Letter: Bad, worse

John Wilhelm, Naples

Bad, worse

The debates and the letters keep appearing with criticism of both political parties.

Admittedly, this country is in the greatest danger it has faced since the Civil War. Any effort to reduce the debt seems to be out of reach. The present administration refuses to pass a budget and insists on discretionary spending, which sets no limits.

It seems that no matter which party is elected in November, the president will be powerless to get us into a salvageable mode. The only thing that I am sure of is that the re-election of the present administration will certainly be the final nail in our coffin.

God help us!

© 2012 Naples Daily News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 62

Ironbutterfly writes:

God helps those who helps themselves John, we the people will be able to get things going again as soon as we're sure we'll be working for ourselves instead of the government. We're in a depression of mind, body, spirit, and especially the economy, there are many people that are sitting on the fence waiting for leadership instead of dictatorship.
Romney 2012

romneygate writes:

John, it's the HAMMERS in John Boehner's and Mitch McConell's hands that are NAILING the coffin you seem to be worried is being completed after the Bush/GOP spree.

Write_Thinker writes:

Tea Party negativity got you down? Don't pay attention to those naysayers, who hate our nation, except as it was 200 plus years ago. Tea Partiers are a downtrodden group of negativity, who tell us the sky is falling, each and every day. After the election this fall, the flea party will join the dustbins of history.

Silent1nomore writes:

I am with you John! It is an uphill battle but we have to win this one for our kids!

Do we want them to be entitled, spoiled, lazy, and taken care of by the "nanny" state being created by this President or do we want them to have to work and achieve for themselves what they earn!

At the end of the day we all have but one vote, make it count for Romney!

Pragmatic1 writes:

While it is easy to focus your anger towards The President, "The present administration" doesn't pass anything, so don't blame them for not passing a budget.

Congress passes budgets and that is where the problem is.

Right now you couldn't get a cure for cancer through The House of Representatives if it was introduced by a Democrat.

This do nothing Congress needs an overhaul otherwise it will make no difference who is President.

colinkelly2 writes:

Into the dustbins of history with these negative naysayers!
By the way, Whiteman, where did you get that wonderful phrase, "dustbins of history?" Was that George Washington, or someone else?

Write_Thinker writes:

in response to colinkelly2:

Into the dustbins of history with these negative naysayers!
By the way, Whiteman, where did you get that wonderful phrase, "dustbins of history?" Was that George Washington, or someone else?

Actually, it was one of our great presidents who said that, but not Washington. It was from Ronald Reagan, who could not be elected from within the Republican Party of today, and who said this, worth reading for any flea partier:

"“Someone once said that every form of government has one characteristic peculiar to it and if that characteristic is lost, the government will fall. In a monarchy, it is affection and respect for the royal family. If that is lost the monarch is lost. In a dictatorship, it is fear. If the people stop fearing the dictator he'll lose power. In a representative government such as ours, it is virtue. If virtue goes, the government fails. Are we choosing paths that are politically expedient and morally questionable? Are we in truth losing our virtue? . . . If so, we may be nearer the dustbin of history than we realize.”

Write_Thinker writes:

in response to Write_Thinker:

Actually, it was one of our great presidents who said that, but not Washington. It was from Ronald Reagan, who could not be elected from within the Republican Party of today, and who said this, worth reading for any flea partier:

"“Someone once said that every form of government has one characteristic peculiar to it and if that characteristic is lost, the government will fall. In a monarchy, it is affection and respect for the royal family. If that is lost the monarch is lost. In a dictatorship, it is fear. If the people stop fearing the dictator he'll lose power. In a representative government such as ours, it is virtue. If virtue goes, the government fails. Are we choosing paths that are politically expedient and morally questionable? Are we in truth losing our virtue? . . . If so, we may be nearer the dustbin of history than we realize.”

As foundation for reading Reagan's quote to flea partiers, it would be good to know the definition of "virtue:"

"Virtue (Latin: virtus, Ancient Greek: ἀρετή "arete") is moral excellence. A virtue is a positive trait or quality deemed to be morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and good moral being. Personal virtues are characteristics valued as promoting collective and individual greatness. The opposite of virtue is vice."

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

I don't believe "virtue" has a place in the modern Republican Party/Flea Party. In fact, "virtue" to these characters would be believed to be a weak character flaw, not worthy of having if one wants to defeat his enemy, the progressive. But, then, Reagan did not view the progressive as his enemy, as he used to be one, and understood their love and devotion to country. That is why Reagan was able to capture the vote of so many Democrats and Independents, and held their firm support throughout his presidency. Reagan straddled across party lines, Reagan was greater than any one part line.

pmz writes:

"Any effort to reduce the debt seems to be out of reach. The present administration refuses to pass a budget and insists on discretionary spending, which sets no limits."

I just don't understand it. The data on discretionary spending and debt is available everywhere. Bush owns all of the modern records.

Yet people like Emil either refuse to look at it and accept it, or are deliberately lying about it. Are they hoping to get a piece of America when, not if, neo-republicans resume selling it off?

Is there some sort of massive ignorance virus infecting the US?

Write_Thinker writes:

in response to pmz:

"Any effort to reduce the debt seems to be out of reach. The present administration refuses to pass a budget and insists on discretionary spending, which sets no limits."

I just don't understand it. The data on discretionary spending and debt is available everywhere. Bush owns all of the modern records.

Yet people like Emil either refuse to look at it and accept it, or are deliberately lying about it. Are they hoping to get a piece of America when, not if, neo-republicans resume selling it off?

Is there some sort of massive ignorance virus infecting the US?

I would like one chart that I could save to my favorites and bring up every time spending and our President is brought up. Do you happen to know of a good one, pmz? Thanks, whether you do, or do not.

pmz writes:

http://m.youtube.com/?reload=7&rd...#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAJFYv8TBm3Y&v=AJFYv8TBm3Y&gl=US

pmz writes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJFYv8...

Good link to replace the bad one. Above.

Write_Thinker writes:

Thanks, pmz, knew I could count on you. Beginning to add to new folder called "economy."

I see from the first chart that "downturn in economy" is quite large. Safe to say that reduced revenues from the downturned economy is being added to Obama's stimulus to create an impression of larger deficits by this President, as opposed to Bush, whose deficit spending also looks large when tax cuts are added to unfunded wars?

Write_Thinker writes:

I notice that Bush wars funding never gets smaller. Is this because Bush never included the costs of those wars in the budget, so there is no money going towards paying off those accumulated debts?

CarpeVeritas writes:

Napoleon said, “Men are Moved by two levers only: fear and self interest.”

Fear is the only lever I see exerted. Third world huts, police state, slavery for the productive classes. And we must not forget a broken people rending their garments, putting on sackcloth and ashes, while the air vibrates with the sounds of weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

If you can't find a positive note to play, scare the crapola out of folks. It worked for old Nappy, why not Willard?

Write_Thinker writes:

The largest single category, that gets ever larger, causing the increase in the debt is the tax breaks that were given by Bush. It would seem in the best interest of anyone wishing to get a handle of our deficit, to begin rescinding those tax breaks. Our economy is still weak, but those 2%, who have done so well throughout this Great Depression of Ours, should be the first to revert back. As any signs of permanent improvement in our economy occur, then tax breaks for remaining income groups should follow, so as to stop this category from continuing to be such a big cause of deficit spending.

pmz writes:

in response to Write_Thinker:

Thanks, pmz, knew I could count on you. Beginning to add to new folder called "economy."

I see from the first chart that "downturn in economy" is quite large. Safe to say that reduced revenues from the downturned economy is being added to Obama's stimulus to create an impression of larger deficits by this President, as opposed to Bush, whose deficit spending also looks large when tax cuts are added to unfunded wars?

Forensic accounting is a real science that allows fiscal accountability to be certain.

One truth it reveals is that if Obama had followed Clinton, we'd be wallowing in high clover now. It says that even if Gore/Liebermann was between Clinton and Obama, assuming they acted as would be expected, we'd be cruising.

All of our fiscal problems today can be directly attributable to Bush policies and their ongoing impact, like his tax cuts.

This is not a political negative campaign ad, it's the simple unvarnished truth being obscured to Americans by Rush and Rupert and Rove and Norquist, the dictators of the neo-republican mob.

It will go down in history as an example of why we, the people are uniquely qualified to run the country, but, only in the absence of pervasive advertising.

If we can't change that I'm afraid that democracy is doomed.

pmz writes:

in response to Write_Thinker:

I notice that Bush wars funding never gets smaller. Is this because Bush never included the costs of those wars in the budget, so there is no money going towards paying off those accumulated debts?

The chart is based on "in the absence of governmental policy change" because there is no way to predict when that might change ( like the wars and tax cuts ). Obama has already cut military spending because of Iraq, which I assume is reflected. I don't know how military spending post Afghanistan is reflected. Or when. I assume based on Obama's future projected budgets.

pmz writes:

in response to Write_Thinker:

Thanks, pmz, knew I could count on you. Beginning to add to new folder called "economy."

I see from the first chart that "downturn in economy" is quite large. Safe to say that reduced revenues from the downturned economy is being added to Obama's stimulus to create an impression of larger deficits by this President, as opposed to Bush, whose deficit spending also looks large when tax cuts are added to unfunded wars?

A point that you might find clarifying.

One of the main tricks neo-republicans use to fool themselves and others is based on mandatory (mostly SS and Medicare) and discretionary (military mostly but everything else too) spending.

Mandatory spending is the bigger number and has steadily increasing for decades due to demographics and health care costs. It is mandatory because it costs whatever it costs in order to satisfy the requirements of the enabling legislation. It's very close to a defined benefit nationwide retirement program. That has been accompanied by a steady decrease in discretionary spending (everything measured as percent of GDP) until Bush.

He added to mandatory spending with Medicare Part D and added lots, for the first time in 40 years, to discretionary spending for his military adventures.

Obama has and is reducing descretionary spending by ending Bush's wars, and bringing them back in line with the before Bush steady decline, but like all modern Presidents, he is stuck with increasing mandatory spending. So, if you present the total of the two, in dollars instead of % GDP, it can be presented as though spending is up under Obama compared to Bush, the exact opposite of reality.

Politicians believe, probably rightly so, that all of this is too complicated for the average voter. It's the biggest part of the "story" of Obama's administration that he regretted recently not spending more time on. That's even more true when compared to Bush as that was his only job as Cheney was running the country for 8 years.

Hope that you find all of this useful.

whalling writes:

The writer is correct, excellent points.

anicou writes:

Great letter! Finally, someone who is thinking with intelligence and objectivity.
What a breath of fresh air!

pmz writes:

in response to Write_Thinker:

The largest single category, that gets ever larger, causing the increase in the debt is the tax breaks that were given by Bush. It would seem in the best interest of anyone wishing to get a handle of our deficit, to begin rescinding those tax breaks. Our economy is still weak, but those 2%, who have done so well throughout this Great Depression of Ours, should be the first to revert back. As any signs of permanent improvement in our economy occur, then tax breaks for remaining income groups should follow, so as to stop this category from continuing to be such a big cause of deficit spending.

They (the breaks on taxes for income from wealth) will expire by law at year end. Obama would allow that to happen but replace them with tax breaks for income from work, for a couple of good reasons. One is, middle class tax breaks are more stimulating as they address consumer spending, the biggest most stubborn loss due to shipping American jobs overseas. The other is that would address correcting some of the river of wealth that was taken from the workers and given to the wealthy for the last decade. Lastly it probably has the greatest chance of stimulating enough to pay for itself by increased tax revenue, thus being deficit neutral.

Of course neo-republicans are holding tax breaks for workers hostage as they, and by they I mean Grover, insist on continuing to reward the wealthy, we can only assume for sevices rendered and received, and at the expense of increased national debt.

Write_Thinker writes:

in response to pmz:

A point that you might find clarifying.

One of the main tricks neo-republicans use to fool themselves and others is based on mandatory (mostly SS and Medicare) and discretionary (military mostly but everything else too) spending.

Mandatory spending is the bigger number and has steadily increasing for decades due to demographics and health care costs. It is mandatory because it costs whatever it costs in order to satisfy the requirements of the enabling legislation. It's very close to a defined benefit nationwide retirement program. That has been accompanied by a steady decrease in discretionary spending (everything measured as percent of GDP) until Bush.

He added to mandatory spending with Medicare Part D and added lots, for the first time in 40 years, to discretionary spending for his military adventures.

Obama has and is reducing descretionary spending by ending Bush's wars, and bringing them back in line with the before Bush steady decline, but like all modern Presidents, he is stuck with increasing mandatory spending. So, if you present the total of the two, in dollars instead of % GDP, it can be presented as though spending is up under Obama compared to Bush, the exact opposite of reality.

Politicians believe, probably rightly so, that all of this is too complicated for the average voter. It's the biggest part of the "story" of Obama's administration that he regretted recently not spending more time on. That's even more true when compared to Bush as that was his only job as Cheney was running the country for 8 years.

Hope that you find all of this useful.

I have a question regarding deficits in the medicare spending. I remember, a few years back, that that is the easiest of the entitlement programs to fix. That it's deficiencies could be easily corrected by only a decimal (tenths) of a single percent increase in payments by everyone into the program, and that it had been a couple decades since there had been any increases in this, at all. I remember thinking, that if we could fix that program for less than one percent increase in what we pay in, what are we waiting for? Do you happen to know if this is true or not?

If true, it really speaks highly for a valued program for our seniors if that is true, and good reason to expand that program to include other Americans, as well.

Write_Thinker writes:

in response to pmz:

They (the breaks on taxes for income from wealth) will expire by law at year end. Obama would allow that to happen but replace them with tax breaks for income from work, for a couple of good reasons. One is, middle class tax breaks are more stimulating as they address consumer spending, the biggest most stubborn loss due to shipping American jobs overseas. The other is that would address correcting some of the river of wealth that was taken from the workers and given to the wealthy for the last decade. Lastly it probably has the greatest chance of stimulating enough to pay for itself by increased tax revenue, thus being deficit neutral.

Of course neo-republicans are holding tax breaks for workers hostage as they, and by they I mean Grover, insist on continuing to reward the wealthy, we can only assume for sevices rendered and received, and at the expense of increased national debt.

I think normal voters, on both sides, would like to see in-depth debate of this type, where we get into the nitty gritty of the numbers. It may be boring, but if we could end up with one set of facts and figures, it would surely help voters in making their decisions. It seems we only skim over topics, and seize on emotion, and never really get into the meat of the issues effecting our nation.

No where is this more true than in establishing, with certainty, what happened to all our middle class jobs, why they left and how we get them back. But, the budget, the deficit, taxes, all this needs to be really hashed over.

It is tiring listening to birthers or bainers and nothing real being discussed by either side.

pmz writes:

in response to Write_Thinker:

I have a question regarding deficits in the medicare spending. I remember, a few years back, that that is the easiest of the entitlement programs to fix. That it's deficiencies could be easily corrected by only a decimal (tenths) of a single percent increase in payments by everyone into the program, and that it had been a couple decades since there had been any increases in this, at all. I remember thinking, that if we could fix that program for less than one percent increase in what we pay in, what are we waiting for? Do you happen to know if this is true or not?

If true, it really speaks highly for a valued program for our seniors if that is true, and good reason to expand that program to include other Americans, as well.

Medicare is constantly being adjusted. Premiums for pre-retirees, copays and monthly premiums and retirement age adjustments for those of us who have reached oldagedom, constant negotiations with the health care world to find affordable approaches. It's a moving target because nobody can predict medicine's future. I think that there is a legitimate argument, for instance, that some day health care costs will drop precipitously as magic bullets might be found for cancer or other expensive cures. And, maybe for the first time ever, health care providers are learning that we won't pay whatever for whatever.

I assume that the feds will always continue to pull all of those strings that manage Medicare and will keep one step in front of the economic wolves.

Without Medicare and SS the country would be a disaster as people get old before they are financially prepared. They are a reality that politicians have to maintain.

And, I think that they will.

pmz writes:

in response to Write_Thinker:

I think normal voters, on both sides, would like to see in-depth debate of this type, where we get into the nitty gritty of the numbers. It may be boring, but if we could end up with one set of facts and figures, it would surely help voters in making their decisions. It seems we only skim over topics, and seize on emotion, and never really get into the meat of the issues effecting our nation.

No where is this more true than in establishing, with certainty, what happened to all our middle class jobs, why they left and how we get them back. But, the budget, the deficit, taxes, all this needs to be really hashed over.

It is tiring listening to birthers or bainers and nothing real being discussed by either side.

Back in the day.......

I long for a return to a world that I think that I remember when the world lived mostly cooperatively. Where corporate management and workers and customers were on the same team as were politicians of both parties and constituents.

Our similar concerns vastly outweighed our differences. We solved problems together because we cared more about solutions than politics.

Nobody has yet to convince me that the beginning of the end of that wasn't Rush. Whatever the roots are we've become dysfunctionally divided.

I see two paths. Go back to that culture or oblivion. There are just too many of us with too much technology to afford mutual destruction rather than mutual problem solving.

Write_Thinker writes:

in response to pmz:

Medicare is constantly being adjusted. Premiums for pre-retirees, copays and monthly premiums and retirement age adjustments for those of us who have reached oldagedom, constant negotiations with the health care world to find affordable approaches. It's a moving target because nobody can predict medicine's future. I think that there is a legitimate argument, for instance, that some day health care costs will drop precipitously as magic bullets might be found for cancer or other expensive cures. And, maybe for the first time ever, health care providers are learning that we won't pay whatever for whatever.

I assume that the feds will always continue to pull all of those strings that manage Medicare and will keep one step in front of the economic wolves.

Without Medicare and SS the country would be a disaster as people get old before they are financially prepared. They are a reality that politicians have to maintain.

And, I think that they will.

Are you saying that with all this shifting, medicare is continually kept in balance between costs and revenue, or, at least, reasonably close? If so, then is the concern for medicare that costs will continue to rise and baby boomers retire, and it will be increasingly difficult to maintain that balance? I guess I was under the impression that we were incurring deficit spending in medicare, and our deficits were getting higher and higher because we needed controls instituted. It sounds like the program is sound now, and we need to look into seeing it stays that way in the future, with the least impact on those who need it and those who are paying for it.

Write_Thinker writes:

in response to pmz:

Back in the day.......

I long for a return to a world that I think that I remember when the world lived mostly cooperatively. Where corporate management and workers and customers were on the same team as were politicians of both parties and constituents.

Our similar concerns vastly outweighed our differences. We solved problems together because we cared more about solutions than politics.

Nobody has yet to convince me that the beginning of the end of that wasn't Rush. Whatever the roots are we've become dysfunctionally divided.

I see two paths. Go back to that culture or oblivion. There are just too many of us with too much technology to afford mutual destruction rather than mutual problem solving.

I agree. I really miss the days that when you hired on with a company, it's owner lived in the same community you did, and you both had a sense of loyalty, not foolish or absolute loyalty, but a good sense of loyalty to each other. The corporate structure has changed all that, with it's short-term focus instead of long-term, and it's buying of influence. Rush certainly made talking things over with each other much harder, as you describe.

pmz writes:

in response to Write_Thinker:

I think normal voters, on both sides, would like to see in-depth debate of this type, where we get into the nitty gritty of the numbers. It may be boring, but if we could end up with one set of facts and figures, it would surely help voters in making their decisions. It seems we only skim over topics, and seize on emotion, and never really get into the meat of the issues effecting our nation.

No where is this more true than in establishing, with certainty, what happened to all our middle class jobs, why they left and how we get them back. But, the budget, the deficit, taxes, all this needs to be really hashed over.

It is tiring listening to birthers or bainers and nothing real being discussed by either side.

There's an old saying that luck is what happens at the intersection of preparation and opportunity.

Consider corporate executives. Those who happened to be in power over the last 3 decades found that a cultural shift had occurred and huge rewards were being heaped on people who could make short term gains in stock prices. One way virtually guaranteed to do that is job cutting.

At the same time China and India had decided to heavily invest in growing their middle class.

At the same time communications and logistics technology had made it simple to do business anywhere in the world. (Consider for instance the simple invention of container ships).

Bingo. America's competitive advantage became obsolete.

pmz writes:

in response to Write_Thinker:

Are you saying that with all this shifting, medicare is continually kept in balance between costs and revenue, or, at least, reasonably close? If so, then is the concern for medicare that costs will continue to rise and baby boomers retire, and it will be increasingly difficult to maintain that balance? I guess I was under the impression that we were incurring deficit spending in medicare, and our deficits were getting higher and higher because we needed controls instituted. It sounds like the program is sound now, and we need to look into seeing it stays that way in the future, with the least impact on those who need it and those who are paying for it.

Adjustments in Medicare and SS consume political capital, a commodity more and more scarce. Most politicians would rather, therefore, pass tough choices on to their successors.

So, it's a race.

My humble opinion is that nobody can afford to lose that race.

So we'll stumble along close to the edge doing what we have to do.

Until Bush, we were covering increasing mandatory spending by decreasing discretionary spending even though they are funded separately. One by payroll taxes the other by income taxes, but both from the same pockets.

Now that we have $16T in debt that's going to be much harder to do. Plus the fact that we are looking down the barrel at the biggest project in human history, sustainable energy.

But, I think, personally, we'll find a way. Because we're Americans. Because any alternative is unthinkable.

pmz writes:

in response to Write_Thinker:

Are you saying that with all this shifting, medicare is continually kept in balance between costs and revenue, or, at least, reasonably close? If so, then is the concern for medicare that costs will continue to rise and baby boomers retire, and it will be increasingly difficult to maintain that balance? I guess I was under the impression that we were incurring deficit spending in medicare, and our deficits were getting higher and higher because we needed controls instituted. It sounds like the program is sound now, and we need to look into seeing it stays that way in the future, with the least impact on those who need it and those who are paying for it.

Write_Thinker writes:

in response to pmz:

There's an old saying that luck is what happens at the intersection of preparation and opportunity.

Consider corporate executives. Those who happened to be in power over the last 3 decades found that a cultural shift had occurred and huge rewards were being heaped on people who could make short term gains in stock prices. One way virtually guaranteed to do that is job cutting.

At the same time China and India had decided to heavily invest in growing their middle class.

At the same time communications and logistics technology had made it simple to do business anywhere in the world. (Consider for instance the simple invention of container ships).

Bingo. America's competitive advantage became obsolete.

I saw it coming in the very early 80's, beginning with Japan. My father's advice was not to fight the river that represented the power of business and the wealthy. Yes, I may be right in trying to stop our good jobs from leaving our shores, but rather than trying to stop the current of the river of water, which is impossible to do anyway, I would be better off preparing myself and my family for how best to survive, knowing this was going to happen and there was nothing I could do about it. And, how to prepare could even include learning a new language or even moving to a new country.

It was excellent advice, as my Dad always gave, but it made me feel sorry for the United States and what it would become. And, how could we ask people to be loyal to a nation that those in power were escaping, and how could we ask our children to give their lives for this country that no one cared for anymore? It seemed so sad, but right. I always hoped the American people would wake up and do something, but they never have. I always hoped, that when something became so egregious, our people would mass together and demand change. Yet, here we are, still promoting free trade policies as the right thing to do, and our wealthy setting up off shore accounts to ensure their gains, up to and including our potential presidential leaders.

trader9 (Inactive) writes:

in response to Write_Thinker:

The largest single category, that gets ever larger, causing the increase in the debt is the tax breaks that were given by Bush. It would seem in the best interest of anyone wishing to get a handle of our deficit, to begin rescinding those tax breaks. Our economy is still weak, but those 2%, who have done so well throughout this Great Depression of Ours, should be the first to revert back. As any signs of permanent improvement in our economy occur, then tax breaks for remaining income groups should follow, so as to stop this category from continuing to be such a big cause of deficit spending.

Are you simply misinterpreting the note smack in the middle of the Talking Point chart or just blinded by ideaology?

"Projected debt under CURRENT policies" - the chart indicates growth accelerating in multiple categories under Obama's watch.

It has been within his power during his term to reverse it, yet he has chosen to accelerate the problems, even as his party controlled Congress as well.

This mutual admiration exchange has been laughable to read. Peter trotting out his selection of well-worn and previously debunked crapola. You making believe it's all a revelation.

You make a cute, albeit very transparent, pair of dishonest Progressives.

Write_Thinker writes:

Just the info I needed, and saved for future review in my new "economy" folder. thanks, it explained it nicely. I would like a picture of what total dollars need to be either collected or saved from both social security and medicare, so that we can plan on how we get there by whatever method needed, cost reductions, revenue increases, reducing eligibility, etc.

trader9 (Inactive) writes:

in response to Write_Thinker:

I agree. I really miss the days that when you hired on with a company, it's owner lived in the same community you did, and you both had a sense of loyalty, not foolish or absolute loyalty, but a good sense of loyalty to each other. The corporate structure has changed all that, with it's short-term focus instead of long-term, and it's buying of influence. Rush certainly made talking things over with each other much harder, as you describe.

How regressive of you! Wishing for the good old days! Ooopppsss!

Obviously you are out of touch with the evolution of corporate America, as many companies today have evolved betond the "good old days" model you long for while maintaining and improving culturally.

Not to mention continuing to peddle the "Rush" crap. How sad that a fat old bald guy is the only excuse you've got.

Don't be a regressive old fart!

Write_Thinker writes:

in response to trader9:

How regressive of you! Wishing for the good old days! Ooopppsss!

Obviously you are out of touch with the evolution of corporate America, as many companies today have evolved betond the "good old days" model you long for while maintaining and improving culturally.

Not to mention continuing to peddle the "Rush" crap. How sad that a fat old bald guy is the only excuse you've got.

Don't be a regressive old fart!

lol, you have a good point there. But, fondly remembering the past, while preparing for the future, is the same as planning to take us back 200 plus years in the near future. But, that was a fair point to make, in some ways I am a regressive old fart, aren't I?

Write_Thinker writes:

For the record, in my response to my Dad, who loved a good debate, my answer was that he was right, I could not stop the river. But, if enough people felt as I did, we could dam it up, so that we could keep the US living the good life for as long as possible, before we were forced to change. And, time would be a good thing to have, to plan for our own economic demise. Was that regressive? Or, planning ahead?

Write_Thinker writes:

in response to trader9:

Are you simply misinterpreting the note smack in the middle of the Talking Point chart or just blinded by ideaology?

"Projected debt under CURRENT policies" - the chart indicates growth accelerating in multiple categories under Obama's watch.

It has been within his power during his term to reverse it, yet he has chosen to accelerate the problems, even as his party controlled Congress as well.

This mutual admiration exchange has been laughable to read. Peter trotting out his selection of well-worn and previously debunked crapola. You making believe it's all a revelation.

You make a cute, albeit very transparent, pair of dishonest Progressives.

When I look at that chart, as I just did, I see the number one cause of increasing debt is the Bush tax cuts. So, I would rescind the tax cuts for the wealthy, and formulate a plan to do the same, just as soon as the economy began to steady, on the remaining wage earners. Agreed? Do you see that in the chart like I do?

Next is the unfunded wars, I really don't understand why that number stays large and never goes down. I would put in plan in to reduce that debt in some way. Perhaps a surcharge on military equipment manufacturers, or some such thing. Perhaps a cost saving from the military, that is defined as being used to reduce this war debt. Perhaps sell bonds.

Then, you have the costs of the economic downturn and the small amount from stimulus spending. I would combine those together and put every effort possible into rebuilding this economy and creating jobs, jobs, jobs. I would overturn trade agreements, if needed, and demand China quit playing currency games. But, I would squeeze everything possible to increase demand for goods and services and create good jobs. I would not have laid off all those teachers and police and firemen, as they were better not on the unemployment lines, at this particular time, as on it.

So, what is your plan when you look at the chart? End social security, medicare, as we know it, give the wealthy another tax break and increase taxes on the middle class? I thought we did that already?

pmz writes:

in response to Write_Thinker:

For the record, in my response to my Dad, who loved a good debate, my answer was that he was right, I could not stop the river. But, if enough people felt as I did, we could dam it up, so that we could keep the US living the good life for as long as possible, before we were forced to change. And, time would be a good thing to have, to plan for our own economic demise. Was that regressive? Or, planning ahead?

When the neo-republicans start their incessant whining here, I always ask myself, ignorance or dis ingenuousness.

As they have been exposed virtually daily to truth that they reject in favor of what they wish to be true, dis ingenuousness is winning.

Nobody is that incapable of learning.

pmz writes:

Except, of course, ABC whose mind is intractable.

Write_Thinker writes:

in response to pmz:

When the neo-republicans start their incessant whining here, I always ask myself, ignorance or dis ingenuousness.

As they have been exposed virtually daily to truth that they reject in favor of what they wish to be true, dis ingenuousness is winning.

Nobody is that incapable of learning.

Perhaps we underestimate the power of conservative talk show radio's ability to create a secure, but false reality for these people, that what truth here, in the NDN, they receive cannot overcome.

pmz writes:

in response to Write_Thinker:

Perhaps we underestimate the power of conservative talk show radio's ability to create a secure, but false reality for these people, that what truth here, in the NDN, they receive cannot overcome.

Part of any cult is the notion that outsiders will try to drag you away from "us" and you must resist that with all of your mind.

That's designed of course to maintain the credibility of the cult over everyone else.

I guess it can be effectively done.

pmz writes:

in response to Write_Thinker:

When I look at that chart, as I just did, I see the number one cause of increasing debt is the Bush tax cuts. So, I would rescind the tax cuts for the wealthy, and formulate a plan to do the same, just as soon as the economy began to steady, on the remaining wage earners. Agreed? Do you see that in the chart like I do?

Next is the unfunded wars, I really don't understand why that number stays large and never goes down. I would put in plan in to reduce that debt in some way. Perhaps a surcharge on military equipment manufacturers, or some such thing. Perhaps a cost saving from the military, that is defined as being used to reduce this war debt. Perhaps sell bonds.

Then, you have the costs of the economic downturn and the small amount from stimulus spending. I would combine those together and put every effort possible into rebuilding this economy and creating jobs, jobs, jobs. I would overturn trade agreements, if needed, and demand China quit playing currency games. But, I would squeeze everything possible to increase demand for goods and services and create good jobs. I would not have laid off all those teachers and police and firemen, as they were better not on the unemployment lines, at this particular time, as on it.

So, what is your plan when you look at the chart? End social security, medicare, as we know it, give the wealthy another tax break and increase taxes on the middle class? I thought we did that already?

Think of what that graph would look like if, at the end of this year, that area went to zero. Or, if, as as Obama wants, that money was directed at middle income tax relief that resulted in a boost in revenue. Either way that area would shrink.

If his supposition is wrong and middle income consumer stimulation does not increase revenue, as wealthy stimulation has not, and the size of the tax relief remains the same, that area would be as projected.

Write_Thinker writes:

in response to pmz:

Part of any cult is the notion that outsiders will try to drag you away from "us" and you must resist that with all of your mind.

That's designed of course to maintain the credibility of the cult over everyone else.

I guess it can be effectively done.

I have made it a practice to listen to these radio commentators, and they spend a great deal of their time rehashing their false propositions, re-creating their false reality on almost a daily basis, in order to keep their cult in line. And, they do this from 6 AM through the day, until 9 PM. Then, they also have Fox. They feel they are getting the news, but, if they ever wanted to, they could see the truth. As they listened to these commentators, separate what is being said into one of two classes:

1) New news, topics, something that has not been said before.

2) Rehashed topics and ideas. Things that have been talked about in one way or another, again, and again, and again.

Often these commentators will bring up a new subject, then use that to launch into their same tired messages, the same old attacks and talking points. So, you get 30 seconds of a new topic, followed by three minutes of brainwashing.

Yes, it is a successful cult.

trader9 (Inactive) writes:

in response to Write_Thinker:

When I look at that chart, as I just did, I see the number one cause of increasing debt is the Bush tax cuts. So, I would rescind the tax cuts for the wealthy, and formulate a plan to do the same, just as soon as the economy began to steady, on the remaining wage earners. Agreed? Do you see that in the chart like I do?

Next is the unfunded wars, I really don't understand why that number stays large and never goes down. I would put in plan in to reduce that debt in some way. Perhaps a surcharge on military equipment manufacturers, or some such thing. Perhaps a cost saving from the military, that is defined as being used to reduce this war debt. Perhaps sell bonds.

Then, you have the costs of the economic downturn and the small amount from stimulus spending. I would combine those together and put every effort possible into rebuilding this economy and creating jobs, jobs, jobs. I would overturn trade agreements, if needed, and demand China quit playing currency games. But, I would squeeze everything possible to increase demand for goods and services and create good jobs. I would not have laid off all those teachers and police and firemen, as they were better not on the unemployment lines, at this particular time, as on it.

So, what is your plan when you look at the chart? End social security, medicare, as we know it, give the wealthy another tax break and increase taxes on the middle class? I thought we did that already?

So answer the question. Why didn't he:

Refuse to extend the tax cuts.

Stop the over seas wars.

Delay implementing a whole new entitlement program for healthcare.

Stop subsidies.

Reform government waste.

Fix Social Security and Medicare.

The "Obama's trying" argument doesn't hold water. He's making matters worse.

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features