And to pile on, Pew had an interesting report http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=55920["]here
Of the states consistently screwed budget-wise, 6 of those that are chalked up to having revenues and spending out of whack (as opposed to being single-industry one-trick ponies) are pretty liberal: California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Wisconsin, with “a history of persistent shortfalls”.
OK, 35% in 2003.
Now, remind me, was there any influx of government spending in FY09 and 10 that might make that higher now? Just checking.
This chart says it’s almost 44%. Just sayin’.
To give some historical perspective: in his day George Orwell was of the opinion that totalitarianism was taking over the world. The leftist nations were becoming communist and the rightist nations were becoming fascist; and that with the advent of nuclear weapons the world would become divided into a few superpower blocs more or less permanently mobilized for war (that wasn’t just the premise of 1984, he said as much in non-fiction essays). So the prospects of liberalism today look positively rosey compared to what the future looked like from 1940 to 1948.
Yes. That or a coup. Was this supposed to be a serious question? I have no problem with colorful descriptors, but it’s foolish to pretend they are literally true. The 1994 midterms were not an actual revolution, and the 2010 midterms were not a revolt. They’re elections .
Not true at all. When Jim Bunning filibustered the extension of unemployment benefits early this year, his fellow Republicans were furious. And the people you just claimed were strongly against the health care bill were also strongly against cutting Medicare. People like their entitlement programs.
This is cause for celebration to you?
Interesting, although I note that a lot of states didn’t provide any data. I’d say most of those states lean conservative, which makes it hard to perform a real comparison.
If you want this discussion to remain non-stupid, you should probably avoid crap like the above.
Okay, you definitely have a point.
I’ve got people twisting the definition of the words ‘defamation’ and ‘lying’, I would hardly want to be hypocritical by begrudging you (moderator or not) the legitimacy of defining a revolution by the strictest sense.
What about Newt Gingrich when he said Obama wants to hand out welfare checks and Republicans want to hand out paychecks?
If it convinces communities around the country that turning to your neighbors is better than relying on the nanny state, then it is encouraging. I hardly celebrate when a kid dies for lack of treatment. But I also know it’s impossible to reach them all, and the Government has a poor track record of doing so.
It is unwise to take a statement of Newt Gingrich as a sign that “The public is ready to attack . . .” well, anything at all, actually. Even more so where, as here, the statement in question is a shameless lie not even excusable as rhetorical hyperbole.
I would say it’s a soundbyte from a sometime politician and doesn’t reflect anything about what the public wants.
What does “turning to your neighbors” actually mean in this context?
According to a recent survey, Newt Gingrinch is less popular than rectal itch, but that includes people who think rectal itch is a punk band.
Hmmm… well, time will tell regarding that. The Republicans are refusing to extend unemployment benefits without tax cuts being extended for the rich.
If unemployment benefits extensions were so popular then something odd is going on because I never saw Republicans losing support for fighting them during the summer, and I don’t see any backlash at Republicans for holding up unemployment extensions right now. In fact after holding up unemployment extensions during the summer they still delivered the Dems a fair whuppin’ in November.
It means being an actual neighbor. Being friends with your neighbors, pitching in to help the community, participating in donations when someone is down and out, that kind of thing.
I could never have been successful in life without my community. I made my money in legal multi level marketing areas by relying on friends, family, and networks of people. I had lean years, and I turned to my church for help. When I made good money I gave back to society. Even after leaving the country I give back to charities. But it’s my choice to do so.
Government-mandated charity just isn’t logical. If you want the Government to help, why not just donate yourself?
Think about it for a second. You pay $100 in taxes to the Government. A chunk of this goes to pay a whole pile of bureaucracies and line some politician’s pocket. Maybe a dime goes to actually help the poor. Get rid of the Government taxes and nanny state programs and donate the $100 directly to March of Dimes. Don’t lock me down on an exact figure but I imagine 80 cents goes to the poor. Isn’t that more efficient?
They’re refusing to do anything without extending tax cuts for the rich. What does that have to do with the public’s appetite for cutting programs like Social Security and unemployment benefits?
Those things are all laudable, but they’re not a substitute for health insurance.
Your made up statistics are not very convincing.
If the public’s support for social security and unemployment benefits were so strong they would be penalizing the Republicans for blocking unemployment benefits extensions. Perhaps the public prefers tax cuts for the rich more than they care about unemployment benefits extensions? Polls or no polls, the fact is Republicans aren’t facing any backlash for threatening to block everything. Why is that?
You mean Government health insurance? Or private? Or both?
I invite someone to dig up stats about how efficient charity spending on the poor is, versus Government spending on the poor.
Except unemployment benefits are being extended. Republicans blocked the extension briefly, but didn’t do so permanently, and the poll I just posted shows there is widespread support for extending those benefits. That’s not surprising given how high unemployment is.
Both. It’s not realistic to expect someone with a chronic illness to start a charity drive every time he needs surgery or an MRI. Bills for those kinds of things can run into the thousands of dollars or far beyond. Spreading that out even over a small community becomes unrealistic in a hurry.
Since you’re the one making the argument that government (why the caps?) is inefficient, I suggest you do it yourself.
Aren’t the unemployment benefits being extended because the Republicans got the tax cut extensions they wanted?
I read the polls and I see the support… but if the Democrats had refused to cooperate with the tax cut extensions for the rich, do you think the Republicans would have held up the benefits extensions indefinitely until the Democrats caved? I believe so, and the Republicans would have prevailed. Remember, they did this back in the summer and it did not break their momentum.
Again, I understand the enormous public support for unemployment extensions… I’m just pointing out that this was not enough to discourage the Republicans to avoid blocking them. The Republicans are acting with near total impunity. One has to wonder why.
And if you live in Canada or Europe and you have a sickness like cancer you will be more likely to die than in the U.S.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/21/most-cancer-survival-rates-in-usa-better-than-europe-and-canada/
When you bring the Government into the equation all you do is move the problem around - instead of a lack of funding you wind up on a waiting list for care.
I do not profess to know what the solution is for people who are too poor to afford medical care but the Government is not it. We have Government health care agencies around the country cutting life-saving services, even to dying babies. It just doesn’t work.
We need more private charity involvement.
Fair enough, I’ll look it up.
Two questions:
-
How many is “all”? Expressed as a percentage, if you please.
-
Why shouldn’t they want no one to try to tamper with their Social Security/Medicare benefits? The government has taken money from them for up to forty-five years and excused it by promising them retirement benefits and medical care in their old age. I’d lay odds that just about all of them would have opted early in their working lives to provide for their own old age, but liberal government - born of the ideology of “personal freedom” - would not allow that and forced them instead to participate in what amounts to a legal Ponzi scheme that is forever in danger of running out of money and dependent upon ever-larger contributions by an ever-shrinking work force in order to keep itself afloat.
Thank you.
I had this conversation over 20 years ago regarding the rise in housing prices. You can’t have an aset rise 3 times faster than the rate of inflation indefinitely without a collapse in prices.
The same thing applies to deficit spending. You can’t spend more than is taken in indefinitely without a collapse in spending. We’re seeing it now all over the world. It simply can’t be done.
SS isn’t unfunded, nor is it a Ponzi scheme or anything similar. Compared to similar large scale insurance programmes it’s in rude fiscal health and compared to private pension schemes or public pension schemes invested in stocks, as SS privatisation proponents want to see done to SS, even better health.
As far a liberalism dying it will die off a little bit over the next decade or three. That’s because it’s achieved pretty much all its main aims. Liberals have abolished child labour, brought in equal rights for women, equal rights for those people and gay people (almost), brought in a public system of providing for the country’s old age and healthcare and so on. Everything liberals set out to do a hundred or so years ago they’ve basically achieved. Over the next few decades it’s just a case of refining and enhancing existing progrAammes and individual rights. There’ll be set backs along the way and occasional conservative victories, like theyhad with all the above issues, particularly civil rights over the decades of last century, but eventually we’ll get absolutely everything we want.
I don’t see anybody anywhere advocating indefinite budget deficits.
You would lose.