Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

If the economy continues to slump along and the Republicans get the chance, they'll try to do what Cameron and the Tories have done in the UK, and then we'll really see a mess.

Flotilla!
 

Throw a big party for a lady who wears funny hats?

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

well, odds are you'll still have enough senators so you can fillibuster and derail the adults from trying to fix the country, like you guys did during w's tenure- I do hope those criminals are arrested for treason if they do it again.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Maybe, although I think what they want is long term cuts in entitlements, which Romney will trade for short term spending. Not good, but better than the UK.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

And the right wing likes to accuse Obama of secretly wanting to be a dictator.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

not sure what your point is. but it seems pretty straight forward to me.

18 USC § 2381 - Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

This notion that you can lock in long-term cuts in "entitlements" is such a pipe dream. The money goes to old people to cover basic living costs and health care. Old people really care about these things, and they vote, which is why the GOP won't try to make cuts in "short-term entitlements." But today's unretired are going to grow older, retire, vote in larger numbers, and want to have a basic level of subsistence and health-care expenses covered, at which point a future Congress is going to give it to them. Nothing Congress can do today is going to change that dynamic.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Well, then, vote Romney!

They can "privatize" social security, which could stick, and they will raise the eligibility age for both it and Medicare. And they will find ways to reduce Medicaid.

It's really a question of whether they want to go full Walker. Given last night's results, they probably do.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

This is an interesting take. Approving the Bush tax cuts, while also approving budget-busters like Medicare Part D and his various wars, certainly threaten to destroy America and so give aid and comfort to its enemies. But I always viewed the Dems who so voted as betraying their party, and its history of fiscal prudence.

But maybe it really is treason against the country -- the Rs can always say "I thought Reagan would have wanted it" or "Rush made me do it." Dems don't have that version of the Ideological Twinkie Defense.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

I disagree. It is always harder to cut current or short-term entitlements than it is not to raise them. If you cut long-term entitlements, then maybe a future Congress will face pressure to raise them, but that pressure will be offset by the fact that raising short-term entitlements requires tax increases, other spending cuts, or deficit spending in the short term.

It's relatively easy to grant future benefits when you can put the burden of figuring out how to pay for them on a future Congress (or state legislature, or local board of supes) than it is to grant current or near-term benefits that the current decision-makers need to pay for.

Beyond that, you seem to suggest that there are no potential reductions in entitlements that would not constitute cuts to "basic" or "subsistence-level" health care and retirement support. Again, I disagree.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Sidd Finch, Very Serious Person.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

I was drinking extra-strong coffee this morning.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

"no" potential reductions of course lets you argue, hey, we could always use a wire coat hanger instead of wooden in some closet or cut the salary of that bimbo secretary who seems to have charmed the hiring administrator.

But the actual benefit on SS really is not much over subsistence (for a benefit many have paid an awful lot into) and health care needs improvement in many areas, something hard to do when debate is being framed around what to cut.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

You speak as if either party gives a fuck about anything beyond the next election. And don't tell me this is a false equivalence.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

The problem is defining "basic." The "compensation culture" beneficiaries of our society tend to be old, or make bad lifestyle choices (excessive breeding, horrible diet, injury-and-disease-accruing behaviors, etc.). For them, "basic" is a big menu of services.

I do not think an across the board reduction in social security is fair to a lot of the elderly who are already barely making it on SS checks. I think ripping the legions of lazy working-age people on unjustifiable SS disability off those rolls is an excellent start. That's just an example, of course... The approach, however it's applied, should be "scalpel," not "sweeping cuts." Words like "basic" should be shunned in the discussion. The assessment should be, "Is this justifiable given budget constraints? Or is this entitlement really more a discretionary sort of thing?"

ETA: Means testing should also be applied. If you have $5mil, you don't need a couple grand from SS every month. Yeah, I know, it's "your money." Tough shit. Conceding a bit of walking around money to keep the desperate from stealing everybody else's cars (or voting a real socialist into office) is a small price to pay.