It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum

Forum Business => Member Original Diaries => Topic started by: amperfectunion on April 18, 2012, 11:35:03 AM

Title: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 18, 2012, 11:35:03 AM
Hey folks, latest article is up, called "An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States"

"The big news today is that President Obama has just gone down in history as the first ever President to have increased the national debt by more than 5 trillion dollars in their time as President.  And, as another feather in his already well-plumed hat, he did it in less than four years."

http://amostperfectunion.com/ampu/archives/art45.htm (http://amostperfectunion.com/ampu/archives/art45.htm)

Enjoy!
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Libertas on April 18, 2012, 11:42:36 AM
Heh, our timing is impeccable.

http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,5537.0.html (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,5537.0.html)

 ;D   ;)

I love your earth-moon dollar-distance thingy!  Stuff that blows peoples minds is good, shock does work, and is underutilized today!   ::thumbsup::

Our North American Dictator has been busy...demonically busy!

 ::gaah::
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: AmericanPatriot on April 18, 2012, 11:44:42 AM
Aren't we bankrupt already?
The election is about managing the demise
Chapter 7 or Chapter 11
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 18, 2012, 11:45:31 AM
Aren't we bankrupt already?
The election is about managing the demise
Chapter 7 or Chapter 11

Exactly.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Libertas on April 18, 2012, 11:52:00 AM
Chapter 11 is a sham, but most want to avoid Chapter 7 it appears...so...buy a few more years just for show...
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Sectionhand on April 20, 2012, 04:11:40 AM
Aren't we bankrupt already?
The election is about managing the demise
Chapter 7 or Chapter 11

Yep ... Just haven't filed the paperwork yet .
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 20, 2012, 09:54:47 AM
Aren't we bankrupt already?
The election is about managing the demise
Chapter 7 or Chapter 11

Yep ... Just haven't filed the paperwork yet .

I still think the next President can fix things.  So long as that next President isn't Obama.

They're going to have to be bold and transformative, but I believe the will of the American people is there to support bold moves like social security reform and a drastic cutting off the federal budget.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: AmericanPatriot on April 20, 2012, 11:26:59 AM
So, you're an optimist, amperfectunion?

Romney is not the guy for bold and transformative
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: IronDioPriest on April 20, 2012, 11:33:20 AM
So, you're an optimist, amperfectunion?

Romney is not the guy for bold and transformative

I do tend to agree with you AP. But I also see him as someone who we can at least pressure from the grassroots to be accountable. He knows that if he wins this thing, it will be because people who didn't want to vote for him did so against their better judgment. He'll be motivated to at least listen.

And I've said before, IF Romney governs as President with even a strong hint of the agenda he's running on, he'll be more conservative than Reagan. That's a HUGE "if".
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Libertas on April 20, 2012, 11:35:21 AM
If "if's" and "but's" were candy and nuts, everyday would be Christmas!

(I always loved that one!) ;D
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 20, 2012, 11:37:13 AM
So, you're an optimist, amperfectunion?

Romney is not the guy for bold and transformative

If his private conversation as recounted by Limbaugh is to be believed, I disagree.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Romney guy at all, but I think it's possible we're underestimating him.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Weisshaupt on April 20, 2012, 11:37:33 AM
They're going to have to be bold and transformative, but I believe the will of the American people is there to support bold moves like social security reform and a drastic cutting off the federal budget.

Can I move to your planet? On my planet,  there is no political will to do the required cuts (http://www.gallup.com/poll/145790/americans-oppose-cuts-education-social-security-defense.aspx) or at least there wasn't as of January - any more than there was support for austerity in Greece.   And really there is no call for such cuts - after all, unlike Greece, we own a printing press and know how to use it.

It must be nice to live in the bizarro universe though. Here in mine we are all bracing for impact.




Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 20, 2012, 11:41:23 AM
They're going to have to be bold and transformative, but I believe the will of the American people is there to support bold moves like social security reform and a drastic cutting off the federal budget.

Can I move to your planet? On my planet,  there is no political will to do the required cuts (http://www.gallup.com/poll/145790/americans-oppose-cuts-education-social-security-defense.aspx) or at least there wasn't as of January - any more than there was support for austerity in Greece.   And really there is no call for such cuts - after all, unlike Greece, we own a printing press and know how to use it.

It must be nice to live in the bizarro universe though. Here in mine we are all bracing for impact.


We'll see.  A true leader is someone that can inspire people to see things their way, not someone who looks at a poll and just does what other people think he should do.  Maybe that's Romney and maybe it isn't, but giving up never trying never changed anything.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Libertas on April 20, 2012, 12:03:12 PM
Kralizec is coming, the only argument is over time frame.

I'd loved to be proved wrong, would be pleased to be wrong...

But I already agreed to give crony Republicanism a chance, doesn't cause me much pain, so...
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Weisshaupt on April 20, 2012, 12:19:23 PM
We'll see.  A true leader is someone that can inspire people to see things their way, not someone who looks at a poll and just does what other people think he should do.  Maybe that's Romney and maybe it isn't, but giving up never trying never changed anything.

Agreed. Just saying that the idea  there is a will to support those moves now is just so far out of my experience, I can only figure one of us is living under significantly different conditions than the other.  I can't even convince my very conservative stepfather his benefits can't be paid, and that the system should be cut.  There is simply a  huge gap to be overcome - when only 40% of your own party agree with you that there should be cuts ( we haven't even talked about the size!) , then there is a long way to go.  

Public opinion can be changed,  but it certainly doesn't support the cuts now. Given that Romney so far has only inspired me to hate em enough that I am still undecided as to how to vote, and might even consider the devil I know to be a better choice, I am not holding my breath on his ability to persuade the most selfish generation of boomers to give up their free candy, or even to admit it might be a good idea. Perhaps as things get worse such a publicwill might develop, but  that just means the problem has become more intractable in the meantime.  And in reality, I am expecting to see the public will  that will  expressed  to be more along the lines we are seeing in Greece.

If you run the numbers there is just no possible way the required amount of cuts will be accepted, and even if they were, we are out of time. We have passed the debt event horizon, and we simply can't escape from its clutches now, even with brand new Di-lithium crystals, Scotty in Engineering and Kirk at the helm. And we don't have them. We have Wesley Crusher and Diana Troi, and they are both  in a shuttle craft debating the finer points of pocket lint.
 
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 20, 2012, 12:31:01 PM
We'll see.  A true leader is someone that can inspire people to see things their way, not someone who looks at a poll and just does what other people think he should do.  Maybe that's Romney and maybe it isn't, but giving up never trying never changed anything.

Agreed. Just saying that the idea  there is a will to support those moves now is just so far out of my experience, I can only figure one of us is living under significantly different conditions than the other.  I can't even convince my very conservative stepfather his benefits can't be paid, and that the system should be cut.  There is simply a  huge gap to be overcome - when only 40% of your own party agree with you that there should be cuts ( we haven't even talked about the size!) , then there is a long way to go.  

Public opinion can be changed,  but it certainly doesn't support the cuts now. Given that Romney so far has only inspired me to hate em enough that I am still undecided as to how to vote, and might even consider the devil I know to be a better choice, I am not holding my breath on his ability to persuade the most selfish generation of boomers to give up their free candy, or even to admit it might be a good idea. Perhaps as things get worse such a publicwill might develop, but  that just means the problem has become more intractable in the meantime.  And in reality, I am expecting to see the public will  that will  expressed  to be more along the lines we are seeing in Greece.

If you run the numbers there is just no possible way the required amount of cuts will be accepted, and even if they were, we are out of time. We have passed the debt event horizon, and we simply can't escape from its clutches now, even with brand new Di-lithium crystals, Scotty in Engineering and Kirk at the helm. And we don't have them. We have Wesley Crusher and Diana Troi, and they are both  in a shuttle craft debating the finer points of pocket lint.
 

I hear ya.  People are all for cuts until it hits the entitlement THEY get, and then they don't want cuts anymore.

But...a true leader can overcome that.  I don't know if that's Romney or not, but if we are to believe what Limbaugh said about a private conversation he had with Romney, I think we can expect Romney to be aggressive, which is what we need.  I certainly hope that is the case. 

The cuts are going to have to be drastic and immediate.  None of this 1 trillion over 10 years nonsense that gets wiped out by baseline budget increases.  How about 1 trillion THIS year with no baseline increase for next year?  That's what we need.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 20, 2012, 12:51:48 PM
Many of these seniors are living on a finely balanced budget -- I know mine are -- and their small investment income has been all but wiped out, so I understand their fear.  (I also understand there are ones with no financial worries - not applicable for my point).

I will do for my parents in any case; some won't do for theirs.

This is exactly why Obamacare must be ripped out, branch and root, before too many people come to government-mandated dependency.  And why, going forward, perhaps during a rebuild, no government ANYWHERE may be permitted to "provide" ANYTHING that even looks like a "safety net".  This is not charitable; it's a morally wrong two-fer, stealing from some to engender dependency in others, and no matter how good the original intentions are, there is always mission-creep.

Violating people's rights, and the Constitution, "just a little" is like the concept of being "just a little bit pregnant".
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Weisshaupt on April 20, 2012, 12:52:34 PM
The cuts are going to have to be drastic and immediate.  None of this 1 trillion over 10 years nonsense that gets wiped out by baseline budget increases.  How about 1 trillion THIS year with no baseline increase for next year?  That's what we need.

Actually anything short of balancing the budget isn't enough.  A trillion this year and holding spending constant, still leaves a good Bush sized deficit. It will put the collapse off. It will not, however, solve anything. The baseline won't affect the mandatory SS and Medicare/Medicaid spending, (and perhaps Obamacare) and the demographics are such that those will force bigger deficits each and every year even if the official discretionary budget has 0 growth.  I did these numbers with CO a while back in the Economics section.  If I get a chance maybe I will revise my charts with new deficit info and see how bad it is now , but  the last time I did this with really rosy GDP growth numbers, and a balanced budget, and maintaining  current stupidly low interest rates on the debt,  it was still 2025 before the deficit would start being reduced, and frankly I don't think the markets are going to let interest remain low because of the inflation already introduced.  Its a joo-joo-flop situation.  The entitlements are the problem. They  must be cut, and I don't think even Ronald Reagan could convince these people that it was required.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 20, 2012, 12:53:20 PM
Many of these seniors are living on a finely balanced budget -- I know mine are -- and their small investment income has been all but wiped out, so I understand their fear.  (I also understand there are ones with no financial worries - not applicable for my point).

I will do for my parents in any case; some won't do for theirs.

This is exactly why Obamacare must be ripped out, branch and root, before too many people come to government-mandated dependency.  And why, going forward, perhaps during a rebuild, no government ANYWHERE may be permitted to "provide" ANYTHING that even looks like a "safety net".  This is not charitable; it's a morally wrong two-fer, stealing from some to engender dependency in others, and no matter how good the original intentions are, there is always mission-creep.

Violating people's rights, and the Constitution, "just a little" is like the concept of being "just a little bit pregnant".

Exactly right.

Even though not strictly "conservative," I don't believe we can, or should, take social security away from people.  Right wrong or indifferent, the government made a promise, and should keep it.

That said...the government should immediately STOP making promises, and then just let the existing ones expire.  Then, problem solved.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 20, 2012, 12:54:25 PM
The cuts are going to have to be drastic and immediate.  None of this 1 trillion over 10 years nonsense that gets wiped out by baseline budget increases.  How about 1 trillion THIS year with no baseline increase for next year?  That's what we need.

Actually anything short of balancing the budget isn't enough.

I honestly don't think that can be done in one year.  People and businesses do need time to adjust.

I think it can be done in four, however.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: AmericanPatriot on April 20, 2012, 12:56:30 PM
Quote
How about 1 trillion THIS year with no baseline increase for next year?  That's what we need.
Then we should be supporting Ron Paul.
At least he says it
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 20, 2012, 12:58:49 PM
Many of these seniors are living on a finely balanced budget -- I know mine are -- and their small investment income has been all but wiped out, so I understand their fear.  (I also understand there are ones with no financial worries - not applicable for my point).

I will do for my parents in any case; some won't do for theirs.

This is exactly why Obamacare must be ripped out, branch and root, before too many people come to government-mandated dependency.  And why, going forward, perhaps during a rebuild, no government ANYWHERE may be permitted to "provide" ANYTHING that even looks like a "safety net".  This is not charitable; it's a morally wrong two-fer, stealing from some to engender dependency in others, and no matter how good the original intentions are, there is always mission-creep.

Violating people's rights, and the Constitution, "just a little" is like the concept of being "just a little bit pregnant".

Exactly right.

Even though not strictly "conservative," I don't believe we can, or should, take social security away from people.  Right wrong or indifferent, the government made a promise, and should keep it.

That said...the government should immediately STOP making promises, and then just let the existing ones expire.  Then, problem solved.

Can't not, amp.  It's not a matter of can or should; it simply cannot continue.  Period.  THERE.IS.NO.MONEY. 

And let me just say here that I don't give a good g-damn WHAT the government promised.  Those in the government who "promised" put me on the hook for making good the promises, and clearly had no authority to make them.  WTF?  I made no promises.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 20, 2012, 01:22:39 PM
Quote
How about 1 trillion THIS year with no baseline increase for next year?  That's what we need.
Then we should be supporting Ron Paul.
At least he says it

Domestically, I'm right there with Ron Paul 75-80% of the time.  Foreign policy?  No way. 

It's a tough situation, because foreign policy is moot when you're in an economically-induced state of anarchy.  Economic success is irrelevant when your foreign policy is so bad your freedom is lost to a foreign enemy.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 20, 2012, 01:25:36 PM
Many of these seniors are living on a finely balanced budget -- I know mine are -- and their small investment income has been all but wiped out, so I understand their fear.  (I also understand there are ones with no financial worries - not applicable for my point).

I will do for my parents in any case; some won't do for theirs.

This is exactly why Obamacare must be ripped out, branch and root, before too many people come to government-mandated dependency.  And why, going forward, perhaps during a rebuild, no government ANYWHERE may be permitted to "provide" ANYTHING that even looks like a "safety net".  This is not charitable; it's a morally wrong two-fer, stealing from some to engender dependency in others, and no matter how good the original intentions are, there is always mission-creep.

Violating people's rights, and the Constitution, "just a little" is like the concept of being "just a little bit pregnant".

Exactly right.

Even though not strictly "conservative," I don't believe we can, or should, take social security away from people.  Right wrong or indifferent, the government made a promise, and should keep it.

That said...the government should immediately STOP making promises, and then just let the existing ones expire.  Then, problem solved.

Can't not, amp.  It's not a matter of can or should; it simply cannot continue.  Period.  THERE.IS.NO.MONEY.

There IS money, we're just spending it before we get it.  That's not quite the same thing, though I do understand the sentiment you are expressing.

We can service the existing debt, incur no more new debt, cut out all the bloat and entitlements and funding for things that don't work, strictly limit the budget to only things that are constitutionally allowed, still fund social security for all the people currently drawing, and then stop making those promises to people.  We thereby ensure that social security is solvent, and then ceases to exist in a generation.

It can't be done in a year, but four?  Sure.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Weisshaupt on April 20, 2012, 01:52:52 PM
Even though not strictly "conservative," I don't believe we can, or should, take social security away from people.  Right wrong or indifferent, the government made a promise, and should keep it. That said...the government should immediately STOP making promises, and then just let the existing ones expire.  Then, problem solved.

It can't keep the current promises.  The current promises will cost between 50-80 Trillion.  There is no "Should" in math. The only why current promises can be kept is by printing the money. Even if we only keep half of our promises.. yeah its still insolvent. Hauser's Law ensures it.

Why I should continue to pay social security taxes when I would not get any benefit?  Previous generations voted to give themselves their children and grandchildren's money. Right after the boomer generation was born it became clear there was a demographic tidal wave coming that would make the entitlement system insolvent. The boomer generation did nothing and STILL refuses to, and expects those in the younger generations to pay for their "promised" benefits in full, and fore-go their own benefits in the future and be less able to save for their own retirements because of the money stolen from them via taxation and via the inflation that MUST occur in order to pay the current promised benefits. 

If you are willing to ignore  this problem and steal from your own children, then you DESERVE to be cut off and forced to eat cat food. (or nothing and starve). But of course, that is not going to happen, is it? The current SS recipients had an entire lifetime to save, invest and prepare.  I will be denied all of the above and I will work till the day I die, because of them.  I feel no sympathy at all, and do not feel honor bound to keep "promises" that I never made, never agreed to, and which I am forced, at gunpoint, to participate in.



 
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: IronDioPriest on April 20, 2012, 01:53:33 PM
I remember how under the Bush tax cuts and ensuing growing economy the budget deficit (although not debt) evaporated by the hundreds of billions rather quickly. I realize we're talking about a different set of economic circumstances and a drastically different degree of insolvency, but the model is there.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Weisshaupt on April 20, 2012, 02:20:00 PM
There IS money, we're just spending it before we get it.  That's not quite the same thing, though I do understand the sentiment you are expressing.

We can service the existing debt, incur no more new debt, cut out all the bloat and entitlements and funding for things that don't work, strictly limit the budget to only things that are constitutionally allowed, still fund social security for all the people currently drawing, and then stop making those promises to people.  We thereby ensure that social security is solvent, and then ceases to exist in a generation.

It can't be done in a year, but four?  Sure.
Tirllion)

There is NO WAY or us to pay the unfunded liabilities. To do so we would need 50-100 trillion in the bank right now gathering interest.

If you limit it to people already drawing, what about those who are 1 year away? 2 Years Away?  5? 10? They all paid in too. Why should people currently drawing get paid, and not those who planned on it, but never got a chance to submit the claim?  

And Social Security is the lesser part of it. Are you suggesting no Medicare benefits for anyone not already getting them?

Promises or no. This does not ever get paid. Someone gets screwed. Its a Ponzi scheme and that is how Ponzi schemes work.
As it is, we are headed for money printing so the politicians don't have to own up and outright default. So yeah, I will get my SS check for $1500 when I "retire"  and for that I might be able to get a cup of coffee.  Oh right, I can't afford to "retire" because my life savings were eaten up by inflation, and I won't bother drawing the check because I need my 4.3 Million dollar Salary  at 7-11

I am not exaggerating.  Its is that bad and that hopeless. Pull out  excel spreadsheet and run the numbers yourself.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Weisshaupt on April 20, 2012, 02:41:25 PM
I remember how under the Bush tax cuts and ensuing growing economy the budget deficit (although not debt) evaporated by the hundreds of billions rather quickly. I realize we're talking about a different set of economic circumstances and a drastically different degree of insolvency, but the model is there.


The limits are established by Hauser's Law - you can have 20% of GDP as tax receipts. That is it. Your ability to spend is limited primarily by GDP.  20% of 14 Triillion is 2.8 Trillion. CBO expects 4% GDP growth, but we all know that isn't going to happen, but if it did, we would have a 20 Trillion GDP in 10 years.  You get 4 Trillion in revenue then - that won't even pay for Current spending.  The unfunded liabilities will grow at a much higher rate - 6-10%, add in the interest on our debt,  and this is over in less than 15 years- and that is the pie in the sky happy,happy joy, joy scenario. What we really have had is under 2% (because the inflation makes it look like it is growing). If the economy does pick up, the fed will be forced to raise interest rates - and hence what we pay on our debt. Even if it only rises to 3%,  that is enough to run us over by just the extra we have to spend on entitlements.

When you need 10s of Trillions and you can cut by 100s of billions, and you need to do it over decades, the math simply does not work.
Believe me, I didn't cash out my 401K and spend my life savings on prepping for a  "maybe"
There is no way the Math works without dramatic changes in entitlements. The Ryan plan is a good place to start, but it falls short because it is based on the CBOs rosy expectations of 4% growth.  Less than that, and you get less time.   


 
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Libertas on April 20, 2012, 02:56:24 PM
Wassamatta Weisshaupt?  Don't want to follow conventional thinking?

What could go wrong?

(http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss291/libertasinfinitio/Warnings/hole.gif)

Take the big unfunded liabilities out of the equation, and the rest is even too daunting for the average Pubbie.

Severe cutback of government across the board, strip the bureaucracy down to the bone, end all foreign aid and UN support, close whole departments and agencies, repeal 90% of the laws and reg's imposed over the past 100 year, Congress & everyone on a crash diet, end all welfare and pay down the debt and maybe...maybe there is hope.

Oh, and sustain this for at least 20 years.

If not, might as well jump in the hole too!
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Weisshaupt on April 20, 2012, 03:12:27 PM
Wassamatta Weisshaupt?  Don't want to follow conventional thinking?

No, I just want to know why no one else can see the hole and realize its too damn wide to jump.
I played with those spreadsheets for days with Charles. THIS. DOESN'T. WORK. UNLESS. ENTITLEMENTS. ARE. NOT . JUST. CUT. BUT. ABOLISHED. PERIOD.
As it is, we couldn't even get a deal that kept spending the same as last year.


Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 20, 2012, 03:15:47 PM
Wassamatta Weisshaupt?  Don't want to follow conventional thinking?

No, I just want to know why no one else can see the hole and realize its too damn wide to jump.
I played with those spreadsheets for days with Charles. THIS. DOESN'T. WORK. UNLESS. ENTITLEMENTS. ARE. NOT . JUST. CUT. BUT. ABOLISHED. PERIOD.
As it is, we couldn't even get a deal that kept spending the same as last year.


See?  This is what I'm saying -- it is pointless to keep talking.   About almost anything.

THERE.IS.NO.MONEY.       ::bashing::
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Predator Don on April 20, 2012, 03:27:13 PM
I believe romney told rush he would be a one termer. I hope we get to see if he is true to his word.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 20, 2012, 03:36:44 PM
I believe romney told rush he would be a one termer. I hope we get to see if he is true to his word.

If he does what's needed, he definitely will be a one-termer.

Some days, I believe that is the reason why better Republicans decided not to just not-run, but to run away.  Whoever attempts to properly fix this mess is going to be blamed for the whole mishegoss.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Alphabet Soup on April 20, 2012, 04:08:30 PM
Wassamatta Weisshaupt?  Don't want to follow conventional thinking?

What could go wrong?

(http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss291/libertasinfinitio/Warnings/hole.gif)

Take the big unfunded liabilities out of the equation, and the rest is even too daunting for the average Pubbie.

Severe cutback of government across the board, strip the bureaucracy down to the bone, end all foreign aid and UN support, close whole departments and agencies, repeal 90% of the laws and reg's imposed over the past 100 year, Congress & everyone on a crash diet, end all welfare and pay down the debt and maybe...maybe there is hope.

Oh, and sustain this for at least 20 years.

If not, might as well jump in the hole too!

You know - if they were just to grab some Øbozo Bucks on their way down they could use them as parachutes!

Soft landings everybody  ;D
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 22, 2012, 09:51:27 PM
Even though not strictly "conservative," I don't believe we can, or should, take social security away from people.  Right wrong or indifferent, the government made a promise, and should keep it. That said...the government should immediately STOP making promises, and then just let the existing ones expire.  Then, problem solved.

It can't keep the current promises.  The current promises will cost between 50-80 Trillion.  There is no "Should" in math. The only why current promises can be kept is by printing the money. Even if we only keep half of our promises.. yeah its still insolvent. Hauser's Law ensures it.

I think you misunderstand me.  I'm only talking about Social Security.

Here's the actual hard, cold reality - even if everyone in the nation woke up tomorrow and were of one accord and decided that drastic change needed to occur, it still wouldn't happen in one year.  It might not even happen in four, though that period of time is much more realistic.  People need to time adjust their lives to account for the fact that the government upon which they were depending is no longer going to be propping them up.  Maybe that means going back to school or learning a new trade or whatever, but it can't reasonably happen in one year.  And it would probably require 4-8.

Businesses too need time to adjust.  Time to adjust to what would invariably be a new health care landscape.  Time to adjust to a new tax code.  That's not going to happen in one year, either.

I know we all like to be super doomy gloomy around here, but giving up and saying it's impossible never accomplished anything.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 22, 2012, 10:02:17 PM
Quote
I know we all like to be super doomy gloomy around here, but giving up and saying it's impossible never accomplished anything.

Please don't do that

"We all" don't like any one thing "around here"; opinions, perspectives and prescriptions vary.

Weisshaupt speaks, as do some others of us, from the reality of bottom-line equating.  Some, such as IDP and trapeze, think we have space left yet in which to maneuver.

Nobody here has voted for "giving up"; it's a fight in another arena they advocate.  And that's far from "impossible".
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 22, 2012, 10:24:35 PM
Quote
I know we all like to be super doomy gloomy around here, but giving up and saying it's impossible never accomplished anything.

Please don't do that

"We all" don't like any one thing "around here"; opinions, perspectives and prescriptions vary.

Ok.

Weisshaupt speaks, as do some others of us, from the reality of bottom-line equating.  Some, such as IDP and trapeze, think we have space left yet in which to maneuver.

Ok.

Nobody here has voted for "giving up"; it's a fight in another arena they advocate.  And that's far from "impossible".

And what arena is that?  It sure sounds to me like there are several people here who think the country cannot be turned around.  I'm not sure how else to classify that other than giving up.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 22, 2012, 10:31:46 PM
Quote
And what arena is that?  It sure sounds to me like there are several people here who think the country cannot be turned around.  I'm not sure how else to classify that other than giving up.

Believing the country cannot be turned around within the present parameters does not signify giving up because "giving up" means laying down and accepting what the Looters dish out.

I will not lay down.  I will not accept.

I believe the rule of law is dead and CONTRARY to giving up believe we should move on them now.

Your mileage may vary, as it does with some others of my people here, and that's okay.  For now.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 22, 2012, 10:34:39 PM
Quote
And what arena is that?  It sure sounds to me like there are several people here who think the country cannot be turned around.  I'm not sure how else to classify that other than giving up.

Believing the country cannot be turned around within the present parameters does not signify giving up because "giving up" means laying down and accepting what the Looters dish out.

And what other parameters are you talking about?  It sounds to me like you're advocating violence.  That'll get you exactly nowhere.  All you'll do is empower your enemies and ensure they win.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 22, 2012, 10:37:31 PM
Quote
And what arena is that?  It sure sounds to me like there are several people here who think the country cannot be turned around.  I'm not sure how else to classify that other than giving up.

Believing the country cannot be turned around within the present parameters does not signify giving up because "giving up" means laying down and accepting what the Looters dish out.

And what other parameters are you talking about?  It sounds to me like you're advocating violence.  That'll get you exactly nowhere.  All you'll do is empower your enemies and ensure they win.

You are wrong and I will not discuss it further in public.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Alphabet Soup on April 22, 2012, 11:15:27 PM
Quote
And what arena is that?  It sure sounds to me like there are several people here who think the country cannot be turned around.  I'm not sure how else to classify that other than giving up.

Stating the hard cold reality isn't the same as giving up but I'll admit to some of the doom & doom. Perhaps you could humor this gloom~n~doomer with a scenario where you believe this country can be turned around. Dismissing your earlier prelude (even if everyone in the nation woke up tomorrow and were of one accord and decided that drastic change needed to occur) because that's not going to happen.

And forget about "They're going to have to be bold and transformative, but I believe the will of the American people is there to support bold moves like social security reform and a drastic cutting off the federal budget." because that's not going to happen either. Mittens is neither of those things and the left won't allow him to do the things you suggest.

So, what next? Be specific and as optimistic as possible  :D

Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 22, 2012, 11:19:29 PM

So, what next? Be specific and as optimistic as possible  :D



So let me get this straight...you reject my premise out of hand, and expect me to simply accept yours?  Come on.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 22, 2012, 11:23:35 PM

So, what next? Be specific and as optimistic as possible  :D



So let me get this straight...you reject my premise out of hand, and expect me to simply accept yours?  Come on.

No, hon.  He presents his POV honestly and expects you to defend yours, rejection notwithstanding. 

None of us are beyond reason, we just need a few basis-points on which to hang hats.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 22, 2012, 11:33:12 PM

So, what next? Be specific and as optimistic as possible  :D



So let me get this straight...you reject my premise out of hand, and expect me to simply accept yours?  Come on.

No, hon.  He presents his POV honestly and expects you to defend yours, rejection notwithstanding. 

None of us are beyond reason, we just need a few basis-points on which to hang hats.

Sorry, that's not what happened at all.  I've done nothing BUT present my view.  He said it was impossible without bothering to state why - just that "it is", and that means he rejected the premise out of hand.  Then expects me to formulate an argument within the bounds of HIS premise.  Which I won't do, because it seems the premise is that the only way to affect real change in this country is with violence.  I reject that premise, vehemently, and he rejects mine.  There's not much else to talk about. 

If you don't think I've offered more than a few basis points, I'd ask you if you've read what I've been writing.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 22, 2012, 11:41:20 PM

So, what next? Be specific and as optimistic as possible  :D



So let me get this straight...you reject my premise out of hand, and expect me to simply accept yours?  Come on.

No, hon.  He presents his POV honestly and expects you to defend yours, rejection notwithstanding.  

None of us are beyond reason, we just need a few basis-points on which to hang hats.

Sorry, that's not what happened at all.  I've done nothing BUT present my view.  He said it was impossible without bothering to state why - just that "it is", and that means he rejected the premise out of hand.  Then expects me to formulate an argument within the bounds of HIS premise.  Which I won't do, because it seems the premise is that the only way to affect real change in this country is with violence.  I reject that premise, vehemently, and he rejects mine.  There's not much else to talk about.  

If you don't think I've offered more than a few basis points, I'd ask you if you've read what I've been writing.

I HAVE read it; all of it.  I've also pointed out to you that some here agree with you as far as working within the system goes.  I'm not one of 'em, but, so what?  You write for the ones that agree and the ones you can sway to your POV, and hope the ones that don't are influenced as well, no?

Listen to me.  LISTEN:

We're not adversaries here, donchaknow?  We articulate, pontificate and advocate within a friendly, civil network.  We try out and hone our arguments on each other for use in a wider sphere.  With the spread of viewpoints here, if you can't eliminate the weaknesses in your argument, what hope do you have with the moderates, nevermind the "liberals"?
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Alphabet Soup on April 22, 2012, 11:43:18 PM
Your original premise (correct me if I'm wrong) is that we can recover from this mess, but not with Øbozo at the helm. I gave it a nod of agreement (agreed in principle as a theoretic possibility). One of the necessities to turning this country around is to contain our spending, and entitlements hits square on that target.

One poster - Weisshaupt - says that we are in so deep on SS that we'll never see the light of day (my paraphrase). In turn you said something to the effect that (your premise stipulated) we could accomplish the sea change in four years.

Have I stated the current playing field correctly?

Your premise: "even if everyone in the nation woke up tomorrow and were of one accord and decided that drastic change needed to occur". Right?

I can recall no time in our history when everyone has awoken with identical sentiments. Even in the wake of 9/11 we may have offered similar sentiments, but we couldn't agree on much more than that we had been attacked and it was generally a sad and ugly thing.

I'm sure that you've watched Congress as closely as I have and seen the obstructionism of the left. How many days has it been since the Senate proposed a budget? 1085 days I believe. With that in mind I would ask again how in the world we are going to suddenly find the equanimity and generosity of spirit that you are suggesting?

I also recall GW attempting to rein in SS by advocating reform. Do you remember how well that went over?

So no, I don't reject your premise out of hand - but I do reject it as unrealistic.

Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 22, 2012, 11:46:45 PM

We're not adversaries here, donchaknow?  We articulate, pontificate and advocate within a friendly, civil network.  We try out and hone our arguments on each other for use in a wider sphere.  With the spread of viewpoints here, if you can't eliminate the weaknesses in your argument, what hope do you have with the moderates, nevermind the "liberals"?

What weaknesses?  I've clearly spelled out why I believe what I believe.  It is not weakness to refuse to argue inside of someone else's premise, especially when you don't believe it.  I do not believe it is impossible to turn this country around using non-violent means.  It appears more than a few people here reject that premise.  That's fine, they can do whatever they want, but it's a bit disingenuous to reject my premise out of hands and then expect me to accept and argue within theirs.

So as far as I can tell, the only "weakness" my argument has is that I refuse to believe we Americans need to start killing each other in order to fix the problems we have as a nation.  I will never accept that premise that we do.

You still haven't explained why you mean by "operating under other parameters" when I asked, either.  Why are you demanding I "hone my argument" when you fail to answer simple questions about yours?
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 22, 2012, 11:51:36 PM
Your original premise (correct me if I'm wrong) is that we can recover from this mess, but not with Øbozo at the helm.

Sort of.  I think it's possible to fix the problems we have with the right person leading us.  I don't know if Romney is that right person or not, but I don't respond well to overwhelming negativity and defeatism.  That's the sense of what I'm getting from a lot of people around here.  

One poster - Weisshaupt - says that we are in so deep on SS that we'll never see the light of day (my paraphrase). In turn you said something to the effect that (your premise stipulated) we could accomplish the sea change in four years.

Not exactly.  He was talking about the sum total of the unfunded liabilities of the various "promises" government has made.

Have I stated the current playing field correctly?

Not exactly, but I think we're straight now.

Your premise: "even if everyone in the nation woke up tomorrow and were of one accord and decided that drastic change needed to occur". Right?

Wrong.  I didn't say drastic change needed a unanimous consensus of the nation to occur.  I was merely making that point if even if we DID have unanimous consensus, we'd STILL not be able to make the changes we need to make in a single year.

I can recall no time in our history when everyone has awoken with identical sentiments. Even in the wake of 9/11 we may have offered similar sentiments, but we couldn't agree on much more than that we had been attacked and it was generally a sad and ugly thing.

Given what I said above, I don't know that this statement is relevant anymore.

I'm sure that you've watched Congress as closely as I have and seen the obstructionism of the left. How many days has it been since the Senate proposed a budget? 1085 days I believe. With that in mind I would ask again how in the world we are going to suddenly find the equanimity and generosity of spirit that you are suggesting?

The Senate isn't required to present a budget.  The President is.  And the President has, only he has't presented one that stood a chance.  While he's met the letter of the requirement of the Constitution, he certainly isn't anywhere close to meeting the spirit of it.  The Senate is being obstructionist, yes.  With the right leader as President, that can be overcome.  Like Reagan did, who had a hostile congress his entire presidency...yet he still managed to cut taxes, among other things.

I also recall GW attempting to rein in SS by advocating reform. Do you remember how well that went over?

Of course I do.

So no, I don't reject your premise out of hand - but I do reject it as unrealistic.

That's rejecting it out of hand.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Alphabet Soup on April 22, 2012, 11:51:55 PM

So, what next? Be specific and as optimistic as possible  :D



So let me get this straight...you reject my premise out of hand, and expect me to simply accept yours?  Come on.

No, hon.  He presents his POV honestly and expects you to defend yours, rejection notwithstanding. 

None of us are beyond reason, we just need a few basis-points on which to hang hats.

Sorry, that's not what happened at all.  I've done nothing BUT present my view.  He said it was impossible without bothering to state why - just that "it is", and that means he rejected the premise out of hand.  Then expects me to formulate an argument within the bounds of HIS premise.  Which I won't do, because it seems the premise is that the only way to affect real change in this country is with violence.  I reject that premise, vehemently, and he rejects mine.  There's not much else to talk about. 

If you don't think I've offered more than a few basis points, I'd ask you if you've read what I've been writing.

By the way - feel free to peruse my posts. I think that it is possible to go all the way back to when I first subscribed. Nowhere in there will you find me advocating violence. I don't. I do however advocate self-defense and self-preservation.

Proudly.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 22, 2012, 11:57:32 PM

So, what next? Be specific and as optimistic as possible  :D



So let me get this straight...you reject my premise out of hand, and expect me to simply accept yours?  Come on.

No, hon.  He presents his POV honestly and expects you to defend yours, rejection notwithstanding. 

None of us are beyond reason, we just need a few basis-points on which to hang hats.

Sorry, that's not what happened at all.  I've done nothing BUT present my view.  He said it was impossible without bothering to state why - just that "it is", and that means he rejected the premise out of hand.  Then expects me to formulate an argument within the bounds of HIS premise.  Which I won't do, because it seems the premise is that the only way to affect real change in this country is with violence.  I reject that premise, vehemently, and he rejects mine.  There's not much else to talk about. 

If you don't think I've offered more than a few basis points, I'd ask you if you've read what I've been writing.

By the way - feel free to peruse my posts. I think that it is possible to go all the way back to when I first subscribed. Nowhere in there will you find me advocating violence. I don't. I do however advocate self-defense and self-preservation.

Proudly.


Then explain to me what exactly you think is required to achieve the sort of change I describe. 

I was't born yesterday, and if I have nothing else, it is extraordinary insight into people.  People on this board are doing a good job at dancing around the fact that they believe non-violent means to fix the country won't work, and hinting at what they think will.  It's all fine and dandy to tell me what I believe won't work.  You can certainly think whatever you want to think.  Don't demand that I accept your assertion that what I believe is wrong and then ask me to present an alternative.  Clearly people around here have an alternative in mind.  How about sharing that alternative.  Be specific.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 23, 2012, 12:01:00 AM

We're not adversaries here, donchaknow?  We articulate, pontificate and advocate within a friendly, civil network.  We try out and hone our arguments on each other for use in a wider sphere.  With the spread of viewpoints here, if you can't eliminate the weaknesses in your argument, what hope do you have with the moderates, nevermind the "liberals"?

What weaknesses?  I've clearly spelled out why I believe what I believe.  It is not weakness to refuse to argue inside of someone else's premise, especially when you don't believe it.  I do not believe it is impossible to turn this country around using non-violent means.

"Weaknesses" are what I mean when I say others do not buy your premise and present arguments against it.

Quote
 It appears more than a few people here reject that premise.  That's fine, they can do whatever they want, but it's a bit disingenuous to reject my premise out of hands and then expect me to accept and argue within theirs.

So as far as I can tell, the only "weakness" my argument has is that I refuse to believe we Americans need to start killing each other in order to fix the problems we have as a nation.  I will never accept that premise that we do.

Hmmm.  A little of your own "rejection out of hand" here, innit?

Quote
You still haven't explained why you mean by "operating under other parameters" when I asked, either.  Why are you demanding I "hone my argument" when you fail to answer simple questions about yours?

This is what you wrote:

Quote
I do not believe it is impossible to turn this country around using non-violent means.

Are you a stupid man?  You don't seem one.  I believe in parameter particulars that are best not discussed in public right now.  How much more cryptically-clear must I be? 
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 23, 2012, 12:03:56 AM
Are you a stupid man?  You don't seem one.  I believe in parameter particulars that are best not discussed in public right now.  How much more cryptically-clear must I be? 

You don't.  All you did was confirm what I already suspected.

Thanks.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 23, 2012, 12:04:04 AM

So, what next? Be specific and as optimistic as possible  :D



So let me get this straight...you reject my premise out of hand, and expect me to simply accept yours?  Come on.

No, hon.  He presents his POV honestly and expects you to defend yours, rejection notwithstanding. 

None of us are beyond reason, we just need a few basis-points on which to hang hats.

Sorry, that's not what happened at all.  I've done nothing BUT present my view.  He said it was impossible without bothering to state why - just that "it is", and that means he rejected the premise out of hand.  Then expects me to formulate an argument within the bounds of HIS premise.  Which I won't do, because it seems the premise is that the only way to affect real change in this country is with violence.  I reject that premise, vehemently, and he rejects mine.  There's not much else to talk about. 

If you don't think I've offered more than a few basis points, I'd ask you if you've read what I've been writing.

By the way - feel free to peruse my posts. I think that it is possible to go all the way back to when I first subscribed. Nowhere in there will you find me advocating violence. I don't. I do however advocate self-defense and self-preservation.

Proudly.


Then explain to me what exactly you think is required to achieve the sort of change I describe. 

I was't born yesterday, and if I have nothing else, it is extraordinary insight into people.  People on this board are doing a good job at dancing around the fact that they believe non-violent means to fix the country won't work, and hinting at what they think will.  It's all fine and dandy to tell me what I believe won't work.  You can certainly think whatever you want to think.  Don't demand that I accept your assertion that what I believe is wrong and then ask me to present an alternative.  Clearly people around here have an alternative in mind.  How about sharing that alternative.  Be specific.

SOME people on this board.  Others are inclined to believe as you.  Why discount them?

And, no, goldammy, we're not going to get specific.  Figure it out for yourself why not.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 23, 2012, 12:05:36 AM
Are you a stupid man?  You don't seem one.  I believe in parameter particulars that are best not discussed in public right now.  How much more cryptically-clear must I be? 

You don't.  All you did was confirm what I already suspected.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

Now that your suspicions have been confirmed, what?
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: IronDioPriest on April 23, 2012, 12:08:35 AM
I'm goin ta bed. Nighty-night.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 23, 2012, 12:08:49 AM
Are you a stupid man?  You don't seem one.  I believe in parameter particulars that are best not discussed in public right now.  How much more cryptically-clear must I be?  

You don't.  All you did was confirm what I already suspected.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

Now that your suspicions have been confirmed, what?

I've messaged santa claus and asked him to remove all of my threads from the website.  While you guys are certainly entitled to run whatever sort of board you like, this isn't something of which I desire to be a part.

I can't make him do it, of course, but I'll be deleting links to this site from all my articles and not posting new ones here.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 23, 2012, 12:14:31 AM
Are you a stupid man?  You don't seem one.  I believe in parameter particulars that are best not discussed in public right now.  How much more cryptically-clear must I be?  

You don't.  All you did was confirm what I already suspected.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

Now that your suspicions have been confirmed, what?

I've messaged santa claus and asked him to remove all of my threads from the website.  While you guys are certainly entitled to run whatever sort of board you like, this isn't something of which I desire to be a part.

I can't make him do it, of course, but I'll be deleting links to this site from all my articles and not posting new ones here.

Santa Claus, huh?  Nice.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 23, 2012, 12:17:09 AM
Are you a stupid man?  You don't seem one.  I believe in parameter particulars that are best not discussed in public right now.  How much more cryptically-clear must I be?  

You don't.  All you did was confirm what I already suspected.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

Now that your suspicions have been confirmed, what?

I've messaged santa claus and asked him to remove all of my threads from the website.  While you guys are certainly entitled to run whatever sort of board you like, this isn't something of which I desire to be a part.

I can't make him do it, of course, but I'll be deleting links to this site from all my articles and not posting new ones here.

You don't desire to be a part of what, exactly?  Some agree with you; some don't, and refuse to detail the specifics. 

Why is that, Tim?  Why do you suppose some do not choose to get specific?  Fear of government is why.  Do you not have a problem with the fear of government silencing people in the Yew-nited States of America today?
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 23, 2012, 12:21:39 AM

You don't desire to be a part of what, exactly?

You tell me.  You're the one refusing to be specific about what you believe, not me.

Some agree with you; some don't, and refuse to detail the specifics.

If someone can't tell you why they think you're wrong or why they believe what they believe, nothing they have to say is worth listening to.

Why is that, Tim?  Why do you suppose some do not choose to get specific?  Fear of government is why.  Do you not have a problem with the fear of government silencing people in the Yew-nited States of America today?

Give me a break.  It's one thing to refuse to get specific about what you believe.  It's a different thing altogether to reject someone else's specifics whilst refusing to proffer your own.  That's called hypocrisy.  If you aren't comfortable presenting your ideas, don't criticize someone else who is.  That's just common courtesy.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: IronDioPriest on April 23, 2012, 12:22:47 AM
Now you're just pissing on the carpet in our living room.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: charlesoakwood on April 23, 2012, 12:23:31 AM

If he had taken the time to get to know the others, the other half of this forum, whom he claims to know, although he never interacted with, he may quite possibly have never worked himself into this jam.

Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 23, 2012, 12:23:45 AM
Now you're just pissing on the carpet in our living room.

By doing what?  Answering questions that people are asking me?

For crying out loud.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 23, 2012, 12:25:24 AM

If he had taken the time to get to know the others, the other half of this forum, whom he claims to know, although he never interacted with, he may quite possibly have never worked himself into this jam.



You mistake me, sir.  I'm not in a jam and I have no problem with confrontation.  I also don't have a problem defending what I believe and offering the reasons why I believe them.  That much should be clear by now.

I don't wish to be a part of a community that thinks violence against other Americans is the only way to fix our problems.  That's why I've asked that my posts be withdrawn.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Alphabet Soup on April 23, 2012, 12:26:52 AM

If he had taken the time to get to know the others, the other half of this forum, whom he claims to know, although he never interacted with, he may quite possibly have never worked himself into this jam.



You mistake me, sir.  I'm not in a jam and I have no problem with confrontation.  I also don't have a problem defending what I believe and offering the reasons why I believe them.  That much should be clear by now.

I don't wish to be a part of a community that thinks violence against other Americans is the only way to fix our problems.  That's why I've asked that my posts be withdrawn.

"How can I miss you if you won't go away?"
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 23, 2012, 12:28:25 AM
Quote
Give me a break.  It's one thing to refuse to get specific about what you believe.  It's a different thing altogether to reject someone else's specifics whilst refusing to proffer your own.  That's called hypocrisy.  If you aren't comfortable presenting your ideas, don't criticize someone else who is.  That's just common courtesy.


Courtesy is not introducing the risk of harm of one's fellow man.  That is the road I follow here by not outlining my preferences.  If you bothered to peruse any threads not of your own beginning -- have you? -- that would be crystal clear right now.

I do not believe as you, neither do a few others, but IDP and trap have stated their beliefs that, now I'M REPEATING MYSELF AND I HATE THAT, there is time in which to allow the present system to prevail.  What is your problem with them and that approach?
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: IronDioPriest on April 23, 2012, 12:29:28 AM
Now you're just pissing on the carpet in our living room.

By doing what?  Answering questions that people are asking me?

For crying out loud.

No, for being truculent. You were graciously invited in good faith, and you've chosen to pick fights with people. It began with your condescending "I know we all like to be super doomy gloomy around here", and went downhill from there.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: IronDioPriest on April 23, 2012, 12:30:33 AM
...If you bothered to peruse any threads not of your own beginning -- have you? -- that would be crystal clear right now....

Bingo.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 23, 2012, 12:31:41 AM
I do not believe as you, neither do a few others, but IDP and trap have stated their beliefs that, now I'M REPEATING MYSELF AND I HATE THAT, there is time in which to allow the present system to prevail.  What is your problem with them and that approach?


My problem is with people who can't be honest about what they believe, but criticize others for what they believe.  That's no different than liberalism.  

I don't care that you believe differently than I do.  I care that you blame me for the fact that you aren't being specific about why.  And the reasons why are something with which I don't wish to be associated.  I'm perfectly willing to let you believe and do whatever you like...isn't it therefore reasonable to expect the same courtesy in return?  
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: amperfectunion on April 23, 2012, 12:33:02 AM
Now you're just pissing on the carpet in our living room.

By doing what?  Answering questions that people are asking me?

For crying out loud.

No, for being truculent. You were graciously invited in good faith, and you've chosen to pick fights with people. It began with your condescending "I know we all like to be super doomy gloomy around here", and went downhill from there.

Oh give me a break.  If someone can't handle a simple offhand comment like that which was harmless and clearly sarcastic, that's just sad.

Just do me a favor and delete my account as well.  This place clearly isn't for me.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: charlesoakwood on April 23, 2012, 12:33:46 AM

If he had taken the time to get to know the others, the other half of this forum, whom he claims to know, although he never interacted with, he may quite possibly have never worked himself into this jam.



You mistake me, sir.  I'm not in a jam and I have no problem with confrontation.  I also don't have a problem defending what I believe and offering the reasons why I believe them.  That much should be clear by now.

I don't wish to be a part of a community that thinks violence against other Americans is the only way to fix our problems.  That's why I've asked that my posts be withdrawn.

You don't know this community, you extended the courtesy of your presence to the majority of this forum.  You relate to this forum through the spectrum of responses to your posts which is, to say the least, myopic.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: charlesoakwood on April 23, 2012, 12:36:26 AM

If he had taken the time to get to know the others, the other half of this forum, whom he claims to know, although he never interacted with, he may quite possibly have never worked himself into this jam.



You mistake me, sir.  I'm not in a jam and I have no problem with confrontation.  I also don't have a problem defending what I believe and offering the reasons why I believe them.  That much should be clear by now.

I don't wish to be a part of a community that thinks violence against other Americans is the only way to fix our problems.  That's why I've asked that my posts be withdrawn.

"How can I miss you if you won't go away?"
                                                              ::hysterical::

Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 23, 2012, 12:39:04 AM
I do not believe as you, neither do a few others, but IDP and trap have stated their beliefs that, now I'M REPEATING MYSELF AND I HATE THAT, there is time in which to allow the present system to prevail.  What is your problem with them and that approach?


My problem is with people who can't be honest about what they believe, but criticize others for what they believe.  That's no different than liberalism.  

I don't care that you believe differently than I do.  I care that you blame me for the fact that you aren't being specific about why.

I cannot, in good faith, tell you what I believe should be our course of action now.  You seemed a reasonable man and yet you're are unwilling to admit there may be good reasons for not putting them in writing.  How can that be?  

As I've said, and yet I REPEAT MYSELF AGAIN, there are others here who believe as you, have no problem with what you believe and still you have a problem.  How can that be?

Quote
And the reasons why are something with which I don't wish to be associated.  I'm perfectly willing to let you believe and do whatever you like...isn't it therefore reasonable to expect the same courtesy in return?  

Are you not familiar with the discourse here similar to that of the Founding Fathers, who argued in just the same fashion as we here?  What would you have thought of those who bought our Liberty with their lives and sacred honor who fled from the controversy of like minds with differing solutions?
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 23, 2012, 12:57:06 AM
Hmmm.  Magic Eight-Ball sez the PMs are flying around behind scenes right now.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Alphabet Soup on April 23, 2012, 01:08:24 AM
Hmmm.  Magic Eight-Ball sez the PMs are flying around behind scenes right now.

I started one to say that I was done with this disingenuous klown but never got around to sending it. Is it too late now?  ::evil::
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: IronDioPriest on April 23, 2012, 01:08:52 AM
Hmmm.  Magic Eight-Ball sez the PMs are flying around behind scenes right now.

Nope, at least not here. But done is done. My little experiment in expansion by invitation to blog has revealed its flaw.
We won't be hearing from him again.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 23, 2012, 01:11:00 AM
Hmmm.  Magic Eight-Ball sez the PMs are flying around behind scenes right now.

I started one to say that I was done with this disingenuous klown but never got around to sending it. Is it too late now?  ::evil::

Not at all, but ya better send it to me -- CO has -- 'cause IDP said he was going to bed and trap looks to have been long done with the klown in question.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 23, 2012, 01:12:59 AM
Hmmm.  Magic Eight-Ball sez the PMs are flying around behind scenes right now.

Nope, at least not here. But done is done. My little experiment in expansion by invitation to blog has revealed its flaw.
We won't be hearing from him again.

Your expansion experiment has its good points too.

Did he officially resign, then?  Dayum.  I thought I wuz doin' okay.

Hey!  I thought you were goin' t'bed.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: IronDioPriest on April 23, 2012, 01:15:17 AM
Pan and Charles hit it on the head. The guy's entire experience here was through reaction to his own posts. You can't get to know people that way. He proved he wasn't interested.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: IronDioPriest on April 23, 2012, 01:17:27 AM
Hmmm.  Magic Eight-Ball sez the PMs are flying around behind scenes right now.

Nope, at least not here. But done is done. My little experiment in expansion by invitation to blog has revealed its flaw.
We won't be hearing from him again.

Your expansion experiment has its good points too.

Did he officially resign, then?  Dayum.  I thought I wuz doin' okay.

Hey!  I thought you were goin' t'bed.

No, I banned him, he didn't resign. The whole pissing on the carpet thing. I have no patience for it once the patience is gone.

Now I really AM goin to bed.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: AmericanPatriot on April 23, 2012, 02:19:31 AM
He seemed to think he was pretty clever.

In my case, realizing that the kind of change necessary probably isn't possible without drastic measure isn't the same as wishing for it.

I'd rather it not happen that way.

He appeared to be insinuating that there are a bunch of militia types here champing at the bit to get shooting
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: IronDioPriest on April 23, 2012, 06:51:08 AM
Yeah, that's exactly what he was insinuating, and he was dead wrong, and he decided to make it an issue.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Alphabet Soup on April 23, 2012, 08:29:03 AM
I can't and won't let it hang here.

I hope you leave this thread as an illustration of the true obstructionism of the soft and muddled middle.

We all offered this guy an opportunity to state his case. Even though he struck me as nothing more than a blog pimp I gave him kudos on his scribbling and encouraged him to expand a little bit. His piece had promise - in a vague sort of way. And I applaud optimism if it is truly that and not simple self-delusion. I wanted to see if he could differentiate between the two and I got my answer - no he can't.

Is it "gloom & doom" to state the facts (even if they're unpleasant)? No
Is it "gloom & doom" to warn people of impending danger? No
Is it "gloom & doom" to want to protect yourself and your family? Hell no!

This klown was given an opportunity to explain how we could dig our way out of this mess. He was advised that we needed specifics because platitudes - optimistic or otherwise - weren't going to cut it with this group. If he had anything he failed (miserably!) to deliver.

Instead he jumped to insult. Through insinuation and direct assertion he tried to place us out on the fringe and correspondingly (one could infer) him in the mainstream. He made blanket assumptions (you know what they say about people who assume) and then projected offensive conclusions based on his own preconceived notions. Sincere kudos go to Pandora who displayed tolerance above & beyond with him. When he short-circuited and became abusive I was sure that she was going to yank the plug on him. Instead she attempted to steer him back to a more productive path - which he steadfastly refused to do. "F" him.

The telling thing about this klown is that he pronounced his condemnation of our group....and then hung around to further insult us.  Way to show your superior POV amp!

So, happy days to you sunshine. Be of good cheer and good luck with your manure-spreading enterprise. The world needs klowns and fools to serve as cautionary tales for the rest of us. Oh, and don't let the door hit ya...

edit: altard-proofed
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Libertas on April 23, 2012, 08:39:29 AM
Well said 'Soup.

Anyone think-skinned enough to pull the plug on rational discussion and have to resort to altard-like insults and all it appeared he was trying to do was to draw people to his post.  Seriously, I cannot fathom how someone can espouse conservative principles on one hand and then condemn others for their views which essentially boil down to the preservation of their lives and way of life with the other.  Seriously, either a myopic mindset or a potted plant thing going on, which is it?

Oh well, whatever.  We'll keep marching forward.

Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Predator Don on April 23, 2012, 09:09:09 AM
Wow.

I certainly pray we don't have tshtf time in our future. I also don't believe in fairy tales, like we will all suddenly wake up from our slumber. It is not a plan of action, it resembles a hollow, shallow belief, like hope and change.

I also don't care if there are militants on the board, pacifists, or anyone inbetween . I enjoy it here because of like minds, but I also understand we will not agree on every point. It doesn't hurt mt feelings....I will not take my ball and go home. It is hard to learn, though, when you believe you have all the answers. I'm not into cult personalities.

Plus, there was no experiment gone wrong by allowing a blogger to blog. Nothing, I mean nothing, has succeeded in this country without ( I hate this word) failure......without "failing" or attempting to create, where would we be as a country. Don't stop expanding the horizons IDP.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: AmericanPatriot on April 23, 2012, 09:18:21 AM
This is a good board with good people.
We don't always agree but the respect for each other is there.
Even for me when I exhibit my stupidity for the whole world to see
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Libertas on April 23, 2012, 09:24:23 AM
Good point Don, we all learn by doing, and sometimes doing is failing, and I think IDP has attracted many more pluses than minuses so there should be no head hanging down on that score.  You are doing good IDP, don't stop.

And I echo AP's sentiment, we have a good group here and it is something we should all take some pride in.

 ::thumbsup::
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Alphabet Soup on April 23, 2012, 09:40:56 AM
This is a good board with good people.
We don't always agree but the respect for each other is there.
Even for me when I exhibit my stupidity for the whole world to see

If you should happen to say something stupid I don't doubt that there will be someone there to kindly point it out to you  ;D

And I would like to emphasize that we may be of accord at times (just as we may disagree) but screw the guy who claims that we are of one mindset. I like the group we have here - we come from all across the country, we have diverse backgrounds and experiences, and all have a yearning to make things better for ourselves and our families. I apologize to no one for myself or my friends here at It's About Liberty.

~AS~
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: IronDioPriest on April 23, 2012, 10:00:02 AM
...screw the guy who claims that we are of one mindset....

Anyone who makes that claim has not bothered to look around here at the collection of people and opinions. It is a complete lack of respect to so carelessly draw a negative conclusion.

You have it exactly right a few posts up Soup...

This klown was given an opportunity to explain how we could dig our way out of this mess. He was advised that we needed specifics because platitudes - optimistic or otherwise - weren't going to cut it with this group. If he had anything he failed (miserably!) to deliver.

Instead he jumped to insult. Through insinuation and direct assertion he tried to place us out on the fringe and correspondingly (one could infer) him in the mainstream. He made blanket assumptions (you know what they say about people who assume) and then projected offensive conclusions based on his own preconceived notions.

I also commend Pandora for her patience and measured response, and you too Soup. Pan gave a new guy a chance to backtrack and correct himself, and you both set a proper expectation.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: charlesoakwood on April 23, 2012, 11:04:09 AM
Good point Don, we all learn by doing, and sometimes doing is failing, and I think IDP has attracted many more pluses than minuses so there should be no head hanging down on that score.  You are doing good IDP, don't stop.

And I echo AP's sentiment, we have a good group here and it is something we should all take some pride in.

 ::thumbsup::

Indubitably so.
And tethering with another blog could be enriching. Onward and upward.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Predator Don on April 23, 2012, 11:55:33 AM
Good point Don, we all learn by doing, and sometimes doing is failing, and I think IDP has attracted many more pluses than minuses so there should be no head hanging down on that score.  You are doing good IDP, don't stop.

And I echo AP's sentiment, we have a good group here and it is something we should all take some pride in.

 ::thumbsup::

Indubitably so.
And tethering with another blog could be enriching. Onward and upward.



My momma used to say you can't make a good omlette unless you break a few eggs.
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Weisshaupt on April 23, 2012, 12:52:01 PM
Man! I take a little break and look at all the fun I miss.

Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Libertas on April 23, 2012, 01:32:29 PM
Man! I take a little break and look at all the fun I miss.



That'll teach ya!

 ;D
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 23, 2012, 01:40:39 PM
Man! I take a little break and look at all the fun I miss.



That'll teach ya!

 ;D

That's what I wuz thinkin' .........
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Libertas on April 23, 2012, 01:43:26 PM
Man! I take a little break and look at all the fun I miss.



That'll teach ya!

 ;D

That's what I wuz thinkin' .........

I thunk it fer ya!   :supercool:
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Pandora on April 23, 2012, 01:45:29 PM
Man! I take a little break and look at all the fun I miss.



That'll teach ya!

 ;D

That's what I wuz thinkin' .........

I thunk it fer ya!   :supercool:

Such a mensch you are!

I'm sorry Weisshaupt missed out.  His responses would have been .... interesting ... to say the least.   ::stirpot::
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Libertas on April 23, 2012, 01:55:18 PM
Man! I take a little break and look at all the fun I miss.



That'll teach ya!

 ;D

That's what I wuz thinkin' .........

I thunk it fer ya!   :supercool:

Such a mensch you are!

I'm sorry Weisshaupt missed out.  His responses would have been .... interesting ... to say the least.   ::stirpot::

Hmmm...

Well, we can still ask him what he would have said.

 ::popcorn::
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Weisshaupt on April 23, 2012, 02:31:18 PM
Hmmm...

Well, we can still ask him what he would have said.

 ::popcorn::
Everyone here did fine without me, but since you asked..

I probably would have just asked him direct questions about his position ( acting like a liberal and refusing to justify your stance, get the liberal treatment. )

1) Given his History in Mass, does Romney have the required credibility and moral authority to demand the cutting of the entitlement state? Why do you feel so, with specific examples.
2) What in Romney's history leads you to believe that he has the required leadership abilities to sway pubic opinion towards cuts
3) You are correct that Social Security could be saved if the government was returned to its constitutional limits. However, I do not understand why we should bother.  What justifies keeping SS vs. other programs - or at all?

As far as the "we advocate violence" bit :

1) Isn't all government power based on violence or threat of violence?  If that government is using that power without the consent of the governed, in excess of the authority given to it, what responses do you feel  are justified.  What responses did the founders of our nation feel were justified?
2) Is advocating the use of violence to defend one's property or family from those who openly declare that they will use violence as a means to harm  them, immoral or wrong?
3) describe under what circumstances (if any)  you feel a violence is warranted?

Jefferson said we had a DUTY to throw down a tyrannical government, and a right to defend ourselves from it.  I think we are a long way from sending  an army  marching on Washington DC. Like the men of Gondor we wait within our walls for the enemy to come to us, and defend those walls we will.  The peaceful process can continue, right up till they are on my doorstep. Then Violence will be used. I don't advocate its use- I am FORCED TO ITS USE by the threat of violence upon me and my family if I do not give up my inalienable rights and bow before my betters.  Liberty or Death.

AMPU obviously thinks that Romney will prevent them from arriving at his door, but refused to provide details  to why. Those of us on the other side recognize it for what it is - the same denial and normalcy bias that afflicted us before we stood and forced ourselves to look upon the unpleasant truth. I respect that APMU, IDP and others still have hope and faith that Romney will prove to be Aragorn and not the Steward Denathor, or worse, the White Wizard Traitor Sarumon.  

Such a beleif is not silly - the  Divine will that has protected America throughout  our history ( and yes, his hand in events is clear)  may very well again produce a savior from the North, arriving in the hour of need  - one who can turn the tide and produce a peace. However, that same history indicates that such divine intervention  rarely occurs though our elections or politics, but instead frequents the battle field. And ultimately that is the point: The situation we are in will REQUIRE A MIRACLE to resolve. One of my friends jokes that "some people's TEOTWAKI plan is to be raptured."  Those  of us who tend to  deserve,  expect and/or  ask less of God find that while we may hope for the best, the time has come to expect and prepare for  the worst.


Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Predator Don on April 23, 2012, 02:52:50 PM
At some point in time, we can't look for someone to save us....we will need to save ourselves. Maybe AMPU didn't want to deal with the " save yourself" part of the equation.

And without being offensive, I believe it is a copout to think "the rapture" is a plan. It isn't. Reminds me of an old joke I've heard many times.

There was a flood warning and people were to evacuate. One man refused, telling all that God would deliver. As the water reached his porch, a boat came by to pick him up, but he refused, proclaiming God would deliver. Now he is perched on his roof, as the Coast Guard swept in to rescue him, he wouldn't budge, again stating God would deliver. As he sat on the peak of his roof, a helicopter made one last attempt to take him to safety. He refused, again.....God would deliver.

The man drowned. At the pearly gates, the man meets God. Perplexed, he asks God why he allowed him to drown? God states, I sent you a boat, the Coast Guard and a helicopter, what else am I supposed to do?
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Libertas on April 23, 2012, 02:53:37 PM
"Those  of us who tend to  deserve,  expect and/or  ask less of God find that while we may hope for the best, the time has come to expect and prepare for  the worst."

That's always been my philosophy!

 ::thumbsup::
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Weisshaupt on April 23, 2012, 07:32:21 PM
The man drowned. At the pearly gates, the man meets God. Perplexed, he asks God why he allowed him to drown? God states, I sent you a boat, the Coast Guard and a helicopter, what else am I supposed to do?

God helps those that help themselves. I am not bible scholar, but I seem to remember that the bible gices an exact number for the people to be saved in the rapture, and that number was in the 10's of thousands.  That sounds like the right number- that out of 7 billion people there are 10,000 really good souls able to keep the Christian faith perfectly.  I do know I am not one of them. Guess I have to go with plan B.
 
Title: Re: AMPU - An Obama Second Term Means a Bankrupt United States
Post by: Alphabet Soup on April 23, 2012, 09:06:16 PM
The man drowned. At the pearly gates, the man meets God. Perplexed, he asks God why he allowed him to drown? God states, I sent you a boat, the Coast Guard and a helicopter, what else am I supposed to do?

God helps those that help themselves. I am not bible scholar, but I seem to remember that the bible gices an exact number for the people to be saved in the rapture, and that number was in the 10's of thousands.  That sounds like the right number- that out of 7 billion people there are 10,000 really good souls able to keep the Christian faith perfectly.  I do know I am not one of them. Guess I have to go with plan B.
 


I'm pretty sure of my fate, but it'll all be worth it if I can bump someone else across the finish line