JOHN STOSSEL: Did Freedom Win?

[sMiLeYz]

LOL! For a minute there, I thought you were serious!

I am serious, just disagree with the need to fix social security. Medicare needs to be addressed but that's a different beast.

 

[theeedude]

...so we should thank the Government which has done so much in the last couple years to cut deficits, then? Sorry: These guys make the last ones look positively miserly.

The deficits we are running now are to clean up the mess left by the last ones.

 

[Scotteq]

The deficits we are running now are to clean up the mess left by the last ones.

Hint: Continuing to Overspend does absolutely nothing to take care of the overspending that was done in the past. Especially when you INCREASE the overspending, rather than reduce it.

i.e. - When you're behind on your credit card payments, you don't borrow more to "catch up".

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I am serious, just disagree with the need to fix social security. Medicare needs to be addressed but that's a different beast.

We don't need to fix it. We need to eliminate it or allow people to opt out. I'd much rather invest my own money because that way, at least I'd probably get to see it again. I'd support the government allowing people to opt out with the requirement that their funds be invested.

 

[theeedude]

Hint: Continuing to Overspend does absolutely nothing to take care of the overspending that was done in the past. Especially when you INCREASE the overspending, rather than reduce it.

i.e. - When you're behind on your credit card payments, you don't borrow more to "catch up".

We are spending, not overspending. In case you haven't noticed, we barely averted a repeat of the Great Depression. If you think spending is high now, if we didn't avert it, it would take much more drastic measures to climb out of it later.

 

[Scotteq]

We are spending, not overspending. In case you haven't noticed, we barely averted a repeat of the Great Depression. If you think spending is high now, if we didn't avert it, it would take much more drastic measures to climb out of it later.

Hmmm... Spending more than you take in isn't overspending??

So that's not really a deficit then?

...and hollering that the other guy spent too much when you're spending far and away more than he did is.. common sense??


Not to mention the whole "TARP money gets paid back, and yet the Deficit from Government Programs keeps getting larger and larger..." shell game.



Sorry, my friend: Some of us kept score, and you are clearly being Fucked. One would hope you would wake up, but apparently you like it too much.

 

[nick1985]

We are spending, not overspending.

lol!

 

[nobodyknows]

Hint: Continuing to Overspend does absolutely nothing to take care of the overspending that was done in the past. Especially when you INCREASE the overspending, rather than reduce it.

i.e. - When you're behind on your credit card payments, you don't borrow more to "catch up".

Hint: It seems Overspending is just fine as long as the Overspending is done on something that fits one's agenda. One man's Treasure is another man's Junk.

 

[zephyrprime]

It all goes back to term limits IMO. Right now, someone in Congress has no incentive to really make tough decisions. They're more concerned with keeping their job than anything else and therefore, they're going to concentrate on softball issues or half-ass things on the important issues.

Maybe if these guys knew they weren't going to be re-elected, they would be more willing to do what needs to be done. And that is:

If they're not going to be re-elected, then they're going to be more willing to do whatever they want and to screw everybody else. If you know you're going to get fired no matter what, what's going to stop you from simply lining your own pocket? Nothing but your morals (which politicians do not have). If you're not going to get re-elected, then you can TOTALLY ignore your electorate.

 

[Scotteq]

Hint: It seems Overspending is just fine as long as the Overspending is done on something that fits one's agenda. One man's Treasure is another man's Junk.

Hint: It's bad when either party does it. And just because the last guy did it doesn't give you the right to run out and make him look positively miserly in comparison. And I already said so in this very thread.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

If they're not going to be re-elected, then they're going to be more willing to do whatever they want and to screw everybody else. If you know you're going to get fired no matter what, what's going to stop you from simply lining your own pocket? Nothing but your morals (which politicians do not have). If you're not going to get re-elected, then you can TOTALLY ignore your electorate.

I see that as a possibility as well. But at least term limits would get fresh blood in office every few years.

 

[nyker96]

Yup, cuts need to be made everywhere, across the board. Its the only way a balanced budget can be reached.

But unfortunately, most politicians will not do any of the cuts that will be a political suicide. Military is tied in with many wealthy contractors that bankroll elections, SS is the basis for many seniors, Bush tax cuts I'm afraid I personally is waiting for that check myself and would be ticked off if someone cut it off. I means cuts means scarifies, we all want to rein in deficits but no one wants to sacrifice something to achieve it.

I think we cannot talk about wanting budget responsibility without also saying exactly what we, as people, are personally willing to let go. We can't look toward politicians to do this, if we will penalize anyone willing to make those cuts that touches our lives. We have to make clear we are willing to make a scarifies ourselves.

 

[ayabe]

No shit Stossel.

Pork, education and all the rest of absolutely chump change compared to the big 3 of SS, MC, and the military. All three of which are absolutely untouchable. Yeah Gates has killed a few programs here and there but it's amounted to basically nothing.

 

[nobodyknows]

Hint: It's bad when either party does it. And just because the last guy did it doesn't give you the right to run out and make him look positively miserly in comparison. And I already said so in this very thread.

Uh, he was duly elected and all the money was legally approved so I guess that he does have that right. Only an idiot would think that all that spending didn't help the economy make a much softer landing.

It is the height of hypocrisy to complain about the debt ran up to avert another great depression, but I expect that from the rank and file GOP'ers here. Bush should have done things differently, but my personal opinion is that this is exactly what the GOP wanted to happen so they could blame it on the Dems.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/08/politics/main3147926.shtml?source=RSSattr=Business_3147926

WASHINGTON, Aug. 8, 2007
Bush: Wall Street Will Make "Soft Landing"
President Tries To Reassure Wary Investors About Stock Market's Strength

(AP) President Bush struck a reassuring tone Wednesday about recent turbulence on Wall Street, saying he believes the markets will work their way through safely and achieve a "soft landing."

Mr. Bush, in his most extensive remarks on a gyrating stock market that has sent investors on a rollercoaster ride, expressed confidence that investors would eventually calm down. The president said he expects investors to smoothly reassess their risk and begin to focus more on the economy's fundamentals, which he said are solid and sound.

Investors are worried about a worsening housing slump and possibly a widening credit crunch — an uneasiness of recent weeks that has permeated the financial system and the national economy.

"The underpinnings of our economy are strong," Bush told a small group of reporters Wednesday. He said such conditions should help the markets make their way through the current problems.

 

[theeedude]

Hmmm... Spending more than you take in isn't overspending??

So that's not really a deficit then?

...and hollering that the other guy spent too much when you're spending far and away more than he did is.. common sense??


Not to mention the whole "TARP money gets paid back, and yet the Deficit from Government Programs keeps getting larger and larger..." shell game.



Sorry, my friend: Some of us kept score, and you are clearly being Fucked. One would hope you would wake up, but apparently you like it too much.

Yeah, I'll take what we have now over Great Depression 2.0

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

We don't need to fix it. We need to eliminate it or allow people to opt out. I'd much rather invest my own money because that way, at least I'd probably get to see it again. I'd support the government allowing people to opt out with the requirement that their funds be invested.

Social security is not an investment fund. Its insurance against abject poverty.

If you allow people to invest their own money, you will be back at square one and why we came up with it in the first place.

Seeing as your "list" will never fly because voters will never support it, the only way out of this mess is small reductions in spending coupled with some reform and higher taxes.

Also, universal healh care would eliminate most of of the rising costs of Medicare as you could implement cost control.

 

[Scotteq]

Uh, he was duly elected and all the money was legally approved so I guess that he does have that right. Only an idiot would think that all that spending didn't help the economy make a much softer landing.

It is the height of hypocrisy to complain about the debt ran up to avert another great depression, but I expect that from the rank and file GOP'ers here. Bush should have done things differently, but my personal opinion is that this is exactly what the GOP wanted to happen so they could blame it on the Dems.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/08/politics/main3147926.shtml?source=RSSattr=Business_3147926

First off - I'm not a Repub. So kindly take your interpretations of what party you think I belong to elsewhere.

Secondly - I don't give a shit that Bush "Started It". Senseamp dragged out that whiney crap earlier in this thread, and I was responding to him. Regardless: Save that tired bullshit for the playground.

Thirdly - It is asinine for Dems to blame Bush for running up deficits when they're running even greater deficits.

It's really simple: When you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING.

 

[Scotteq]

Yeah, I'll take what we have now over Great Depression 2.0

Then you have no right to complain about the Deficit. And you especially have no right to complain about the last guys spending when your guys are topping his efforts

 

[theeedude]

Then you have no right to complain about the Deficit.

Sure I do. If a deficit is not benefiting the economy. Last guys were running deficit at time of prosperity, and still managed to run this country into an economic wall.

 

[Scotteq]

Sure I do. If a deficit is not benefiting the economy. Last guys were running deficit at time of prosperity, and still managed to run this country into an economic wall.

OK - So clearly when the last guys, and the guys before them, and the guys before them (ad nauseam) said "It's for the good of..." then that made it OK?

The hypocracy and self justification here is staggering.

And if that really is the case, then doesn't the "job" at hand become to find new and inventive ways to spend even more while juggling the ball just long enough to hand it off to the next set of assholes??

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Social security is not an investment fund. Its insurance against abject poverty.

If you allow people to invest their own money, you will be back at square one and why we came up with it in the first place.

I know what it is, and I should have the ability to opt out. If I screw up, it is my problem, not the taxpayer's problem.

Seeing as your "list" will never fly because voters will never support it, the only way out of this mess is small reductions in spending coupled with some reform and higher taxes.

Of course it will never fly -- people want more and more services but don't want to pay for them.

Also, universal healh care would eliminate most of of the rising costs of Medicare as you could implement cost control.

Which the new health care "reform" doesn't do.

 

[nobodyknows]

First off - I'm not a Repub. So kindly take your interpretations of what party you think I belong to elsewhere.

Secondly - I don't give a shit that Bush "Started It". Senseamp dragged out that whiney crap earlier in this thread, and I was responding to him. Regardless: Save that tired bullshit for the playground.

Thirdly - It is asinine for Dems to blame Bush for running up deficits when they're running even greater deficits.

It's really simple: When you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING.

WTF is wrong with you? I never said you were a Republican though I find it amusing that you think I did and seem to take it as an insult.

I never said Bush started it, I said he shpould have done more to correct the problem, instead he concentrated on starting a war with Iraq so he could get re-elected. Wag the dog, just what the GOP accused Clinton of. LMAO!!

On the third note, you have a partial point. It's up to everyone to decide for themselves what is the right path here. I personally think the last election results were caused by the fact we have spent so much money and unemployment hasn't improved much. The sme group of people complaining about unemployment rates are probably the same group of people who defended the bonuses and parties going on in the banking industry while we were bailing their asses out.

 

[theeedude]

OK - So clearly when the last guys, and the guys before them, and the guys before them (ad nauseam) said "It's for the good of..." then that made it OK?

The hypocracy and self justification here is staggering.

And if that really is the case, then doesn't the "job" at hand become to find new and inventive ways to spend even more while juggling the ball just long enough to hand it off to the next set of assholes??

Do you understand the concept of saving for a rainy day during good times and then spending that to get through the bad times? That's what Democrats want to do. GOP wants to do the opposite, run deficits in good times, then cut spending in bad times. Even a broken clock is right more often than Republicans.

 

[Scotteq]

Do you understand the concept of saving for a rainy day during good times and then spending that to get through the bad times? That's what Democrats want to do. GOP wants to do the opposite, run deficits in good times, then cut spending in bad times. Even a broken clock is right more often than Republicans.

The problem is that THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT ACTUALLY SAVING ANYTHING. They're "Telling" people they're saving, but then they're not doing it. They're spending ever more. Yeah, they've raised some Taxes and threatedned more, but then they loaded up more programs than the increased Taxes are worth. That's not saving! That's just ever more spending.

And the part I'm stunned at is that you Partisan hacks are buying their bullshit. Instead, you break out the old 'Blame The Other Guy' routine.

Step 1 - STOP DIGGING

 

[Fern]

Stossel's piece is about two different things: (1) the size/scope of the federal gov and (2) federal gov spending. They are related, but not the same.

Spending. As far as SS goes, I do not believe the retirement and disability parts are a problem, nor do I believe they should be cut. We pay in plenty of money for that. And in the absense of traditional pension plans, that retirement benefit is going to be increasingly critical to many people.

I realize the 'baby boomers' may strain the retirement portion, but even so I see no real problem. Because they are but a blip on the radar screen, we could even debt finance the retirement portion for a while. Eventually they will be gone and SS retirement/disability will return to surpluses.

I could agree to 'means testing' for the retirement portion if necessary. I think the whole "I paid in I should get my money back' thingy is a farce to begin with. There has never been any direct relationship to the amount one pays in and the amount one collects. Heck, die early and you get nothing. I see no reason that wealthy people with great retirement benefits from their company should also collect SS retirement benefits.

However, Medicare (and Medicaid) is another problem. IMO, this is where the real problem rests. The current health care reform must largely be scrapped so we can start over. Cost control must be the overwhelming focus. As I've posted before, the AMA and N.E. Journal of Medicine have done studies demonstrating that the lack of medical standards for treatment/care encourages huge amounts of waste. Identical patients with identical medical problems receive treatment/care that varies by $100's of thousands (six-figure variance). The studies conclude that this is unsupportable, and likely driven by physicians not caring, patients demanding unnecessary tests, fear of lawsuits and/or profit motive. Who cares when the insurance will just cut the check?

This must be fixed or Medicare/Medicaid will eat us alive.

So 'YES' we can cut back on SS/Medicare/Medicaid, all that must be done is fix our HC problem. It seems so fvking obvious I cannot believe it hasn't been done yet.

As a conservative, I'm curently 'OK' wth Iraq. We do have something to show for our 'investment' there. However, Afganistan is another matter, IMO. We must find a far more limited, less expensive way of achieving our objective - as I understand it is to prevent it from being another base of attack. The present course is unsustainable and appears to be going nowhere.

I also believe we can substanially cut back our military presense abroad. I question whether we really need troops in Europe, Japan, Korea etc.

So, yes we can cut military spending.

I believe we could substantially reduce other social costs (welfare, education etc) by solving our illegal immigration problem. They were self-motivated to bring themselves here, simply give them the motivation to take themselves back home. It's that simple.

Other gov costs can be cut. I think many of our depts are bloated, homeland security is a good example. The education dept should be quite small. They should be simply setting standards and doing some monitoring. It's not that fvcking complicated.
--------

This brings me to the size/scope issue. Nothing spawns 'mission creep' like government. Get back to core services and regulatory activites. Core services are transportation, communication and defense. I can go along with some R&D too. I think presently we're failing on the first 2 and R&D has no focus and has become a 'give-away' program.

Oh, to be dictator and fix all this obvious crap.

Fern