Why Conservatives are Happy and Leftists Are Angry

ZHawke wrote:

BlazerBob wrote: Z, There is a civil war going on in the right. I take exception to this characterization of yours "Conservatives have been very vocal" . No one whose opinion I value cares what John McCain is saying. He is a member of what I consider the political class which encompases a lot of r's as well as d's.

I concede that a lot of republican talking heads are using this to bludgeon the administration. That is what they all do.

I also concede that my perception of the current political currents could be biased by my inputs. I hope not because I do not have much hope that the political class r or d can govern their way out of a paper bag. With 7 billion people on the planet that is a bad thing. We will all go together when we go.

To whom do you attribute that "civil war" within the Republican party? I provided McCain as an example because he's one of the more prominent in political circles. That's all. Whether anyone gives a rat's patootie what he says isn't the point. Did you read the article I provided from a MSM source on a brief history of czars?

It appears from your post you've become pretty cynical. What's the answer/answers?

Sorry, I have lost sight of the point. Yes, I followed some of your links. I thought i was being conciliatory and conceding ground. I do not know what your are saying or asking. I have absolutely not idea how to respond.

BlazerBob wrote: Sorry, I have lost sight of the point. Yes, I followed some of your links. I thought i was being conciliatory and conceding ground. I do not know what your are saying or asking. I have absolutely not idea how to respond.

Fair enough. Personally, I don't look at any of this as being conciliatory or conceding ground from either of us. I just find it a bit ironic how conservatives have tried very hard to harpoon Obama over the number of czars he has and then come back at him for not appointing an Ebola czar sooner. Now they're harpooning him for appointing a political "hack", according to them. As I said in an earlier post - a damned if you do, and damned if you don't scenario if I've ever seen one. That being said, the link I provided is pretty fair and balanced as far as I could tell because it went into some detail on every president, republican and democrat, appointing czars for one thing or another since Woodrow Wilson supposedly began the "tradition". I personally believe we have bigger fish to fry than getting caught up in this kind of inanity. Moving forward with the appointment of a Surgeon General would be a start.

Granted, this is all anecdotal in a blog post, but it goes right to the heart of what we've been discussing as far as I'm concerned: www.stonekettle.com/2014/10/ebola-and-it-goes-like-this.html

Don't need to warn you, BB, about use of salty language, but others might consider it to be offensive. So, with that - WARNING, salty language! If you are offended by same, don't bother to read.

ZHawke wrote: Granted, this is all anecdotal in a blog post, but it goes right to the heart of what we've been discussing as far as I'm concerned: www.stonekettle.com/2014/10/ebola-and-it-goes-like-this.html

Don't need to warn you, BB, about use of salty language, but others might consider it to be offensive. So, with that - WARNING, salty language! If you are offended by same, don't bother to read.

He is a good writer, ScienceChic is a fan of his. I consider him the left wing version of Ann Coulter.

" it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

everything2.com/title/A+tale+told+by+an+...C+signifying+nothing

ZHawke wrote:

otisptoadwater wrote: The reality of the situation is that isn't how our system works. If you want something you have to pay for it, if you can't pay then you have to settle for what the Government and Charities can provide.

This is one of the very few times I will actually deliberately take something out of context and ask you how are those two unfunded wars workin' out for ya?

And, again, I will point out that not a single war is paid for with cash on hand. Not the Revolutionary War, not the War of 1812, not the War Between the States, not WWI, WWII, Spanish-American War, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War or the "Overseas Contingency Operations". The war is not the reason for the doubling of the national debt under this president, individual welfare spending, which accounts for over 60% of the entire federal budget, is the primary driver of the Union's current debt load.

PrintSmith wrote: And, again, I will point out that not a single war is paid for with cash on hand. Not the Revolutionary War, not the War of 1812, not the War Between the States, not WWI, WWII, Spanish-American War, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War or the "Overseas Contingency Operations". The war is not the reason for the doubling of the national debt under this president, individual welfare spending, which accounts for over 60% of the entire federal budget, is the primary driver of the Union's current debt load.

You're right, PS, insofar as no wars are funded as they are being fought. That being said, the two wars that Bush/Cheney got us into have cost in the trillions over a period of time. Now that it's time to pay the piper, so to speak, where does it come from?

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: And, again, I will point out that not a single war is paid for with cash on hand. Not the Revolutionary War, not the War of 1812, not the War Between the States, not WWI, WWII, Spanish-American War, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War or the "Overseas Contingency Operations". The war is not the reason for the doubling of the national debt under this president, individual welfare spending, which accounts for over 60% of the entire federal budget, is the primary driver of the Union's current debt load.

You're right, PS, insofar as no wars are funded as they are being fought. That being said, the two wars that Bush/Cheney got us into have cost in the trillions over a period of time. Now that it's time to pay the piper, so to speak, where does it come from?

So when are you going to dispense with the "unfunded" war nonsense you are serially repeating given that all wars are funded by expansion of the debt?

As to the rest, it depends upon which economic model the Union decides to follow going forward. If we follow the Keynesian model it will come from artificially raising the GDP of the Union using such policies as increasing the minimum wage so that the number of dollars collected in taxes is increased. Such inflation is nothing more, or less, than a hidden increase in taxes levied on the people in the Union by their federal government. There is really no actual growth to the economy, but since the number gets larger there is a perception that the economy is actually doing better. The problem with that method given our current welfare state, is that it also triggers a large "mandatory" increase in the amount of individual subsidies that must be shelled out.

If we follow a Market Economy model, we'll have to drastically reduce federal spending so that it at least resembles a reasonable burden on the Union. Historically, since the end of WWII and the start of the welfare state, the tax burden of the Union has averaged around 18% of its GDP. At that level the federal budget would be just shy of $3 Trillion a year, not $3.75 Trillion. That's $750 Billion in spending that has to be done away with, or about 20% of the current spending. Spread equally across all budget items, that amounts to a reduction of $450 Billion in individual welfare subsidies, including Social Security and Medicare. That figure, by the way, is 3x the annual amount spent at the height of the "unfunded wars", just to try and give some sense of scope to the problem the federal government has created for the citizens of the States.

At some point in time we are simply going to have to admit that we have allowed the politicians to make the rest of us promises that can't be kept with regards to our golden years. The burden to provide you and I with Social Security and Medicare isn't born by us, it is being born by those that are currently working, just as it has always been. You and I are carrying the burden for the "Greatest Generation" and the "Lost Generation". Our kids and grandkids are going to have the burden of the "Baby Boomers" on their shoulders, and on and on the snowball rolls until the courage is found to put an end to it.

What needs to happen is for the Boomers to essentially accept the fact that they are never going to be able to retire on individual subsidies provided by the federal government so that our children and grandchildren have the opportunity to actually acquire a private property right to the taxes they are paying while they are working that can be used to provide for them instead of us. Some generation has to be the one to break the unsustainable cycle started by FDR and expanded by LBJ. To provide for your later years during your working ones is absolutely essential. The problem gets to be that this is not the system the federal government set up, not at all. No, Social Security and Medicare are pay-as-you-go annual federal budget items and anyone who says anything different is flat out lying to you. In order to convince the current workers to pay more to provide current benefits, they are promised greater benefits themselves, which the generations following them will be burdened with providing.

It's going to hurt, a lot, for the most populous generation to be the one that has to work all their lives the way that our great-grandparents did, but it truly is the only viable means of ending the current cycle of the current president doubling the deficit they inherited from all the administrations before them.

Pain is a great teacher. By continuing to try and eliminate or significantly reduce the pain that is felt because poor decisions have been made only perpetuates the cycle of poor decision making, as our current reality demonstrates quite well. The Boomers are the ones who allowed the problem to grow due to their own selfishness and so it is only proper that they are the ones who bear the most pain of fixing the problem now.

Well, PS, that's one of the better dissertations I've heard coming from you. The only thing I'll address at this point in time (gotta work outside today and take advantage of the weather) is your point about "unfunded" wars at the very beginning.

First, I don't consider my posits to be nonsense. You may, but I don't.

Second, it may just be in the semantics of what each of us is trying to say, but whether there is no direct funding for wars as they are being fought or whether they are unfunded as part of our national debt really isn't any different from my perspective. In either scenario, the debt is still owed, and, as you've already pointed out, someone has to pay, to sacrifice in order that future generations can enjoy the fruits of their labors. To me, it still means the wars are unfunded if, and/or until, they are actually paid for.

So what's the difference between WWII and the "Overseas Contingency Operations" in that regard Z? Nothing, right? WWII makes the current war spending seem inconsequential by comparison. So why were we able to pay back the debt from WWII and not from the current wars? The answer is the welfare state. It is robbing the Union of funds for infrastructure and defense, in other words what is necessary to provide for the general welfare of the Union. The general welfare of the Union is being sacrificed for the individual welfare of everyone in the Union. If you want to put an end to unsustainable deficits then you are going to have to put an effective end to individual welfare subsidies from the federal government. That's the bottom line here.

PrintSmith wrote: So what's the difference between WWII and the "Overseas Contingency Operations" in that regard Z? Nothing, right? WWII makes the current war spending seem inconsequential by comparison. So why were we able to pay back the debt from WWII and not from the current wars? The answer is the welfare state. It is robbing the Union of funds for infrastructure and defense, in other words what is necessary to provide for the general welfare of the Union. The general welfare of the Union is being sacrificed for the individual welfare of everyone in the Union. If you want to put an end to unsustainable deficits then you are going to have to put an effective end to individual welfare subsidies from the federal government. That's the bottom line here.

The difference in our respective stances is with regard to what should necessarily have more emphasis placed upon it. I go for the welfare of everyone in the Union over wars any, and every, day of the week. To me, national defense, while necessary, has been taken to a level that it needn't be. One could arguably say the same for those social programs you mention, too. We just have different perspectives on which should receive the most emphasis.