Should America Bid Farewell to Exceptional Freedom?

[Polk]

Reagan's economy didn't do all it intended. You only tell some of the factors. The debate over Reagan's successes and failures rages on.

BW Online | June 21, 2004 | The Real Economic Legacy Of Ronald Reagan

Inevitably, the measure of Reagan's legacy of the '80s must be taken against what followed: the Clinton years of the '90s. Reagan became President when America was economically sclerotic. His tax changes, combined with a tight monetary policy, helped to make the country competitive again. The price paid, however, was a soaring budget deficit. Reagan and his supply-side advisers believed that big tax cuts would pay for themselves by generating higher tax revenues through greater economic growth. It never happened.

President Clinton took office in 1993, when those huge budget deficits weighed heavily on the markets and the economy. Clinton's turn away from liberal spending to balancing the budget (the "Rubinomics" policy of his Treasury Secretary, Robert E. Rubin) brought confidence back to the markets. When telecom and the Internet took off three years later, the economy ignited.

Yet despite different fiscal policies, the macroeconomic outcomes were remarkably similar. Under Reagan, lower taxes and a soaring budget deficit produced a growth rate of 3.4%. Under Bill Clinton, higher taxes and a budget surplus generated growth of 3.6%. Throughout both Presidencies, from 1982 to 2000, interest rates fell and the stock market roared. So much for ideology.

There were differences, of course. Under Clinton, unemployment was lower than under Reagan, poverty declined more, and wages rose faster for ordinary workers. But the essential truth remains: Strip away doctrinaire rhetoric, and here's the lesson of nearly two decades of economic activity: Decisive Presidential leadership that tackles the greatest threat of the day produces the policy mix best suited for growth. Sometimes that means lower taxes, sometimes higher. Sometimes it means less regulation, sometimes more.

That article states quite clearly that Reagan's tax cuts stimulated the economy and lead to a recovery. What is criticized are the increased deficits, but that wasn't because of tax cuts; that was because of increased spending, the same thing W did. Tax cuts do pay for themselves if you keep spending constant and cut taxes in the right proportion. Federal revenues increased after Reagan took office with extremely lower tax rates. You can't outspend the increase, though. The deficits would have been even higher if he hadn't cut taxes.

Federal revenues increased because the economy grew. Revenues will grow every year, even when rates are held constant, under normal economic conditions. The relevant measure is tax revenue as a percentage of GDP.

 

[Avatar4321]

this is a fallacy about the reagan revenues. there's no escaping the fact that reagan's tax policy started the country down the debt/deficit pathway, and that the laffer curve was arbitrary if not mythological.

How is it a fallacy? Simply declaring it a fallacy doesn't make it one. The facts show that when you lower taxes on an over taxed population the government gets more revenues because there is more economic activity by people.

Deficits are caused by overspending. I cant comprehend the denial some people have about this. You over tax people then the people who make the most money and who you tax the most move elsewhere where they can keep their money. It's not rocket science. In fact, it's basic economics and common sense.

If Government A takes 40% of your income and Government B takes 10% of your income and you are wealthy enough to move, which government are you going to choose to live under? Why on earth would any sane person choose to keep 60% of their income when they could go elsewhere and keep 90%?

You chase the people who produce wealth away, you lose jobs, you lose tax revenues, and your economy suffers for it. It's not that complicated to understand. Governments have limited power to control their revenue, and the only way to ensure healthy revenue is to provide an environment for people who have money to invest and create more weath.

No, the only facet of the budget governments can completely control is the spending aspect. It's overspending that causes deficits. Until you accept this, you will never have a sound fiscal government.

There are many government programs that may have been started with the best intentions, but have become wasteful. Heck there may be some that havent become wasteful (I highly doubt it though. Nature of government and all that). But when we don't have the money, we don't have the money. And this idea that we can always borrow with never paying anything back and spend on completely unnecessary programs no matter how beneficial is ridiculous. Eventually, the government goes bankrupt or it starts printing more money which causes massive inflation and completely destroys the economy. Either way, we are screwed and we end up in bondage.

 

[Polk]

The U.S. doesn't have an Undertaxed Problem, it has an Overspending Problem.

Just sayin'.

Actually, it has an overtaxed and over spending problem.

The idea that Americans are massively overtaxed is a bit bizarre, considering things like the following:

It may sound like a lot, but other developed countries collect even more. In 2006, taxes in 30 of the world's richest countries averaged 36 percent of GDP; only Mexico, Turkey, South Korea and Japan had tax rates lower than ours. And taxes in many European countries exceeded 40 percent of GDP because these nations offer more extensive government services than the United States does.

washingtonpost.com

 

[Polk]

How is it a fallacy? Simply declaring it a fallacy doesn't make it one. The facts show that when you lower taxes on an over taxed population the government gets more revenues because there is more economic activity by people.

By the facts don't really show that. They show that lower taxes does result in increased output, but that the increase in output is never enough to even come close to recovering the revenue lost from the lower tax rate. Your argument is 21st century alchemy.

 

[antagon]

this is a fallacy about the reagan revenues. there's no escaping the fact that reagan's tax policy started the country down the debt/deficit pathway, and that the laffer curve was arbitrary if not mythological.

How is it a fallacy? Simply declaring it a fallacy doesn't make it one. The facts show that when you lower taxes on an over taxed population the government gets more revenues because there is more economic activity by people.

Deficits are caused by overspending. I cant comprehend the denial some people have about this. You over tax people then the people who make the most money and who you tax the most move elsewhere where they can keep their money. It's not rocket science. In fact, it's basic economics and common sense.

If Government A takes 40% of your income and Government B takes 10% of your income and you are wealthy enough to move, which government are you going to choose to live under? Why on earth would any sane person choose to keep 60% of their income when they could go elsewhere and keep 90%?

You chase the people who produce wealth away, you lose jobs, you lose tax revenues, and your economy suffers for it. It's not that complicated to understand. Governments have limited power to control their revenue, and the only way to ensure healthy revenue is to provide an environment for people who have money to invest and create more weath.

No, the only facet of the budget governments can completely control is the spending aspect. It's overspending that causes deficits. Until you accept this, you will never have a sound fiscal government.

There are many government programs that may have been started with the best intentions, but have become wasteful. Heck there may be some that havent become wasteful (I highly doubt it though. Nature of government and all that). But when we don't have the money, we don't have the money. And this idea that we can always borrow with never paying anything back and spend on completely unnecessary programs no matter how beneficial is ridiculous. Eventually, the government goes bankrupt or it starts printing more money which causes massive inflation and completely destroys the economy. Either way, we are screwed and we end up in bondage.

what facts show your patent myth to be true? there's a simple observation to be made as to when our deficit spending became habitual. it was with reagan. while spending stayed within reasonable growth, revenue didnt.

that it was later compounded by over-spending, and that lil' bush combined the two talents only ices the cake.

as to your 10% or 40% economy model, there's more motivating people to do business and reside in the US and other developed nations, nearly all which tax at higher rates, and in greater proportion to their wider economies. your simplified view of what people are in business for and what they want out of life fails to account for why low-tax economies dont perform like the US, and why they are not teeming with wealthy tax refugees.

a fantasy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The U.S. doesn't have an Undertaxed Problem, it has an Overspending Problem.

Just sayin'.

Actually, it has an overtaxed and over spending problem.

The idea that Americans are massively overtaxed is a bit bizarre, considering things like the following:

It may sound like a lot, but other developed countries collect even more. In 2006, taxes in 30 of the world's richest countries averaged 36 percent of GDP; only Mexico, Turkey, South Korea and Japan had tax rates lower than ours. And taxes in many European countries exceeded 40 percent of GDP because these nations offer more extensive government services than the United States does.

washingtonpost.com

Have you ever thought that the strengths of the USA stem from the fact that we are NOT just like every other country in the world? I don't know about you but I want to keep it that way.

It is not a bad thing that we are different but the libby progressives will have us think that because we don't have high taxes like the rest of the world that we are somehow living in the stone age.

 

[beowolfe]

It's not surprising that someone who is Exceptionally Stupid would fail to GROK the Exceptional Freedom that Americans have experienced. It is unusual in human history for average people to be as free as we once were; and it's a shame to see our government actively destroying that freedom via abuse of power.

In terms of American history, the above statement would only apply if you are a caucasoid male.

 

[boedicca]

It's not surprising that someone who is Exceptionally Stupid would fail to GROK the Exceptional Freedom that Americans have experienced. It is unusual in human history for average people to be as free as we once were; and it's a shame to see our government actively destroying that freedom via abuse of power.

In terms of American history, the above statement would only apply if you are a caucasoid male.

Really? Which practices that are common in other areas of the world are routinely done in America:

- Female Genital Mutilation
- Stoning Rape Victims
- Marrying 8 year old girls to old men
- Executing Gays for Being Gay
- Raping children to Cure Disease
- Slavery (sexual and otherwise)

 

[MaggieMae]

If Social Security were a "Ponzi scheme," it never would have worked from the first year out. The only reason it can't work now without some adjustment is because people are living longer, thereby collecting longer, and more in benefits are paid out than taken in.

Wrong. Social Security is very much a Ponzi Scheme because there are less workers supporting the recipients than there were when the program was implemented. There were 16 workers for every recipient back in the 1930s. Today there are two and now you have the Baby Boomers, the largest generation, retiring. People don't have eight kids like they did back in those days to sustain the system.

That's what I said. But you're implying that from the start it was a Ponzi scheme, and it wasn't. Your own words confirm that. Was the design flawed by not taking into consideration that there would gradually become more recipients than workers to support it? Well yeah. On that I agree.

 

[MaggieMae]

Wrong. Wealth redistribution is taking the money one person earned and handing it over to someone who didn't. That's what the Marxists have been doing since FDR. Reagan started to reverse that and lessened the taking of people's money by the government allowing them to keep what they rightly earned. That's not wealth redistribution.

What that graph shows is that if you take the government constraints off of people, the folks who know how to make money will continue to make money and get richer and of course they would. Why on earth wouldn't they? They knew what to do to get rich in the first place. DUH!

Furthermore, you completely ignore other factors. The world economy changed as a whole during the 60s and 70s in particular. U.S. companies couldn't afford to pay factory workers overly gracious wages and benefits when Europe and Japan were coming back online and bringing competition to American industry again. The destruction caused in that part of the world in WWII is the primary reason why we could have such high tax rates in the 40s and 50s and pay workers so highly and still have a strong economy.

Reagan's economy didn't do all it intended. You only tell some of the factors. The debate over Reagan's successes and failures rages on.

BW Online | June 21, 2004 | The Real Economic Legacy Of Ronald Reagan

Inevitably, the measure of Reagan's legacy of the '80s must be taken against what followed: the Clinton years of the '90s. Reagan became President when America was economically sclerotic. His tax changes, combined with a tight monetary policy, helped to make the country competitive again. The price paid, however, was a soaring budget deficit. Reagan and his supply-side advisers believed that big tax cuts would pay for themselves by generating higher tax revenues through greater economic growth. It never happened.

President Clinton took office in 1993, when those huge budget deficits weighed heavily on the markets and the economy. Clinton's turn away from liberal spending to balancing the budget (the "Rubinomics" policy of his Treasury Secretary, Robert E. Rubin) brought confidence back to the markets. When telecom and the Internet took off three years later, the economy ignited.

Yet despite different fiscal policies, the macroeconomic outcomes were remarkably similar. Under Reagan, lower taxes and a soaring budget deficit produced a growth rate of 3.4%. Under Bill Clinton, higher taxes and a budget surplus generated growth of 3.6%. Throughout both Presidencies, from 1982 to 2000, interest rates fell and the stock market roared. So much for ideology.

There were differences, of course. Under Clinton, unemployment was lower than under Reagan, poverty declined more, and wages rose faster for ordinary workers. But the essential truth remains: Strip away doctrinaire rhetoric, and here's the lesson of nearly two decades of economic activity: Decisive Presidential leadership that tackles the greatest threat of the day produces the policy mix best suited for growth. Sometimes that means lower taxes, sometimes higher. Sometimes it means less regulation, sometimes more.

Sadly, presidential leadership isn't possible without cooperation from both parties to make things happen. Gone are the days when both Reagan and Clinton could pull the whole team together and make wise decisions for the nation as a whole through compromise.

Oh well. Skip page 16 too.

Page 16 of what? Look, for every tome lavishing praise on the administration of Ronald Reagan, there are an equal number that legitimately point to the flaws and manipulations which made it look like he made all these grandiose improvements.

 

[antagon]

Actually, it has an overtaxed and over spending problem.

The idea that Americans are massively overtaxed is a bit bizarre, considering things like the following:

It may sound like a lot, but other developed countries collect even more. In 2006, taxes in 30 of the world's richest countries averaged 36 percent of GDP; only Mexico, Turkey, South Korea and Japan had tax rates lower than ours. And taxes in many European countries exceeded 40 percent of GDP because these nations offer more extensive government services than the United States does.

washingtonpost.com

Have you ever thought that the strengths of the USA stem from the fact that we are NOT just like every other country in the world? I don't know about you but I want to keep it that way.

It is not a bad thing that we are different but the libby progressives will have us think that because we don't have high taxes like the rest of the world that we are somehow living in the stone age.

we're actually pretty cutting edge, skull. our debt and deficits, mainly because we choose to borrow rather than tax our citizens for what we spend, are without peer. on the upside, though, despite many conservatives and libertarians paradoxically criticizing the Fed, it holds together a magical monetary policy which better compensates for debt, deficit and their inflationary effects, than any other world/central bank.

 

[MaggieMae]

For one, the Social Security Ponzi scheme has been debunked here multiple times. That you still cling to it as some sort of panacea is ludicrous.

And equating wanting less government intrusion in our lives to being racist or homophobic is a red herring.

It is a simple fact that government is eating up more of our personal resources every day.

And tell me did the government tax me to allow blacks equal rights?

Did the government tax me to allow women to vote?

Did the government tax me to allow workers to form unions?

Does the government force people to join unions?

All those things you mention came not from government but from the people themselves.

No one here who truly believes in liberty would stand for anyone not having equal standing.

But denying that government is exercising more and more control over us and is costing us a bigger and bigger portion of our money is you being blind by choice.

If Social Security were a "Ponzi scheme," it never would have worked from the first year out. The only reason it can't work now without some adjustment is because people are living longer, thereby collecting longer, and more in benefits are paid out than taken in.

As for the rest of your analysis, assuming you are griping about the possibility of taxes being raised, even if that happens, the rate will be increased only to the level under the Clinton Administration, and I don't recall too many unhappy people during the 90's.

SS is a Ponzi scheme because it takes the payments of one person to provide the benefits for another.

There is no investment, no capital appreciation. The reason it worked for as long as it did was because the baby boomers were paying into SS to support the benefits to a much smaller population.

The reason it is failing now is that there are less people paying in to support the benefits being paid out.

You do know that SS has been nothing but an off the books slush fund for indiscriminate government spending right?

And the point of my other responses was not solely taxes.

RightWanker put forth the proposition that we who want less government infringement on our freedoms were somehow racist and homophobic.

But giving minorities equal access and expanding their freedoms did not lessen anyone else's freedoms.

The ultra left progressive idiocy of today is lessening our freedoms by allowing the government more control over our lives.

If you don't see the plain as day fact the the government being allowed to force us to buy insurance is a lessening of liberty then there really is no point in arguing with you as you are devoid of all reason.

A true Ponzi scheme leaves new "investors" with nothing. Social Security recipients, regardless when they become beneficiaries, continue to receive benefits. I'm certainly not arguing that Social Security is solvent, because it is not. But it isn't about to be tossed into the dumpster in favor of some other riskier form of government retirement program either. It would be completely impossible to just yank the rug out from under millions of people. So, for that reason alone, arguing over the reasons why SS has failed is stupid. It isn't a political debate, as both parties have stolen from the trust fund and neither party has done anything other than put patches on it.

As for the rest of your stuff, I'm really really really tired of arguing ideology. I'm sick to death of hearing that freedoms have been lost, liberties are nonexistent, and that conservatives have ALL the solutions to ALL our problems and thereafter we'll ALL be able to run around waving flags of freedom because of it. You do not have all the answers.

You see solutions as being as simple as just throwing out the old and shooting for those utopian stars where everyone should be healthy and wealthy if it weren't for those pesky government social programs, and it could all be accomplished without taxing anyone. Happy happy joy joy. But of course you ignore the whole landscape and see only your own flower bed through rose-colored glasses. So yes, you're right. There's no point in arguing because in my opinion, it is YOU who is devoid of all reason.

 

[MaggieMae]

The U.S. doesn't have an Undertaxed Problem, it has an Overspending Problem.

Just sayin'.

It has both. Time to be realistic.

I'm going to start asking people who think we've overspent (in prior administrations as well as this one) who they own elected lawmakers are. Have they brought home the bacon for your state? Have they contributed to "over-spending" on prior budgets? Did they argue successfully that major tax cuts while conducting two major wars at the same time was fiscally sound policy?

 

[MaggieMae]

Considering it's fact...I'm sure they would.

Hey PP -- Maybe you need to brush up on the Rules and Regulations for this board, i.e.:

Rep System Guidelines: Our reputation system is designed to provide a feedback and credibility mechanism. Abuse of the system (repeated neg repping of the same person without cause or positive rep "trading" among users) will not be tolerated. Rep system abuse will result in warnings to cease. Continued abuse will result in random acts of rep manipulation of abusers by admins. Abuse the system, and we will mercilessly toy with you.

Perhaps you should grow the fuck up and quit whining....no one will give your pathetic ass one iota of sympathy for being a goddam crybaby.

So who's the child here? I rest my case, idiot.

 

[Immanuel]

If Social Security were a "Ponzi scheme," it never would have worked from the first year out. The only reason it can't work now without some adjustment is because people are living longer, thereby collecting longer, and more in benefits are paid out than taken in.

As for the rest of your analysis, assuming you are griping about the possibility of taxes being raised, even if that happens, the rate will be increased only to the level under the Clinton Administration, and I don't recall too many unhappy people during the 90's.

SS is a Ponzi scheme because it takes the payments of one person to provide the benefits for another.

There is no investment, no capital appreciation. The reason it worked for as long as it did was because the baby boomers were paying into SS to support the benefits to a much smaller population.

The reason it is failing now is that there are less people paying in to support the benefits being paid out.

You do know that SS has been nothing but an off the books slush fund for indiscriminate government spending right?

And the point of my other responses was not solely taxes.

RightWanker put forth the proposition that we who want less government infringement on our freedoms were somehow racist and homophobic.

But giving minorities equal access and expanding their freedoms did not lessen anyone else's freedoms.

The ultra left progressive idiocy of today is lessening our freedoms by allowing the government more control over our lives.

If you don't see the plain as day fact the the government being allowed to force us to buy insurance is a lessening of liberty then there really is no point in arguing with you as you are devoid of all reason.

A true Ponzi scheme leaves new "investors" with nothing. Social Security recipients, regardless when they become beneficiaries, continue to receive benefits. I'm certainly not arguing that Social Security is solvent, because it is not. But it isn't about to be tossed into the dumpster in favor of some other riskier form of government retirement program either. It would be completely impossible to just yank the rug out from under millions of people. So, for that reason alone, arguing over the reasons why SS has failed is stupid. It isn't a political debate, as both parties have stolen from the trust fund and neither party has done anything other than put patches on it.

As for the rest of your stuff, I'm really really really tired of arguing ideology. I'm sick to death of hearing that freedoms have been lost, liberties are nonexistent, and that conservatives have ALL the solutions to ALL our problems and thereafter we'll ALL be able to run around waving flags of freedom because of it. You do not have all the answers.

You see solutions as being as simple as just throwing out the old and shooting for those utopian stars where everyone should be healthy and wealthy if it weren't for those pesky government social programs, and it could all be accomplished without taxing anyone. Happy happy joy joy. But of course you ignore the whole landscape and see only your own flower bed through rose-colored glasses. So yes, you're right. There's no point in arguing because in my opinion, it is YOU who is devoid of all reason.

You are absolutely right that Social Security will continue to go on and on and on. Neither party is going to allow Social Security to fail. They simply cannot allow that to happen not only for those who need the retirement income, but also because they depend on the funds that they co-mingle with the General Fund.

However, there are ways to wean us off of it. It would take at least a generation, but it could be done, if we wanted to do it.

I don't think conservative "answers" are any better than liberal answers. I think if we want to solve our problems we have to be willing to sit down together and talk about them from both sides of the spectrum and then decide to come to terms with the solutions that are presented.

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime in the next dozen lifetimes or so.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

It's not surprising that someone who is Exceptionally Stupid would fail to GROK the Exceptional Freedom that Americans have experienced. It is unusual in human history for average people to be as free as we once were; and it's a shame to see our government actively destroying that freedom via abuse of power.

In terms of American history, the above statement would only apply if you are a caucasoid male.

I grok that.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's not surprising that someone who is Exceptionally Stupid would fail to GROK the Exceptional Freedom that Americans have experienced. It is unusual in human history for average people to be as free as we once were; and it's a shame to see our government actively destroying that freedom via abuse of power.

In terms of American history, the above statement would only apply if you are a caucasoid male.

Really? Which practices that are common in other areas of the world are routinely done in America:

- Female Genital Mutilation
- Stoning Rape Victims
- Marrying 8 year old girls to old men
- Executing Gays for Being Gay
- Raping children to Cure Disease
- Slavery (sexual and otherwise)

Oh please. Using third world mentality as an analogy is ungrocky. Does Great Britain engage in those activities?

 

[beowolfe]

In terms of American history, the above statement would only apply if you are a caucasoid male.

Really? Which practices that are common in other areas of the world are routinely done in America:

- Female Genital Mutilation
- Stoning Rape Victims
- Marrying 8 year old girls to old men
- Executing Gays for Being Gay
- Raping children to Cure Disease
- Slavery (sexual and otherwise)

Oh please. Using third world mentality as an analogy is ungrocky. Does Great Britain engage in those activities?

Stay focused. We were discussing the US, not any foreign nation.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It's not surprising that someone who is Exceptionally Stupid would fail to GROK the Exceptional Freedom that Americans have experienced. It is unusual in human history for average people to be as free as we once were; and it's a shame to see our government actively destroying that freedom via abuse of power.

You are SOOOOO right!

it pains to me to recount all the freedoms we have lost to obama and the liberal democrats...


like...

er...

uh....

the freedom to....

er....

uh...

and the freedom to.....

er....

uh.....

well

I can't actually think of any at the moment but I KNOW in my deranged conservative brain that there are a LOT of them!

Maybe you were thinking of the right to open a manufacturing plant and not hire collective bargainers...

Or open an Insurance company and not being forced to set aside acturial principles and forced to pay for certain losses of those who are already sick...

Or to make commission contracts with an employer and expect to be paid on my hitting the performance thresholds of that contract.

Or to not buy healthinsurance...

Or to not have significant portions of the product of my labor confiscated to subsidize the ethereal needs of the collective.

Or to...

 

[MaggieMae]

SS is a Ponzi scheme because it takes the payments of one person to provide the benefits for another.

There is no investment, no capital appreciation. The reason it worked for as long as it did was because the baby boomers were paying into SS to support the benefits to a much smaller population.

The reason it is failing now is that there are less people paying in to support the benefits being paid out.

You do know that SS has been nothing but an off the books slush fund for indiscriminate government spending right?

And the point of my other responses was not solely taxes.

RightWanker put forth the proposition that we who want less government infringement on our freedoms were somehow racist and homophobic.

But giving minorities equal access and expanding their freedoms did not lessen anyone else's freedoms.

The ultra left progressive idiocy of today is lessening our freedoms by allowing the government more control over our lives.

If you don't see the plain as day fact the the government being allowed to force us to buy insurance is a lessening of liberty then there really is no point in arguing with you as you are devoid of all reason.

A true Ponzi scheme leaves new "investors" with nothing. Social Security recipients, regardless when they become beneficiaries, continue to receive benefits. I'm certainly not arguing that Social Security is solvent, because it is not. But it isn't about to be tossed into the dumpster in favor of some other riskier form of government retirement program either. It would be completely impossible to just yank the rug out from under millions of people. So, for that reason alone, arguing over the reasons why SS has failed is stupid. It isn't a political debate, as both parties have stolen from the trust fund and neither party has done anything other than put patches on it.

As for the rest of your stuff, I'm really really really tired of arguing ideology. I'm sick to death of hearing that freedoms have been lost, liberties are nonexistent, and that conservatives have ALL the solutions to ALL our problems and thereafter we'll ALL be able to run around waving flags of freedom because of it. You do not have all the answers.

You see solutions as being as simple as just throwing out the old and shooting for those utopian stars where everyone should be healthy and wealthy if it weren't for those pesky government social programs, and it could all be accomplished without taxing anyone. Happy happy joy joy. But of course you ignore the whole landscape and see only your own flower bed through rose-colored glasses. So yes, you're right. There's no point in arguing because in my opinion, it is YOU who is devoid of all reason.

You are absolutely right that Social Security will continue to go on and on and on. Neither party is going to allow Social Security to fail. They simply cannot allow that to happen not only for those who need the retirement income, but also because they depend on the funds that they co-mingle with the General Fund.

However, there are ways to wean us off of it. It would take at least a generation, but it could be done, if we wanted to do it.

I don't think conservative "answers" are any better than liberal answers. I think if we want to solve our problems we have to be willing to sit down together and talk about them from both sides of the spectrum and then decide to come to terms with the solutions that are presented.

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime in the next dozen lifetimes or so.

Immie

Well I still maintain a glimmer of hope that there still remains enough sensible people who understand that no government can withstand for very long the outright civil war going on among the principal parties, and that they will HAVE to come to compromising positions soon, and it will take a LOT of give and take by both.