LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

Interesting newspaper commentary from the London Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1533089,00.html

if you are taking your information on the Republican Party from the British Times than there is another problem here. not to mention this article points Pat Buchanan as the "american conservative" today. that is a shocking statement. also, this article is another anti-american slant on democracy as well, practically calling the US tyrant.

truely funny article. they should do an article next on how the Democratic Party is crumbling and will crumble further at the hands of Dean, but we all know that an article like that wont be written

The most telling line in the whole piece was -
"In my view if a Democratic president had Bush’s record, the Republican party would have come close to impeaching him for his adventures in big government, fiscal insanity and foreign policy liberalism."

The sad thing is that GWB is only concerned with the next three years. After that he could give a rat's ass about what he has left behind, and it sure isn't going to be pretty. I doubt if we're going to have another internet bubble come along anytime soon to save us from the crushing deficits that we and our children will be faced with. The choices will be to slash spending in areas that will deeply affect people's lives, and unfortunately those that need help the most, or to raise taxes to get the budget back in line. It's real easy to be a hero when you're living on credit cards and can leave someone else with the bill! This is a luxury the states don't have, as they have to produce a balanced budget every year. Why not take a poll of the governors and ask how they're all doing.
But why worry about that when we can raise the biggest issue facing the country, and that is whether a husband can honor his wife's wishes and have her escorted to a better life after 15 years as a vegetable. The only good thing is it prompted my wife and I to get a living will so we don't have to be subjected to this circus.
Hey, but don't get me started!

laxfan25 wrote:But why worry about that when we can raise the biggest issue facing the country, and that is whether a husband can honor his wife's wishes and have her escorted to a better life after 15 years as a vegetable. The only good thing is it prompted my wife and I to get a living will so we don't have to be subjected to this circus.
Hey, but don't get me started!

You are right. I cannot help but feel that this is political grandstanding by both sides. What about real issues like social advancement, unemployment, energy concerns... or even the war? At the end of the day, I don't care about social security, steroids in baseball or a person's right to die when there is a large deficit, a war, racial inequalities, poor labor conditions and widespread nihilism among many in America.

D'know what I mean?

Not to hijack this thread. But I, for one, care about social security. You should too Dan. We, the younger Americans, will pay more into this Ponzi scheme and get zero in return down the line. We can't leave the system.

I've paid into SS for over 15 years now. I would sacrifice all I've put into that system if I could leave it now. That giant sucking sound is the power of the pocketbook leaving Washington, DC. Think the Dems would let me (or any other American) do that?

sonny,

you should know better. you and i are one of the few Reps. on this board. the dem's would rather raise taxes than imput private accounts. shame that most americans don't relise that if this problem is not fixed, the current 3.3 people paying into social security will dwindle down to 2 and less in 2018 when the baby boomers retire, the system to go bankrupt because only 75cents on the dollar will be available to those older than me and of my age now.

but let the dam's spin because that's what they (and the only thing) they do best.

ohh and by the way. what is occurring on the Hill is not grandstanding. a persons right die is something that must be protected and shouldn't be chosen by someone that hasn't been given the right (by living will) to make such a desicion. steriods is another issue that is hot. you all seem to forget that the mlb is a protected monoploy by the government so they should be allowed to interfere my friends.

AlumniLax wrote:sonny,

ohh and by the way. what is occurring on the Hill is not grandstanding. a persons right die is something that must be protected and shouldn't be chosen by someone that hasn't been given the right (by living will) to make such a desicion. steriods is another issue that is hot. you all seem to forget that the mlb is a protected monoploy by the government so they should be allowed to interfere my friends.

I do not wish to begin a political pissing contest, but I completely disagree. What we are seeing is grandstanding by both sides and I stand by my indifference to issues like these and social security for the primary reason that I do not feel they are on the top of the list. Both sides are throwing softballs to each other in order to not deal with some of the hard topics that threaten the average American.

I would like to see a grass roots effort to hit some of the more important issues like education reform, social welfare improvements, energy issues and like I said before, the continued occupation of Iraq.

To be honest, social security and the right to die do not mean much (and I know this sounds cliche) when we have problems like racial divide, poverty and unemployment. Arguing about a luxury like social security should be on the back burner when compared to some of the more serious problems of the lower class and african american groups in our country. If you wish for me to be more detailed about social strains, come visit my McDonald's Restaurant when you come to Blaine in May (the store is right up highway 10 west).

I am only pointing out that the more important issues should be tackled first and then issues like social security... this has nothing to do with bipartisan bickering, rather my own feeling that there are other issues (in my mind, more important issues) that are going overlooked.

Maybe there are more important issues Dan. But have you ever thought for a moment Dan that some of the economic problems in this country are caused by our high level of taxes and many people's dependence on the federal governement?

P.S. SS ain't a luxury to me. It's 7.5% of every single paycheck that I earn. It's also an additional 7.5% that my company can't pay me in my paycheck. 15% -- Down the tubes every other week in a glorified Pyramid scheme.

Sonny wrote:Maybe there are more important issues Dan. But have you ever thought for a moment Dan that some of the economic problems in this country are caused by our high level of taxes and many people's dependence on the federal governement?

P.S. SS ain't a luxury to me. It's 7.5% of every single paycheck that I earn. It's also an additional 7.5% that my company can't pay me in my paycheck. 15% -- Down the tubes every other week in a glorified Pyramid scheme.

I am not sure I believe that taxes are at fault for some of the economic problems. If we are talking about high tax rates, then we should consider that other westernized nations have substantially higher taxes than we do and considerably less poverty and unemployment (though they have other problems- look no further than the high amount of pregnant, unwed mothers in Sweden to see how too much government can really backfire). We have probably one of the lowest dead weight losses of the westernized nations and still manage to offer quite a few programs with our lower taxes. All together, if we did not have a debt, I would say our "system" is not too bad.

At the same time, when I spend time talking to our hispanic labor at McDonald's (citizens, mind you), I cannot help but think that they have little if any dependence on the government other than taxes. There really are no programs (at least not by the state of Minnesota) to help any of these people #1- Assimilate into our country, #2- Advance themselves through education or #3- Make sure they do not struggle with health care costs because they clearly cannot afford it on $12,376 a year ($7/hr x 34 hours a week x 52 weeks a year). I feel with scenerios like this that arguing about other issues just seems irrelevant. In the end, the government (a mix of state and federal) provides them with roads (a high cost here), police protection and poor educational funding.

Sonny- I apologize if I made your 7.5% seem trivial, that was not my intention. You and I simply come from different sides of the fence. I will save you my thoughts on taxes, etc. and keep those opinions and views for myself. I do respect your 7.5%, but I can tell you nothing about it to make you feel any better.

Sonny wrote:Maybe there are more important issues Dan. But have you ever thought for a moment Dan that some of the economic problems in this country are caused by our high level of taxes and many people's dependence on the federal governement?

Our prime economic problems are going to be due to the huge budget and trade deficits we're running. Right now, our relatively low taxes and large military expenditures are being subsidized mostly by loans from Chinese and Japanese banks. Essentially, we're spending money that we'll have to pay back to foreign lenders.

This is already the caused a weakening of the dollar. Foreign imports will become more expensive, and because we import so much, this leads to inflation. (On the flip side, this could help American exports, since our goods will be cheaper to other countries.)

With inflation, we will get a competetive advantage with other countries, and industry will pickup. It is not a hole we want to dig ourselves out of, but it's coming, get used to it. I believe the Fed has done a great job minimizing much of the damage we could have had, just like when they saved our butts in 1998 with the Long Term Capital Management fiasco.

So many people are tieing all economic problems on the president, now or 10 years from now, or 10 years before. Maybe I'm really missing something, but I can't seem to tie 100% of our problems to Bush. I have a much easier time relating them back to us and or business practices and regulations.

Kyle Berggren wrote:So many people are tieing all economic problems on the president, now or 10 years from now, or 10 years before. Maybe I'm really missing something, but I can't seem to tie 100% of our problems to Bush. I have a much easier time relating them back to us and or business practices and regulations.

I don't blame the politicians. Politicians pass tax cuts without cutting spending because (and raise spending without tax hikes), frankly, because it helps them get re-elected. Voters are ultimately responsible for our fiscal problems.

We get the government we deserve.