Objective review of the US 2012 Presidential and Congressional general campaign

[Todd]

But then, that's always been part of his problem, isn't it? He'll say anything to anyone, when he thinks that's what they want to hear.

He's a politician.

[Gurn Blanston]

Depends on the program.  Social Security needs to be reduced...  (snip)

Todd, do you remember what happened to the Social Security Trust Fund? That entire program used to be more than self-supporting. If it had been left alone, it would have provided financial security for everyone who had paid in their share virtually in perpetuity.  But back in the mid-'60's, a president and congress who simply couldn't tolerate seeing money accumulate against an uncertain future when they could spend it now instead, changed the law so that money that was formerly held in trust became easily accessible to the spend-it-all's  in congress and it now has become a limp.. ummm. vestige of what it was. True, no sense reliving the past and crying over spilt milk, so to speak, but there it is.

[Karl Henning]

He's a politician.

If you like; and his problem in my regard is, familiarity with his various suit-changes. Change he can believe in.

[Todd]

Todd, do you remember what happened to the Social Security Trust Fund?

The trust fund was more myth than reality.  (I remember one public economics professor in college who openly laughed at the very notion.)  The demographic realities of the 60s were not the same as today; today, baby boomers are retiring in ever larger numbers, and living longer, which requires adjustments to the program.  The thing is that the needed changes aren't really that drastic.  For instance, if we were to eliminate the taxable income cap, means test benefits (admittedly this could get tricky), and index payments to the CPI rather than wage growth (this could get tricky, too, beause this is the cut that would hit most people), that essentially solves the problem, and it may not even be necessary to increase the retirement age from 67, though that's an option as well.  No starving grannies, no earth shattering cuts.  But the AARP and other seniors' groups would fight indexing tooth and nail, and possibly means testing.

[Gurn Blanston]

The trust fund was more myth than reality.  (I remember one public economics professor in college who openly laughed at the very notion.)  The demographic realities of the 60s were not the same as today; today, baby boomers are retiring in ever larger numbers, and living longer, which requires adjustments to the program.  The thing is that the needed changes aren't really that drastic.  For instance, if we were to eliminate the taxable income cap, means test benefits (admittedly this could get tricky), and index payments to the CPI rather than wage growth (this could get tricky, too, because this is the cut that would hit most people), that essentially solves the problem, and it may not even be necessary to increase the retirement age from 67, though that's an option as well.  No starving grannies, no earth shattering cuts.  But the AARP and other seniors' groups would fight indexing tooth and nail, and possibly means testing.

No argument from me, this is all stuff that needs to be looked hard at. And just like any other special interest group, when they are being looked at they're gonna holler. It differs in no way from the tactics used by the NRA: "oh sure, right now it's our RPG's and depleted uranium rounds, how long before they're prying my Remington single shot .22 from my cold, dead hand".      

Regardless of the mythological status of the trust fund, as long as politicians couldn't get at it, it was safe. When it became part of the General Fund, it was only a matter of time before we would have to have this discussion. I'm 60 years old, I made my first payment when I was 12, from drying cars in the summer down at the car wash. And it's still going to be a long time before I can get anything back from that to supplement my 401k and IRA. If I ever get anything at all.

BTW, I don't view myself as a special interest in this matter. I'm just wanting a fair return on my forced investment. If I hadn't paid anything in for the last 48 years, then I would be a special interest.

[Todd]

I'm just wanting a fair return on my forced investment.

I understand this outlook, though to me if I pay the government, it's a tax, not an investment, and it's always forced.  I've been paying for fewer years than you have, and started to only at age 16, but my bigger concern with Social Security is not that I personally receive a fair return, but that some type of transfer payment system exists to ensure income for all seniors, myself included, and to act as an economic stabilization program.  To the extent I want/expect/receive money from Uncle Sam, I will confess that I will view myself as part of a larger interested group, but that rather cold blooded outlook is probably attributable to my training in economics.

(Curious thing about the NRA, I think they have it right.  After all, my copy of the Bill of Rights has the Second Amendment as follows: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, including military grade automatic weapons, explosives, and armor piercing rounds, shall not be infringed.)

[snyprrr]

So, where is this 'election' today?


I'm holding out for Feb. 2-4, to see what life will be like then. By then surely the dust will have settled and we'll see what our containment facility really looks like. I predict disaster no matter what (or 'who').

[ibanezmonster]

Of course, we could all be rich like Romney if we'd just work our lazy asses.

Ha!

[Gurn Blanston]

(Curious thing about the NRA, I think they have it right.  After all, my copy of the Bill of Rights has the Second Amendment as follows: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, including military grade automatic weapons, explosives, and armor piercing rounds, shall not be infringed.)

Yes, and too often the words 'well-regulated' don't enter into it. The Founding Fathers didn't say "any freaking jagoff dipshit can have any weapon he pleases", they said "a well-regulated militia, being necessary etc".  A man of such verbal mastery as yourself shouldn't need that pointed out, so I assume you left that part out intentionally. Or maybe if we have a whole well-regulated militia full of freaking jagoff dipshits, then that will fill the bill. Of course, I have easily 2 dozen weapons myself, but I like to think that I'm not a freaking jagoff dipshit; I might be wrong. 

[Todd]

so I assume you left that part out intentionally.

Sure.  The whole goal was to expand on the woefully lacking list of specifics in the amendment.  That damn fool Madison, he didn't know how to write.  I believe SCOTUS has been quite generous in its reading of the amendment as of late, so people can buy, buy, buy.  If Obama gets a second term, the gun industry will probably enjoy another four years of great sales like they have since he won in 2008.  Obama has been secretly pushing to ban guns, or some such.

[Gurn Blanston]

Sure.  The whole goal was to expand on the woefully lacking list of specifics in the amendment.  That damn fool Madison, he didn't know how to write.  I believe SCOTUS has been quite generous in its reading of the amendment as of late, so people can buy, buy, buy.  If Obama gets a second term, the gun industry will probably enjoy another four years of great sales like they have since he won in 2008.  Obama has been secretly pushing to ban guns, or some such.

Yeah, I keep hearing the same thing. The big one was that he would issue an Executive Order banning all gun sales. Right...   Sure helps sales here though. For a couple of years early on I couldn't even buy any .22's for my target rifle.

I don't think the FF's were particularly poor at anything; they were smarter than most of the ass*'s around today, it seems. But they were certainly specific in this case, and I don't see a reason to just ignore what they did write.

[Todd]

The big one was that he would issue an Executive Order banning all gun sales.

It would be entertaining to watch what would happen if any president tried that.  As it is, tighter gun control is a losing issue politically, so Democrats have wisely dropped it in recent years.

I would think that gun rights people would also be looking for other ways to protect their property.  Perhaps the Ninth Amendment could be leaned on, but then again maybe not. 

[Gurn Blanston]

It would be entertaining to watch what would happen if any president tried that.  As it is, tighter gun control is a losing issue politically, so Democrats have wisely dropped it in recent years.

...and thus taken a weapon out of the hand of the Republicans, who can no longer use it to beat them up with.

I would think that gun rights people would also be looking for other ways to protect their property.  Perhaps the Ninth Amendment could be leaned on, but then again maybe not. 

Well, it certainly is general purpose enough. Being a Safety Professional, I deal daily with something called by OSHA the 'General Duty Clause' which basically states that it is the responsibility of the employer to eliminate hazards even if they aren't addressed by OSHA. Not on a 'you knew about it' basis, but on a 'you should have known about it and foreseen what could happen' basis.   The 9th Amendment appears to have been the model for the General Duty Clause....   

[Karl Henning]

Of course, it's the mainstream media, which half the GOP love to hate, anyway.  But a Washington Post editorial holds Romney's privileged feet to the fire.

Now Mr. Romney suggests that Obama voters are such sheep that there is no point in reaching out to them — and that their support for Democrats is purely selfish. The possibility that principles might motivate their political behavior does not even occur to Mr. Romney. It's a demeaning, as well as inaccurate, view of the people he hopes to lead.

[Karl Henning]

It would be entertaining to watch what would happen if any president tried that.

You and I (and Gurn) know that isn't happening. But there is a slice of the electorate (hard though this may be to fathom) whose nostrils flare when this sort of gibberish is spouted from the stump.

[Todd]

Of course, it's the mainstream media, which half the GOP love to hate, anyway.  But a Washington Post editorial holds Romney's privileged feet to the fire.

The key concern for Romney now is does this thing have legs, or is it like the high school bullying story, which caused a brief kerfuffle and died away?  Somehow I don't think his comments will add or subtract too many votes from his total, and something else will surface to distract the press and populace, if not today, then certainly by Thursday.

You and I (and Gurn) know that isn't happening. But there is a slice of the electorate (hard though this may be to fathom) whose nostrils flare when this sort of gibberish is spouted from the stump.

Dumb people have a right to vote, too.

[Gurn Blanston]

The key concern for Romney now is does this thing have legs, or is it like the high school bullying story, which caused a brief kerfuffle and died away?  Somehow I don't think his comments will add or subtract too many votes from his total, and something else will surface to distract the press and populace, if not today, then certainly by Thursday.

Agreed

Dumb people have a right to vote, too.

It's those damned Founding Father's again! 

[Karl Henning]

The key concern for Romney now is does this thing have legs, or is it like the high school bullying story, which caused a brief kerfuffle and died away?  Somehow I don't think his comments will add or subtract too many votes from his total, and something else will surface to distract the press and populace, if not today, then certainly by Thursday.

Mother Jones has now posted the full 49-minute video. Mr Romney wanted that, for context, you know.  Governor, be careful what you wish for.

Dumb people have a right to vote, too.

Aye, if they show proper ID.

[Brian]

The key concern for Romney now is does this thing have legs, or is it like the high school bullying story, which caused a brief kerfuffle and died away?  Somehow I don't think his comments will add or subtract too many votes from his total, and something else will surface to distract the press and populace, if not today, then certainly by Thursday.

I think the gaffe this is closest to is the "people clinging to their guns and religion" gaffe from 2008, and that still gets mentioned here or there by partisans. If anything, this is worse, because it generated multiple sound bites on multiple issues - Democrats are sheep who don't pay taxes, 47% of America wants to be dependent on government, "it's not my job to worry about those people" (which will be a gem out of context, like "you didn't build that" and "I like to fire people"), the Palestinians don't care about peace...

[Karl Henning]

- Democrats are sheep who don't pay taxes, 47% of America wants to be dependent on government, "it's not my job to worry about those people" (which will be a gem out of context, like "you didn't build that" and "I like to fire people"), the Palestinians don't care about peace...

If I were Mexican, I'd have this in the piñata . . . .