Quote :

"I see ya'lls points, but if you see no reason to centralize even very basic functions of the government, why don't we just create a loosely connected union of 50 independent countries? "

That was pretty much the idea behind the United States.

3/3/2013 1:00:59 AM

It is always worth noting that there is a strong correlation between those that want to "decentralize the government" and those that come from a well to do home who never needed medicaid or food stamps. However, this society really needs the people that depend on the government for labor work and paycheck to paycheck work. Well off people (in general) don't want to lay bricks and drive busses.

I don't understand why that isn't obvious.





[Edited on March 3, 2013 at 2:56 AM. Reason : x]

3/3/2013 2:53:12 AM

I don't understand why it's not obvious that the entitlement system has bankrupted the country and created the economic malaise we are currently entering.

When the system breaks down it won't be the rich and well to do who are starving to death, unable to get medical care, or basic necessities.

Following Europe into certain bankruptcy is the dumbest strategy ever.

Doesn't it make more sense just to let able bodied people to go back to work instead? Doesn't it make more sense not to price them out of the labor market? Driving a wedge between business and labor based on ridiculous health care pricing, taxes, and just overall uncompetitiveness globally is a truly heinous strategy.

The liberals are actively creating more poverty in this country. Not to say the Republicans are any better because they are simply trying to funnel money into their lobbyists hands too, but at the very least at least they aren't attempting to crash the entire system at lightening speed, they are trying to keep us afloat longer so they can pillage more.

[Edited on March 3, 2013 at 7:02 AM. Reason : a]

3/3/2013 6:53:10 AM

Quote :

"That was pretty much the idea behind the United States"

Maybe under Articles of Confederation, but certainly not under the Constitution, which was written specifically to create a stronger federal government because the union was not functioning well without one. States were disregarding central government by not paying their taxes, military was a joke, and states were not really interested in helping each other.

EU is more similar to that kind of de-centralized system, but they have long-standing, historically formed geographic borders for individual states based on ethnicity, so movement of people across individual states is much less likely than here in the US.

Quote :

"I don't understand why it's not obvious that the entitlement system has bankrupted the country and created the economic malaise we are currently entering.... Doesn't it make more sense just to let able bodied people to go back to work instead? Doesn't it make more sense not to price them out of the labor market? "

Tell your grandparents that the fastest way to cut our national debt is for them to give up their SS payments for the rest of their life and just get back to work.

It is true that the entitlements comprise the largest part of the federal spending, and that majority of our national debt is currently owed to various entitlement funds and other intragovernmental holdings, but the solution is not as easy as saying "fuck what you've been promised guys, we can't afford to pay you that money"

3/3/2013 11:42:01 AM

Quote :

"It is always worth noting that there is a strong correlation between those that want to "decentralize the government" and those that come from a well to do home who never needed medicaid or food stamps. However, this society really needs the people that depend on the government for labor work and paycheck to paycheck work. Well off people (in general) don't want to lay bricks and drive busses."

Actually, my parents were squarely lower-middle class. My dad delivered for Pepsi and then eventually started working at Wal-Mart loading and unloading trucks. My mom worked for the church. Both of them were able to move up over the years, but I didn't learn til later that they had to take on a massive amount of debt for us to get by.

They did provide me with a good upbringing and taught me to not make the same mistakes they did, though. Get a good education, don't get into debt, and make a budget. Poor people are usually poor for a reason. When you apply for food stamps, there's no questionnaire asking, "Did you blow your money on stupid shit?" or "Did you have a child with someone unfit to be a father?" Bad decisions lead to predictable consequences and it tends to be a vicious cycle.

None of that has any bearing on the situation in the U.S., though. Decentralization is not only necessary, it will be more efficient at delivering programs and services. When the federal government is passing out welfare, every person is a number. It's not like private charity where you actually interact with someone and they make sure you're on the right path. With government welfare, you get a check as long as you're eligible.

Quote :

"It is true that the entitlements comprise the largest part of the federal spending, and that majority of our national debt is currently owed to various entitlement funds and other intragovernmental holdings, but the solution is not as easy as saying "fuck what you've been promised guys, we can't afford to pay you that money""

No, the key is to not make the promises in the first place. Once the promise is there, there will always be an excuse to grow government in order to "save the old people". And grow it will until the whole thing implodes and no one can get the things they need. Hope you've got a room in your house for Grandma when that time comes. Family took care of family for most of human civilization until government decided that everyone should be able to retire and get a guaranteed check for 30 or 40 years. Either family will take care of family again, or old people will die on the streets once the Fancy Feast runs out.

[Edited on March 3, 2013 at 12:04 PM. Reason : ]

3/3/2013 11:58:18 AM

If you limit how much we are willing to spend on people at the end of their lives that saves a huge percentage of the budget.

If you look at the medical costs spent on the last 2 years of someone's life they are egregious. Oftentimes there is no quality of life during these two years either. It's not as simple as saying "Oh but if it were your dad you'd want to keep him alive too". It's as simple as saying "by diverting extreme amounts of resources to your 98 year old father who is basically a non functional human being we have more limited resources to explore new treatments for the rest of the country". Or "we are going to keep 98 year olds alive for two extra years now, but when the system goes bankrupt we will have little to no resources to spend on the current 55 year olds".


Also, social security is a very simple solution. The people receiving benefits now are receiving egregious payments. Their payments were built based on life expectancies being much shorter. There should be a 10-15 year ban on cost of living adjustments. That way the current senior citizens don't get jammmed up all at once, they have time to make changes to their budget. This is completely fair because they are exploiting the system and making it so future generations will not receive what is fair to them.


Also, the retirement age obviously needs to be raised a little bit, means testing will have to happen (whether its fair or not), and payments need to be readjusted for realistic life expectancies.


Defense spending needs to be slashed across the board. Defense spending is a misnomer. It's really aggression/offensive spending. Not to mention, by destroying our economy, currency, and future economic superiority we are weakening the country to the point where our defense will be significantly hampered in the future. We need to protect the country by slashing defense spending now so that we can actually defend the country if it becomes necessary.

There I just tackled the three biggest items on the budget. Real cuts, not bullshit.

The 4th biggest item is debt servicing. By balancing the budget we will stop growing this line item. Let inflation run its course and if interest rates don't explode in the near future then we could grow ourselves out of this problem.


Discretionary spending is a simple solution. Cut a bunch of garbage and for the programs that aren't feasible to cut give them hard budgets with no growth allowed for the next ten years. Figure it out guys, the private sector has had to for a decade now. Your turn.


Oh yeah, no more foreign aid either. Slash it to near nothing. Also, have the federal reserve stop funneling billions to europe while we're at it.

And finally, end all the bullshit subsidies that are given to large corporations that are diverting resources from productive entrepreneurs and companies to the unproductive Halliburtons and Boeing's of the nation.

None of this will ever happen because our citizens are too fucking stupid to pay attention. Just look at this messageboard. You've all been brainwashed by your 20 years of formal education and now you're unable to string two independent thoughts together on your own. Grow up, seriously.

[Edited on March 3, 2013 at 12:46 PM. Reason : a]

3/3/2013 12:39:14 PM

I don't think that you will find anybody here that is not willing to have discussions over analysis and what would be the best options for a solution, and honestly I think that we have some common ground based off of what you are saying. BUT, to say that all the republicans want to do is save the economy and dems are spending too much is just ludicrous given how much Bush and Reagan drove up the debt. Republicans just want to be in control. This is obvious.

3/3/2013 1:38:13 PM

^^,^^^

Sounds like you guys would find your promise land in newly developing capitalist countries

Rapidly growing economy
Laissez-faire, deregulated economic environment
Little or no social safety net from government for low-income families and the elderly
Family-based economic support system
Little involvement in foreign affairs
Poor public education system with a much better private school option
Cheap basic healthcare
Low life expectancy

Southeast Asia, anyone?

(I am not suggesting that people who dislike our current system should move to other countries as opposed to trying to change the system we have here, I am just pointing out that it sounds like we want to regress back to a more primitive system)

Quote :

"Actually, my parents were squarely lower-middle class......They did provide me with a good upbringing and taught me to not make the same mistakes they did, though. Get a good education, don't get into debt, and make a budget. Poor people are usually poor for a reason."

Poor people are poor for a large VARIETY of reasons, some beyond their control. This is true in the United States and even more true if you look at the picture worldwide. Also, worked out well for you that you had experienced great parenting even in face of limited resources, but what about the kids who are not given that chance? Are they to be left to their own means? Also please not that your parents had access to borrowed funds to get you through the toughest times, not something many disadvantaged people have.

Quote :

"Decentralization is not only necessary, it will be more efficient at delivering programs and services."

That is questionable. There are factors working both for and against that notion.

Quote :

"things they need. Hope you've got a room in your house for Grandma when that time comes. Family took care of family for most of human civilization until government decided that everyone should be able to retire and get a guaranteed check for 30 or 40 years. Either family will take care of family again, or old people will die on the streets once the Fancy Feast runs out."

As it currently stands, not everyone has or wants to have children, especially large amount of children. If people have to depend solely on their kids for economic support, it is sure to increase average family size and promote an unprecedented population growth, which will have it's own set of economic consequences. I agree that parents may try to raise their kids better if they have to depend on them down the road, but cutting out economic support net from senior citizens is a cruel way to find out. Also, what is the average life expectancy where you live that allows people to collect SS for 30 or 40 years?

Quote :

"None of this will ever happen because our citizens are too fucking stupid to pay attention. Just look at this messageboard. You've all been brainwashed by your 20 years of formal education and now you're unable to string two independent thoughts together on your own. Grow up, seriously."

Attacking intelligence of other users is sure make you sound more credible Making assumptions about where about our education, our experience, and our maturity level and talking to us in a condescending tone are all pointing towards ignorance and unwillingness to engage in a dialectic discussion. Even though I agree with some of your points, I am not going to bother replying to the ones I have objections to, because you obviously do not value other people's opinion.

3/3/2013 3:06:45 PM

Quote :

"(I am not suggesting that people who dislike our current system should move to other countries as opposed to trying to change the system we have here, I am just pointing out that it sounds like we want to regress back to a more primitive system)"

It's not that I want to regress, I just happen to think that's the path we're on. The Roman empire had a great standard of living until it didn't. When the federal government fails (think sequester, but with actual cuts, not reductions in growth of spending), I think that community and family will be the only "social safety nets" left.

Yes, there have been nations that have fairly successfully implemented universal healthcare and "socialist" programs like that. The nations that have done it best are the ones that have roughly the population of a large U.S. city.

This is my main argument: the larger and more diverse the country is, the less you can count on the national government to come up with good solutions. Smaller governments are much more efficient. You might not agree with their policies, but when a higher percentage of people feel that the government actually represents their interests, government works that much better. If you want to push your progressive, tolerant ideals on Alabama or Missisippi, they're going to fight you on it.

Quote :

"Poor people are poor for a large VARIETY of reasons, some beyond their control. This is true in the United States and even more true if you look at the picture worldwide. Also, worked out well for you that you had experienced great parenting even in face of limited resources, but what about the kids who are not given that chance? Are they to be left to their own means? Also please not that your parents had access to borrowed funds to get you through the toughest times, not something many disadvantaged people have."

It's actually because of easy credit that poor people stay poor in the U.S. Poor people don't understand debt and interest, so they're perpetually broke.

A child with parents that don't give a shit has very little chance to make it in this world, government or no government. A child that isn't loved from a very early age will be broken if they don't go through therapy.

Quote :

"That is questionable. There are factors working both for and against that notion."

Not really. There aren't any examples of large empires with efficient economies managed from the top down. However, history is littered with examples of large empires that were crushed under the burden of their own fiscal malfeasance.

Quote :

"As it currently stands, not everyone has or wants to have children, especially large amount of children. If people have to depend solely on their kids for economic support, it is sure to increase average family size and promote an unprecedented population growth, which will have it's own set of economic consequences. I agree that parents may try to raise their kids better if they have to depend on them down the road, but cutting out economic support net from senior citizens is a cruel way to find out. Also, what is the average life expectancy where you live that allows people to collect SS for 30 or 40 years?"

Again, I don't think there's going to be a choice when it comes to cutting the support net. It's just going to happen as a matter of necessity. The costs are growing far faster than money is coming into the system. They're already talking about ways to "adjust how inflation is measured" to save money. What this means is cutting or eliminating cost of living increases, which is going to hit seniors on a fixed income hard.

This has nothing to do with what I think is fair or compassionate. There are a hundred better ways that this could have been done, but since politicians have no courage, a lot of people are going to suffer.

3/3/2013 3:50:03 PM

Quote :

"Actually, my parents were squarely lower-middle class. My dad delivered for Pepsi and then eventually started working at Wal-Mart loading and unloading trucks. My mom worked for the church. Both of them were able to move up over the years, but I didn't learn til later that they had to take on a massive amount of debt for us to get by. "

No offense, but you are delusional if you think that this is a rough upbringing compared to the lower class in this country alone. I would dream for stuff like this when I was a kid.

3/3/2013 8:25:59 PM

He said lower-middle class

3/4/2013 8:59:18 AM

Quote :

"No offense, but you are delusional if you think that this is a rough upbringing compared to the lower class in this country alone. I would dream for stuff like this when I was a kid."

I don't think it was rough. My parents had a good relationship and encouraged me, which is more than a lot of rich kids can say. The point is that we weren't "well off" financially.

I just want to make sure you understand your assumption: that decentralization (i.e. shifting responsibility to provide programs/services from a large, national government to smaller sub-governments or non-government organizations) necessary means you are against those programs/services being provided at all. Your argument is basically that if the federal government were not providing food for the poor, no one would.

If these are your assumptions and arguments, there is no federal program that could not be justified, as long as the intentions behind the program were good on the surface. Unfortunately for us, intentions have very little to do with outcomes.

3/4/2013 10:08:23 AM

Since this thread is already off the rails. Here is something making the rounds on FB.

Quote :

"Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling: "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure. Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to SHARE this on Facebook or forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around. Congressional Reform Act of 2012 1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office. 2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose. 3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do. 4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%. 5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people. 6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people. 7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 12/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women. Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work. If each person SHARES this on Facebook or contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message. Don't you think it's time? THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!"

Aside from sounding like a FW:FW:FW: email which I usually hate, it is an interesting concept..

3/4/2013 7:17:52 PM

When partisan labels are stripped from the proposals, the majority of Americans, and almost half of Republicans, preferred the budget plan from the Congressional Progressive Caucus over the current sequestration, more support than for the House Republican or even the Senate Democratic plan: http://www.businessinsider.com/sequester-poll-replacement-bill-plans-obama-republicans-2013-2

3/6/2013 11:09:44 PM

^ not surprising
http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/

People are starting to catch on that the gov. isn't working for the "99%".

3/6/2013 11:31:30 PM

Well, thanks to the sequester I lost all my Military Tuition Assistance yesterday Now I'm stuck with thousands of dollars due next month for summer classes registration and not a clue where I'm going to get the money from. Out of all the places they could've chosen to make some cuts, they hit the military folks first. Square in the god damned balls

3/12/2013 9:59:07 PM

Blame the Republicans!


*because it's their fault

3/12/2013 10:02:05 PM

Sorry to hear that, man

3/12/2013 10:02:37 PM

^^^ Absolutely atrocious: slashing tuition assistance so they can protect their precious boondoggles and flag officer perks.

3/13/2013 4:17:10 PM

Quote :

"Well, thanks to the sequester I lost all my Military Tuition Assistance yesterday Now I'm stuck with thousands of dollars due next month for summer classes registration and not a clue where I'm going to get the money from. Out of all the places they could've chosen to make some cuts, they hit the military folks first. Square in the god damned balls "

Just remember, you're still human fodder to the government, but they've still got plenty (quarter of a billion, to be exact) for Egypt: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/05/obama-hit-for-giving-egypt-250m-as-domestic-spending-cuts-hit-home/

[Edited on March 13, 2013 at 5:18 PM. Reason : ]

3/13/2013 5:18:39 PM

You do realize that decision to cut that specific program was not made by Department of State, right? Do you understand how sequester works? I am sorry to hear about Tarpon's preduicament (I can relate to it to some extent, my wife's job is also directly affected by the sequestor although not to that extent) but I think RedGuard is correctly placing the blame on the people who made the decision to cut that specific program. Do you think if DOD have received the $250M that has been given to Egypt by Department of state, this program would have been the first one they saved?

3/13/2013 5:33:35 PM

No, I don't think so. Just a friendly reminder that the sequester is all politics. It's about intentionally hitting people where it hurts so they come begging for more government while also not cutting any of the real leviathans in the budget.

3/13/2013 5:35:59 PM

Quote :

"Well, thanks to the sequester I lost all my Military Tuition Assistance yesterday Now I'm stuck with thousands of dollars due next month for summer classes registration and not a clue where I'm going to get the money from. Out of all the places they could've chosen to make some cuts, they hit the military folks first. Square in the god damned balls"

I just saw a facebook post from Senator Hagan joining with Republican Senator Inhofe:

Quote :

"BREAKING: My amendment with Senator Jim Inhofe to restore Tuition Assistance for our servicemembers will get a vote today. I hope my colleagues will join in supporting."

3/20/2013 2:16:01 PM

^^

3/20/2013 3:47:49 PM

Quote :

"No, I don't think so. Just a friendly reminder that the sequester is all politics. It's about intentionally hitting people where it hurts so they come begging for more government while also not cutting any of the real leviathans in the budget."

This is exactly how I feel as well.

3/21/2013 10:11:36 AM

This thing is about to turn ugly, as we approach the first of April.

3/21/2013 10:31:42 AM

Looks like the House followed the Senate in passing a continuing resolution funding the government through September and avoiding any immediate shut downs.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/21/17401829-house-passes-budget-for-2014-sends-2013-spending-bill-to-obama?lite

Quote :

"The House voted 318-109 with bipartisan support to pass a continuing resolution funding the government through that date [September], averting a government shutdown that would have occurred at the end of March if spending authority had run out. The Senate passed that legislation on Wednesday, and it now heads to the White House for President Barack Obama's signature, once he returns from a foreign trip to Israel."

3/21/2013 1:44:18 PM

^^ looks like you were a bit off, jerkface. Its the end of April, and things are getting uglier.


Anyway, anyone have thoughts and comments about flight delays as a result of air traffic controllers being furloughed?

4/23/2013 12:34:08 PM

I tend to blame Obama on that one. Yea, the republicans are acting like children, but Obama needs to know how To adjust and deal with children.

4/23/2013 5:32:01 PM

Clinton knew how to deal with children. He spanked them. He spanked the shit out of those congressional republicans.

Obama is one of those New-Agey parents that doesn't believe in punishment. He seems to think that he can win over the Tea Partiers in the House with love and affection.

4/24/2013 12:39:56 AM

Yeah, I tend to agree. The Republicans have kept asking for more and more to deal with the debt ceiling, and it's mainly because Obama keeps blinking. I understand the idea is compromise, but the problem is when one side knows you'll always compromise, they can keep pushing.

4/24/2013 6:43:14 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/top-congressional-democrats-white-house-negotiate-with-republicans-to-ease-faa-furloughs/2013/04/25/6227dac2-ae05-11e2-b240-9ef3a72c67cc_story.html
Work is being done to allow the FAA to shuffle around funds to alleviate the impacts of sequestration and nix the furloughs.


Don't get me wrong... I'm happy that things are moving to do something about the sequester. But it's just bullshit that despite warnings from....everyone.... The administration and congress allow the sequester to happen, then act surprised when there is a fallout because of it, and only now when there is a blatant impact are they willing to do anything about it.

I guess there is merit to the idea that they just wanted a silent sequester where the cuts didn't actually result in cuts.

[Edited on April 25, 2013 at 9:25 PM. Reason : Ff]

4/25/2013 9:25:06 PM