"Congress and the president, on the other hand, do not target waste or
non-essential spending."Umm, that's a design feature, not a
bug, of sequestration. You know, those draconian cuts that were supposed to be
so ridiculous that Washington would *have* to compromise with a more rational
plan? Only Congress is foolish enough to pull the trigger of the gun they aimed
at their own heads when they enacted sequestration a year and a half ago.
everything is dire because we refuse to take responsible steps and proactively
manage ourselves. There is no longer a longterm plan... only what gets us
through the next election cycle. Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die...
only when you don't die tomorrow, you've just overeaten, laughed away
all your resources, and have to slough off one heck of a hangover... and
who's that girl lying next to me? Ugh.It's time for
Washington to grow up, and stop acting like a bunch of frat-boys during a
It all comes down to two things -- greed and stupidity.Greedy
politicians hoping voters are too stupid to vote them out of office.
Re: "800 banks failed during this short period."That would
have been important only to a tiny, wealthy percentage of pre-war America, or
maybe to an economist or social "scientist." Most real Americans never
entered banks, let alone used their services, until well into the 20th century.
The activities of bankers and the super rich were a matter of surpassing
indifference.Even today, most people in the world don't have
bank accounts. Try living among real people in the third-world. The issues of
importance to liberals and academics interest them only to the extent they
induce mirth. At our expense.By every relevant measure, most of the
world's real population benefited from American exceptionalism, from after
the Civil War, until we succumbed to unexceptionalism, and joined the socialist
welfare movement before and during WWII.Since then, contrary to
revisionist socialist dogma, things have grown steadily worse for real people
outside the US.And socialism is now forcing America to the same
tipping point. It may irreversibly plunge us back into a dark age.
I like how Republicans paint Obama as "spend, spend, spend" and now try
to blame the sequestration on him. "That Obama is cut, cut, cut!!"
@procuradorfiscal - your version of history is completely ignores far too many
historical events to be even close to accurate. It overlooks major events like
the Great Depression, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War and Mexican
American war, the indian Wars.For example the Panic of 1896 wiped
out in 6 months 25.2%percent of the GDP of this nation. There were over 40 of
these like events from 1770 and the present. in 1836 there was a
recession that wiped out over 32% of business activity. 800 banks failed
during this short period. In 1873 we saw the like named Panic of
1874 which lasted over 5 years, 10 months, erasing 33 percent of business.The US economy only emerged as a major powerhouse during reconstruction
after World War II. You do realize that in a large part our fight with the
Japanese was over the oil reserves in the Philippines controlled by the US and
British..This "peaceful, prosperous near-utopia never before
seen in world history" isn't backed up with facts. Those who lived in
these times would hardly say the world they lived in was anything resembling
Re: Open minded MormonTo characterize the Iraq/Afghan war as a
"response" seems odd since that unfunded experience started a decade
ago. Clearly both the Rs and Ds are at fault and, as the article states, there
is a lack of leadership in Washington. You mirror the problem we face - blame,
blame, blame, but change nothing. Both parties are at fault, as is our current
President and our former President. Pointing fingers at one side or another
hasn't been productive. We need,and the American people deserve RESULTS.
I don't mind paying more taxes if they cut spending and balance the budget.
I would not favor paying more taxes while we continue to grow our national
debt. It is unsustainable and pure stupidity on the part of Washington to
believe we can spend our way out of this mess.
@procurare you sure you even know what the terms are that you are using?
did you really just equate socialism to totalitarian and nationalism? You do
know they are three very different forms of government that have as much in
common with each other as they do capitalism, right? Yes I am well aware
of the terms I have an advanced degree in the social sciences and no the terms
re not interchangeable and you are not using the terms correctly.
Re: ". . . there is not a single example of one system being blanketly [?]
worse or better than another."That's just not true.US capitalism, mercantilism, exploitationism -- whatever you choose to
call it -- was demonstrably the greatest engine of personal economic well-being
ever. As legitimized, fine-tuned, and institutionalized over our history, at
least up until the forties, it pulled the world along, and poised it on the
brink of a peaceful, prosperous near-utopia never before seen in world
history.Then foreign and domestic socialist, nationalist,
totalitarian -- whatever you choose to call them -- movements and governments
brought it all to a screaming halt, requiring the US to engage in devastating
and protracted cold and hot wars, as well as to restructure our economy into a
welfare, rather than a mercantile state.Today's condition shows
the failure of that socialist experiment.People are demonstrably
NOT, in real terms, better off than they were in pre-war times. Medical, social,
and other well-being indicators have gone up, not because of, but in spite of
the welfare state.
@procuryou want to blame socialism so why would it be far fetched to claim
they are doing well because of it. You cant blame socialism on the one hand and
then deny it may be the cause of countries doing well. By the way your list of
socialist countries is very subjective, of that list I would say maybe Ireland
actually would fit. Greece by no measure could be considered socialist with its
relatively small group of fat cat billionaires soaking up all the wealth, paying
no taxes and controlling the means of production. I do have a
question though does personal restraint and responsibility extend to the fat cat
corporate owners or just those that actually produce the goods they sale for
procuradorfiscal - the problem with your argument, is there is not a single
example of one system being blanketly worse or better than another. You can
rattle off these countries, and at the same time we could do likewise for US
states that have equal problems. Red States, Blue states.... each and everyone
has had issues with income versus expenses gaps.You drag out Greece
thinking that proves something.... what is that supposed to prove? I could drag
out the names of dozens of US states, blue and red, that have fiscal issues.
Saudi, Qatar, many others have no debt, I don't think we want their model
either. China has little to no debt....As to the
"conservative" rhetoric about being "fiscally" astute.... there
is nothing in history that bears this out. Find me a single
"conservative" president that ended his presidency without growing the
national debt. The only difference is in priorities. LIberals spend on social
programs, conservatives spend on military and corporate handouts. In the end,
the results the same. And both need to be checked. There is nothing in
history that proves otherwise. Even Reagan left Washington with a 3x growth in
the national debt.
And the Republican response is ...what?Do nothing?andCut
taxes, and start un-funded muti-decade wars with no budget and no limits on the
other side of the world?
Re: ". . . Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany.... even France... all
poster children for "socialism" have much lower national debt to GDP
ratios than does the US."You're not seriously suggesting
their socialism explains their low debt?Hmmmmm.If that
were the case, why do so many other socialist nations, from Greece, Iceland,
Italy, Ireland, and Japan, to Lebanon, Zimbabwe, and Antigua/Barbuda have so
much trouble?We can certainly agree that a lack of individual
responsibility is the heart of the problem. But which side is advocating
restraint and responsibility, and which is, not just advocating, but
implementing and augmenting a deranged spending policy that everyone agrees
cannot possibly be sustained, even through the end of this regime?Socialism -- the polar opposite of personal responsibility -- IS the
problem.NOT the solution.
"Yeah. That's what liberals, "progressives," and socialists
do."Umm... no. Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany....
even France... all poster children for "socialism" have much lower
national debt to GDP ratios than does the US. You wish this was a partisan
problem, but looking at the growth of the problem, you just don't find
anything that supports statements like this.That is the real
problem... some 40 +/= percent of American take no responsibility for the
problem... blaming only the other side. Until there is a responsible mature
response that acknowledge issues on all sides.... we are doomed to play this
continuing game of " I know you are - what am I".
Re: ". . . the federal government refuses not only to do with less, but
wants to continue to grow at an unprecedented pace."Yeah.
That's what liberals, "progressives," and socialists do.
"Congress and the president, on the other hand, do not target waste or
non-essential spending. Instead, they target cuts that will have the largest,
emotional media impact."I thought that was the point. To make
the other options so stupid that congress would be forced to come together to
come up with a reasonable answer. Instead, we have this never ending "it
their fault" response from both sides. Yes - the situation we
find ourselves in is absurd. It was advertised to be so. Problem is, it
wasn't absurd enough to remove the shackles of partisan politics and force
adults to spend more time finding solutions than self promotion in press
conferences and on TV.Just my opinion.