfare is only available for five years. Not exactly a long term approach to living." Bull Shit, I have friends who have been on some sort of assistance for 15 years!

"My favorite part of this whole debate is that my statement that I believe in the American people constitutes a religious belief."
Your adherence to the failed policies of the Left in the belief that they are effective is the Religion! You don't believe in America, if you did, yor would not be supporting the fascist regime in power that is actively destroying America!

Nate said...

Haver,

You really are as much as an asshole as I thought you were.

I think I take on the character of whatever group I'm a part of.

Your adherence to the failed policies of the Left in the belief that they are effective is the Religion!

I'm open to new ideas, however the only idea I see coming from the right is to destroy the safety net. Funny how you've ignored any suggestions for new policies. Who again is the asshole?

You don't believe in America, if you did, yor would not be supporting the fascist regime in power that is actively destroying America!

Fascist. I don't that word means what you think it means. The ideological and unyielding house of representatives seems more intent on forcing its agenda on the the rest of America regardless of the consequences. They also seem intent on forcing dysfunction in the government. It seems like a cynical ploy to accomplish their agenda.



CrabbyOldMan said...

I'm open to new ideas, however the only idea I see coming from the right is to destroy the safety net.You forgot to include "before it destroys us".

Funny how you've ignored any suggestions for new policies.
There have been lots of alternatives suggested here over several years, but they are apparently blasphemy to your faith and so you have ignored them

Nate said...

Bold doesn't make you right LOM.

You forgot to include "before it destroys us".

Quite ironic from the guy taking checks from the government every month. Are you contributing to destruction of America?

What I don't understand LOM, is why it should be acceptable for younger generations to pay for a certain level of payout however they shouldn't expect to get the same level of benefits that you do? This is my stipulation for cutting SS -- any cuts to future payouts need to visited on those who currently receive them.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Apparently reading comprehension along with severe memory loss are among Nit's other mental disabilities.
I have said over and over that social security has been a very bad deal for me, and that I would be happy to exchange my social security "benefits" for the "premiums"(together with the earnings I would have received at what the market has earned)I and my employers had to pay for those "benefits".

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit has indicated that he is disdainful of religion, perhaps even more disdainful than I am. The difference is that Nit practices the Lefty religion rather than Christianity, Judaism or whatever.
None of Nits core beliefs stand up to scrutiny any better than those of fundamentalist Christians (I am somewhat familiar with Christianity).
Let’s compare what Nit apparently subscribes to with what Christian Fundamentalist do:
(1) Some Christians accept Creationism as a matter of faith. Nit and his Lefty ilk believe as a matter of faith that economics is a zero sum game. That is, the rich can be rich only at the expense of the poor. Just as God created the world about six thousand years ago, everything the rich have rightfully belongs to the poor.
(2) Most Christians accept the magical aspects of religion (the Immaculate Conception, the dead coming back to life, divine intervention etc.) as a matter of faith. Nit and his lefty ilk believe, as a matter of faith, that central planning and social engineering enforced by government will produce a Kingdom of Heaven.
(3) Both groups have shown that they are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause that there is very little they will NOT do to force everyone else into their tent.
I am not hopeful that Nit will ever see the light. The Lefty religion requires that to be one of the flock, converts must be gullible and poorly informed, with a childish world view, and, above all, easily controlled by the Elders.

Nate said...

I have said over and over that social security has been a very bad deal for me, and that I would be happy to exchange my social security "benefits" for the "premiums"(together with the earnings I would have received at what the market has earned)I and my employers had to pay for those "benefits".

This is fucking meaningless and frankly idiotic, and you have repeatedly failed to understand why this comparison is not a good one. Your 401k would have been worth nothing had you been injured at age 30, even with the SS contributions. However SS includes things like disability benefits, and support for your children should you die (ask Paul Ryan about that).

You claim that entitlements are destroying America yet you are one of the people collecting them. Either grow a pair and return your checks or quit fucking whining about other people getting paid, because they've paid into the system too.

For fucks sake you are dense. Religion is an organized set of beliefs that relate humanity to existence. Political orientation drives how a person believes the nation should be governed. Understand the difference? Do you understand now why your last post is meaningless?

Good. I don't like to take people behind the woodshed, but you deserved it.

I have to admit I secretly hope that the Tea Party takes control and they gut the entitlements. Leaching old man will regain his title of really Crabby old man, and I'll bet he'll be really annoyed as a walmart greeter.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit, I don't like to take people behind the woodshed, but you deserved it. is laughable.
I agree that Religion is an organized set of beliefs that relate humanity to existence. Political orientation drives how a person believes the nation should be governed
Apparently the fact that the political left and the religious fundamentalists BOTH accept a system of beliefs whose premises rest upon on faith rather than fact went right over your head.
I‘m dense?
I say again that I will be glad to return the checks if the government will return all those “premiums”. It is particularly amusing that you continue to quack about Social Security. Social Security was enacted by the left. The left crowed about their “accomplishment” for years, and now you get your undies in a bunch when what opponents said would happen has happened. Ditto for Medicare.
Nit, I’m not sure what the hell you mean byYour 401k would have been worth nothing had you been injured at age 30, even with the SS contributions.
Are you saying that my 401k balance would have disappeared? If you think that is so, you need more help than I have imagined up to now. What I think you probably meant is that the 401k would have had an insignificant balance. I did an estimate using farmer math. I think the balance when I was thirty would have paid at the rate social security pays for about four years. This only counts what there would have been had the social security “premiums” been put into a 401k rather than being lent to the government. I had an actual 401k besides that I did not consider.

Haverwilde said...

I am back. I see the nattering Nate is still spewing inanities.

Crabby, I have a different take on The First Great Ponzi Scheme of the Left, social security. I have recognized its failing for several decades. When I was thirty, I decided to plan to live without it. So if the Left decides to recognize their extraordinary failure and do away with it, or slash benefits, I am fine with that. Of course, they never will face their failures, but instead will do what Nate does and project all the fault onto the Republicans. Granted the Republicans are a miserable lot–until you compare them to the Democrats (Then they become almost acceptable).
The great fanatics of the Religion of the Left cannot face the fact that their most fundamental beliefs are wrong.

It is interesting that Nate sees the Tea Party folks as a great Satan. It is such a heterogeneous group with such a broad range of political beliefs. The most consistent focus I have seen in the Tea Party is the emphasis on fiscal restraint, and cutting back the rampant growth in government. Those two aims seem quite moderate, and hardly extreme. The other thing the Left likes to do is label the Tea Party as Racist. Having observed several groups over the last few years I am amazed at the level of civility and courteousness they exhibit.

The Left on the other hand is the biggest group of outright racists in the country. The racial epithets, name calling, and denigration of folks based on race is a hallmark of the Left. The same is true of their use of vulgar sexual orientation words aimed at anyone of a different sexual orientation who happens to also be a conservative. But Nate will of course deny all of that, because that is what the Left does.

It is quite depressing to watch the current administration. It is the most corrupt administration in American history. For years I have served in local political offices. I have wanted to work for the ‘good’ of every person in the community. But things are changing. I can no longer focus on the larger community. I must focus my efforts on making certain that my family has the tools and the security to survive a difficult future. It will be a miracle if this country can ever again become “the land of the free, and home of the brave.”

Nate said...

Apparently the fact that the political left and the religious fundamentalists BOTH accept a system of beliefs whose premises rest upon on faith rather than fact went right over your head.

Largely my beliefs are based upon fact. The majority of people work given opportunity. The majority of people that get government benefits use it to get on their feet, and pay back into the system. The vast majority of people that are benefiting from entitlements paid into them, just like you. Most importantly, unlike the religious fundamentalists, my beliefs EVOLVE based upon new evidence.

Are you saying that my 401k balance would have disappeared? If you think that is so, you need more help than I have imagined up to now

No LOM, I'm stating that your 401k or whatever savings you had by age 30 or even 40 would have been spent very quickly had you not been able to continue earning. However SS includes disability payments that would have made the rest of your life a little less miserable should this have happened. SS is an insurance program in addition to a retirement one.

It is quite depressing to watch the current administration. It is the most corrupt administration in American history.

On what basis can you make this claim? The Corruption Perception Index (CPI) rates the US as 19th in in the world (2013), up from 22nd in 2010.


The Left on the other hand is the biggest group of outright racists in the country. The racial epithets, name calling, and denigration of folks based on race is a hallmark of the Left.


Source? Opinions are like assholes you know....

I was talking to my boss (a real right winger) about immigration, and the crux of his argument was that those people don't follow incentives and regardless of the path for legal immigration will simply come over as illegals. He is my boss, so calling him a racist would have been a pretty bad idea, but the shoe seemed to fit to me. Anyway, racism isn't an issue I care much about.

It is interesting that Nate sees the Tea Party folks as a great Satan. It is such a heterogeneous group with such a broad range of political beliefs.

Project much? Replace Tea Party with Left, and you've got your own attitude, and the rest of the statement is still true. This is really almost comical. The left is some boogieman that scares you people at night. You take all of the attributes that you dislike about the right, claim that they are entirely the domain of the left, and voila, your are cleansed.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Largely my beliefs are based upon fact. The majority of people work given opportunity. The majority of people that get government benefits use it to get on their feet, and pay back into the system.

Nit would benefit from reading what follows even though they are blasphemy of the worst kind:

Source: http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
26.9% of AFDC recipients get paid for 2-5 years, 19.6% for over 5 years.
perhaps explained by
Source: http://halfwaytoconcord.com/average-welfare-recipient-gets-40000-per-year/
Study findings include:
- Welfare pays more than the minimum wage in thirty five states.
- In thirteen states welfare pays more than $15 per hour. Overall, in eleven states welfare pays more than the average pay for a first year teacher; in thirty nine states it pays more than the average starting salary for a secretary.
- Only 42% of welfare recipients are working (nationally and in California) and many of those with jobs are actually not working, but are participating in job training or “job search”. Fewer than 20% have unsubsidized private-sector jobs.
- Overall the value of the benefits received “greatly exceed the Federal poverty level, but because welfare benefits are tax free, their dollar value was greater than the amount of take home income a worker would receive in an entry level job”.

but the cost is so small compared to the real drains on the budget

Source: http://www.budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=34919307-6286-47ab-b114-2fd5bcedfeb5
CRS Report: Welfare Spending The Largest Item In The Federal Budget
…Congressional Research Service (CRS) … overview of cumulative means-tested federal welfare spending in the United States in the most recent year for which data is available (fiscal year 2011). The results are staggering. CRS identified 83 overlapping federal welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these 80-plus federal welfare programs amounts to roughly $1.03 trillion. Importantly, these figures solely refer to means-tested welfare benefits. They exclude entitlement programs to which people contribute (e.g., Social Security and Medicare)…by comparison, in 2011, the annual budget expenditure for Social Security was $725 billion, Medicare was $480 billion, and non-war defense was $540 billion.
The exclusively federal share of spending on these federal programs is up 32 percent

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit, do you think this might explain much of the strain that has been put on the social security system? Steel yourself. It is blasphemy of the worst kind. We all know that there is actually very little, if any at all, disability fraud.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/social-security-disability-program-reveals-budget-quagmire/2012/02/10/gIQA261V9Q_story.html
Budget quagmire revealed by Social Security disability program
Social Security’s disability program is a political quagmire — and a metaphor for why federal spending and budget deficits are so difficult to control. The numbers are too big; the details, too complicated; and the choices, when faced, too wrenching…Social Security’s disability program opens a window on this larger paralysis. Created in 1956, more than two decades after Congress authorized Social Security, the program was initially seen as a natural complement to coverage for retirees. Through sickness or accident, some workers had to retire early. They, too, deserved protection. For many years, the costs were modest. But in recent decades, they have exploded.
Consider. In 2010, Social Security’s disability program cost $124 billion plus another $59 billion for Medicare (after two years, disability recipients automatically qualify for Medicare). This exceeded $1,500 for every U.S. household. For the past two decades, disability spending has increased at a 5.6 percent annual rate, compared with 2.2 percent for the rest of Social Security. As a result, disability represents nearly one in five dollars of Social Security spending, up from one in 10 in 1988…Autor attributes disability’s expansion mainly to liberalized, more subjective eligibility rules and to a deteriorating job market for less-educated workers. Through the 1970s, strokes, heart attacks and cancer were major causes. Now, mental problems (depression, personality disorder) and musculoskeletal ailments (back pain, joint stress) dominate (54 percent of awards in 2009, nearly double 1981’s 28 percent). ..
Superficially, the case for overhaul seems overwhelming…Don’t hold your breath…Advocates for the poor would protest…Lawyers would also resist big changes. The Social Security Administration initially rejects about two-thirds of applications, but about half of these are appealed by lawyers and other professional advocates before administrative law judges, where the approval rate is between 60 percent and 75 percent…Lawyers and other advocates are entitled to 25 percent of back benefits up to $6,000 per case. Their total payments approach $1.5 billion annually…What the federal government does is so vast that it suffocates informed debate and political control. The built-in bias for the status quo reflects the reality that the various parts of government are understood, defended and changed mainly by those who benefit from their existence. However strong the case for revision (and it is powerful here), it is tempered by political inertia. What’s sacrificed is the broader public good. The quagmire is of our own making.

free0352 said...

Everybody knows that when you take money out of the economy through taxation, there is less money to pay wages. To say that somehow if you make your boss poorer he'll pay you more is stupid.

Everyone knows this, and all the voodoo Nate tries to summon forth here is just wind. From his ass.

free0352 said...

Everybody knows that when you take money out of the economy through taxation, there is less money to pay wages. To say that somehow if you make your boss poorer he'll pay you more is stupid.

Everyone knows this, and all the voodoo Nate tries to summon forth here is just wind. From his ass.

Haverwilde said...

Well, Nate asked me if I projected much in response to my comments on the Tea Party. So I thought I would tell you all a little about me.

I grew up in a University town. I was what was considered then, a Liberal. After receiving my B.A. I moved to Berkeley for graduate school in 1967 (yes folks, I am an old fart). I participated in the street actions and lived inside ‘occupied Berkeley’ when Reagan called in the National Guard. After grad school I moved to Seattle, (that hotbed of Conservativeness) and continued to live within a very Left leaning culture.

As a creature of the Left, I have watched it closely for decades. Slowly, the Left gave up the Liberal principles in exchange for the Socialist ones and other principles that are antithetical to traditional liberal thought. The hallmark liberal tenets of: the need for rational change, individual freedom/liberty, fiscal restraint, reliance on the markets for economic stability, and fear of an Imperial Central government e.g. fascism, have all been tossed out, in exchange for fiscal irresponsibility, market manipulation, change driven by ideology not rationality, assault on individual freedoms, and massive growth and control in Federal hands.

Examples are too numerous to enumerate. I was appalled by the deficit spending of the Reagan years. I supported the Left’s denunciation of those deficits. (Ironic isn’t it.) But as I came to learn, Reagan was correct. His tax reform and economic policies establish an economic boom that last well into the Clinton administration. But the Left must deny that reality. It would destroy there ideological point of view.

The left is actively thwarting a vast range of freedoms, definitions of ‘hate speech,’ attempts to identify who is a person of the press, assault on any level of personal privacy. Imperial Washington uses the IRS and the Justice Department to go after individuals, groups and companies that are anti-leftist, and has militarized domestic police/bureaucratic organizations. The Federal Fiscal policy is lunacy.

As I view The Tea Party, it is a mix of old conservative, new libertarian, old liberals. I am not a Tea Party person, but from what I see they are far closer to the traditional liberal thought than is the Democratic party. Yes, there are few religious fanatics in them, but compared to the ‘religious fanaticism’ of the new Left, they are real pikers.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Havirwilde, I have Nit pegged as a simple fool who is well intentioned.
I get the impression that Nit, as with most like him, sees himself as “intelligent”. They are actually unoriginal, not-so-bright followers who are overly impressed by what to them are “intelligent” authority figures. That is why they will believe the most amazing rubbish.
Like you, Charles Krauthammer says that he started life as a liberal, but became a blasphemer over time because of his wicked habit (from medical training) of comparing claims with actual results (it was called the scientific method when I was in grade school).
I see all the misdeeds of the left as a very transparent attempt to grab and hold on to power by any means. That tells me that the heretics have to be even more disciplined and ruthless to have a chance at beating the inquisitors.
The Messiah and His disciples have already caused damage that will take us decades to repair. Consider the legacy of Juan Peron.
If Comrade Hussein and his Commissars succeed, all of us, Nit included, face a very bleak future.
I think we both are mindful that Hitler was a catastrophe for the whole world, particularly the Germans. Adolf was superb politician who was particularly good at appealing to emotion. Ominously, that Messiah never got more than 40% of the vote, but was able to grab absolute power and hold on to his dying day.

Zelda said...

Nate is more of a very dedicated troll. The money his useless parents took from the government manages to justify all the irresponsible spending in DC. Apparently 17 trillion in debt somehow means that all these programs have been a success because TAXPAYERS!