PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

[Guest Paul]

Where did you get that that it takes five people to do the work of one? From the Limbaugh school of knowledge?

The facts do not support your assertion. As I stated previously, the administrative overhead of SS and Medicare is about 3%. Very efficient compared to the 30 to 40% overhead of private insurance. And we don't have thousands of SS and medicare executives making in the millions.

If anything, you're being screwed by our private insurers.

Yes, at times our governmental programs spend more money than they take in. Its because they are obligated to pay out, no matter how much was paid in. Private insurers don't have that issue because they are constantly raising their rates. We've all seen health insurance rates double over the last 10 years. We could solve funding issues by doing what private insurers do. Do you want the social security tax rate doubled?

What is your solution? Do you want to turn this over to private industry? Then expect a 40% social security and Medicare tax hike just to care of "administrative overhead." Expect aothe rvery large increase to tkae care of shortfalls. Do you want them to put our Social Security trust fund in the market, as Bush did? We would have lost 40% of our trust fund in the last four years.

So besides complaining and decrying governmental programs, tell us your solutions.

Bern has posted facts. Guest in post 97 has no facts; on the contrary, the claim that these federal programs use five workers to do the work of one obviously is just made up.

You can't solve problems by making up "facts." But unfortunately, in the American age of irresponsibility, we came to believe that facts don't matter. Since then, so-called "conservatives" have become the opposite of conservative. A true conservative is grounded in facts. What is called conservatism in America today is not conservative at all, but its opposite: radicalism, a/k/a extremism.

We need to rebuild our economy. This should include first and foremost an Apollo-like program for new energy technologies. Such a program would employ people in jobs that cannot be shipped overseas, free us from our crippling dependence on oil and help preserve a cleaner environment. We also need to look for other ways to create sustainable, long-term jobs for our people. The only way we can fund Social Security and Medicare in the long term is to have a secure work force that is capable of funding these programs for an aging population; the only way we can do that is to use technology to alter the balance between work and leisure.

We also need to re-think our system of reward and taxation in the modern mixed economy. It's not just a question of fairness, but also what will make the economy work long term. We cannot continue to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands; either we must control things like CEO compensation or we must tax wealth and/or exorbitant incomes. It's obvious that pure capitalism hasn't existed for quite a long time and never will exist again. Still, we want as much free enterprise as is consistent with the country's needs. Government must play a role in developing new technologies when private companies won't do it, especially in energy right now. Taxpayers must be treated like shareholders, at least for a while, if our money is going to be used to save those companies from bankruptcy. At the same time, we need to have a system that competes with other nations' economic systems. We don't want our industries nationalized.

Unfortunately, we're always going to have people who think that the best response to problems is to complain about them without really thinking about them. I don't see any major productive avenues for internal reform of Social Security or Medicare. What we need is either a reinvigorated economy that is able to maintain these programs, or a new way of providing aid to the elderly and to those in need of funds for medical care.

[Guest Guest]

What model of reasoning do you use? Apparently, the model where you make things up and pretend they are facts. Where is your evidence that in SS and Medicare, five people are paid to do the work of one?

If you want to compare that to private companies, just look at corporate CEO's making tens of millions of dollars a year for running their companies into the ground. How many middle class workers would have been supported by those exorbitant salaries? The corporations are taking your money and using it to line executives' pockets and ship your jobs overseas by the millions. Unlike you, I have evidence for what I'm saying.

I don't get it, do you guys really love being raped by giant corporations?

You are not being forced to use any of those private companies. Most of the people that get screwed are people that invest in something that they don't understand and they don't monitor their investments.

SS may go bankrupt in the after decade and Medicare is in deep trouble. You say you have evidence otherwise, where is it?

[Guest Guest]

Where did you get that that it takes five people to do the work of one? From the Limbaugh school of knowledge?

The facts do not support your assertion. As I stated previously, the administrative overhead of SS and Medicare is about 3%. Very efficient compared to the 30 to 40% overhead of private insurance. And we don't have thousands of SS and medicare executives making in the millions.

If anything, you're being screwed by our private insurers.

Yes, at times our governmental programs spend more money than they take in. Its because they are obligated to pay out, no matter how much was paid in. Private insurers don't have that issue because they are constantly raising their rates. We've all seen health insurance rates double over the last 10 years. We could solve funding issues by doing what private insurers do. Do you want the social security tax rate doubled?

What is your solution? Do you want to turn this over to private industry? Then expect a 40% social security and Medicare tax hike just to care of "administrative overhead." Expect aothe rvery large increase to tkae care of shortfalls. Do you want them to put our Social Security trust fund in the market, as Bush did? We would have lost 40% of our trust fund in the last four years.

So besides complaining and decrying governmental programs, tell us your solutions.

The market is up over 300% since the crash in the late 80s. Properly regulated, not over regulated, private companies blow away most government run agencies.

[Guest Guest]

What do you mean, "Oh, so now. . ."? That's the reason.

You don't want to accept reality. All you seem to know is that you don't like taxes, so if you or anyone else has to pay them, you assume it must be the fault of some incompetent boob in government. If someone points out to you that there are good reasons for taxes going up, you get angry.

We all know that everyone is struggling right now, including governments. You're not solving anything by picking the easiest scapegoat.

The government wouldn't need to generate more revenue if the money was being spent wisely.

Exactly what are the good reasons for taxes going up?

[Bern]

The government wouldn't need to generate more revenue if the money was being spent wisely.

Exactly what are the good reasons for taxes going up?

None. When times are good and salaries are going up, governmental income increases at a greater rate than the increase in income. Besides taking a percentage of income, some are also pushed into higher brackets causing an exponential not linear increase in tax revenue out of the public pocket.

Government is always looking to spend more and to pay for it by taxing more and borrowing more. Under Bush the Federal government has spent like drunken sailors and increased revenue by increasing fees and by borrowing. Does anyone really believe it costs them $100 to do a passport?

Our economy is gearing down and tax revenue being a function of personal income and transaction income (sales, user, license and other fees) will go down. When we lose income or our salaries don't keep up with inflation, we learn to adjust. Governments need to do the same.

When times are flush and income is rolling in, governments becomes inefficient, getting "used" to their higher revenues. You see the waste in the Defense Department, NASA, FEMA and many local governments. Programs that so many decry, like social security with their very low overhead have no waste.

Tax revenue will go down and the first thing they come up with is putting their hands in our pockets.

[Bern]

The market is up over 300% since the crash in the late 80s. Properly regulated, not over regulated, private companies blow away most government run agencies.

Prove it.

Show me how companies like Lehman, AIG, GM, Chrysler are better. Should we make the Defense Department a private company? What about State? Should we turn your local police department over to private security?

What about a quasi governmental agency such as the postal service? Should we turn them over to UPS or FEDEX? Right now you can send a letter for 41 cents. Can you do that with FEDEX?

And the fact is, if we listened to Bush, half of the social security trust fund would now be "lost" in the market.

The one place I do see where private works better than public is with schools.

[Guest Paul]

You are not being forced to use any of those private companies. Most of the people that get screwed are people that invest in something that they don't understand and they don't monitor their investments.

SS may go bankrupt in the after decade and Medicare is in deep trouble. You say you have evidence otherwise, where is it?

I disagree. We're all getting screwed by what is happening now. The main reasons are:

1. We refused to invest in energy technologies beginning 35 years ago when Nixon and then Carter warned us, correctly, of what was coming if we didn't do it. It was you guys with your anti-government ideologies who led the charge against doing what was needed.

2. We deregulated the economy on radical ideological grounds, not with a view toward greater function and efficiency.

3. We refused to pay attention to and update our infrastructure.

4. We piled up an enormous debt over the past eight years for inexcusable non-reasons.

5. We have refused to pay attention to declining standards of education in math and science.

6. We have insisted on maintaining an inefficient health care system that doesn't even do a good job caring for people, considering the technology and resources we have.

7. We have allowed income to be redistributed in an unconscionable and unsustainable way.

That's not to mention the neglect of our natural environment, the growing threat of an increasing global population and the implications of the global economy on political choice. We have been living on accumulated wealth for several decades now, with sporadic boosts from technological advances, but we have run out of room to maneuver. The answer is not to return to laissez-faire economics, which were shown to be outdated eighty years ago, but to devise a new relationship between the public and private sectors. The goals of the new system should be:

1. To build a sustainable and functioning economy.

2. To maximize human freedom, both economic and social.

3. To encourage responsibility, including honest work for earned income.

4. To encourage innovation.

5. To build the new economy in a way that is ecologically sustainable in the long term. Though listed last, this is by no means the least important goal.

No one is "forced to use" the big 3 auto makers or the oil companies, etc., may be a popular theory, but the reality is that we all get screwed when those companies fail, or when their profits are too large or too small, or when they gain too much power. Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations, 1776) was a brilliant man in his day but he knew nothing about economies like ours; they didn't exist yet.

I don't recall anyone here claiming that SS and Medicare won't go bankrupt. They surely will if they are not funded. Why do you insist on putting words into people's mouths that they haven't said and don't mean? Your argument must be quite weak if you need to do that.

Many private companies will go bankrupt, too, if the government doesn't bail them out. So?

[Guest Paul]

* The government wouldn't need to generate more revenue if the money was being spent wisely.

Exactly what are the good reasons for taxes going up?

* Where do you get that nonsense? That's like saying that you don't need more money for your family if Grandma and Grandpa become dependents. There's no absolutely no connection between your claim and reality. It's as though reality doesn't suit you, so you just make up an argument that has no basis in reality.

Taxes go up for all kinds of reasons. The one most applicable to SS and Medicare is that the American population is aging as the baby boomers are going into retirement. More people need more resources, so you have to raise taxes to fund them. That's not a difficult concept, and I believe the point has been made several times. Yet you just ignore it, apparently because it's not what you wish to hear. You want the problems faced by these programs to be the government's fault, so you just say that it's the government's fault. You can say it all you want, but the fact remains that our population is getting older and therefore demands more resources from these programs.

[Guest Paul]

The market is up over 300% since the crash in the late 80s. Properly regulated, not over regulated, private companies blow away most government run agencies.

Very few people would disagree that private companies are preferable to governments for most things. But the question is, what constitutes proper regulation. The radicals who controlled the government these past eight years proved that they didn't have a clue.

And for what it's worth, you don't measure the success of a system by taking the low point as a baseline. And you can't simply compare the economy today with the economy 21 years ago. Technologies and markets have been completely transformed since then. You have to account for those changes and for the rise of the global economy.

[Guest Extinguisher]

The government wouldn't need to generate more revenue if the money was being spent wisely.

Exactly what are the good reasons for taxes going up?

For starters, increases to the consumer price index. $100 in 1958 is not not $100 in 2008. If you want the same services today that you had the year before, there will be an increase in taxes. Many programs do, however, exceed CPI in a given year (the epartment of Defense budget is the one budget that's grown the most in the past ten years). Once you back out inflation, then you need to analyze the given reasons for the increase.

[Guest Guest]

Bern has posted facts. Guest in post 97 has no facts; on the contrary, the claim that these federal programs use five workers to do the work of one obviously is just made up.

You can't solve problems by making up "facts." But unfortunately, in the American age of irresponsibility, we came to believe that facts don't matter. Since then, so-called "conservatives" have become the opposite of conservative. A true conservative is grounded in facts. What is called conservatism in America today is not conservative at all, but its opposite: radicalism, a/k/a extremism.

We need to rebuild our economy. This should include first and foremost an Apollo-like program for new energy technologies. Such a program would employ people in jobs that cannot be shipped overseas, free us from our crippling dependence on oil and help preserve a cleaner environment. We also need to look for other ways to create sustainable, long-term jobs for our people. The only way we can fund Social Security and Medicare in the long term is to have a secure work force that is capable of funding these programs for an aging population; the only way we can do that is to use technology to alter the balance between work and leisure.

We also need to re-think our system of reward and taxation in the modern mixed economy. It's not just a question of fairness, but also what will make the economy work long term. We cannot continue to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands; either we must control things like CEO compensation or we must tax wealth and/or exorbitant incomes. It's obvious that pure capitalism hasn't existed for quite a long time and never will exist again. Still, we want as much free enterprise as is consistent with the country's needs. Government must play a role in developing new technologies when private companies won't do it, especially in energy right now. Taxpayers must be treated like shareholders, at least for a while, if our money is going to be used to save those companies from bankruptcy. At the same time, we need to have a system that competes with other nations' economic systems. We don't want our industries nationalized.

Unfortunately, we're always going to have people who think that the best response to problems is to complain about them without really thinking about them. I don't see any major productive avenues for internal reform of Social Security or Medicare. What we need is either a reinvigorated economy that is able to maintain these programs, or a new way of providing aid to the elderly and to those in need of funds for medical care.

There’s no doubt that Apollo was a great scientific and engineering accomplishment but it also had its dark side. Principal scientists were considered by some to be Nazi war criminals. It was an unsustainable project that nearly bankrupt NASA. And it made a lot of CEO’s and corporate executives rich, which you don’t seem to like.

I don't see where Bern has posted any facts. Just because he writes things doesn't make them fact.

I also keep reading the cries of be specific with your solutions. What is so specific about "new energy technologies" or "other ways to create sustainable, long-term jobs for our people"?

[Guest Paul]

There’s no doubt that Apollo was a great scientific and engineering accomplishment but it also had its dark side. Principal scientists were considered by some to be Nazi war criminals. It was an unsustainable project that nearly bankrupt NASA. And it made a lot of CEO’s and corporate executives rich, which you don’t seem to like.

I don't see where Bern has posted any facts. Just because he writes things doesn't make them fact.

I also keep reading the cries of be specific with your solutions. What is so specific about "new energy technologies" or "other ways to create sustainable, long-term jobs for our people"?

This won’t seem like a constructive criticism, but that’s how I intend it. The people who are just reflexively attacking everything the government does aren't thinking constructively. It’s not just what they’re writing, it’s how they’re thinking and yes, I can tell. For example, you or someone who writes very much like you made a claim that five federal employees do the work of one. When challenged, you just ignore your own claim. You can’t do that: if you want to be responsible, then you must be responsible for what you write, preferably before and certainly after. If you will read the posts from your side of the discussion critically, I think you’ll see that you and maybe others are just making conclusory claims that come not from facts but straight from your biases. There’s no need for me to be more specific (and I can't) because nothing else is going on in those posts. Again, I know that sounds mean and non-constructive but it’s just the opposite. If you want to make a contribution at any level on these points, you must completely change the way you approach these problems. I hate this, it seems like lecturing but frankly this entire series of posts really is that bad. What, for example, does your point about scientists in the Apollo program have to do with this discussion? All you’re doing is “government bad, private good.” OK, so the Apollo program had its dark side. So did the USA’s involvement in World War II. And every parent screws up in some way parenting his or her kids. So what? To what useful place do you take the data? There’s no logic or reason connecting any of the dots in your post.

Now here’s the difference. You asked about the specifics of an energy program. Here is the link to President-elect Obama’s energy policy. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_e...eech_080308.pdf

These are good and important steps on the whole in my opinion. Exactly how is the money going to be invested, specifically which companies and which people will have their hands on the money? I’d like all those details too, but like you I only have so many hours in the day. Few if any citizens fully understood the Apollo project either. I get the concept of Obama’s energy program and it makes sense. We do need the federal government to assist with technological development. We do need tax and other incentives to encourage green technologies. It’s a healthy departure from the inaction of the past 35 years. If people who believe in the programs are put in charge, they should help our country. Read it and see what you think.

[Bern]

I don't see where Bern has posted any facts. Just because he writes things doesn't make them fact.

And how do YOU know my "facts" are wrong? That is always a problem, isn't it? The interpretation of "facts."

Many get their "facts" from Limbaugh and because it is a "fact" from the fat one, it must be so.

Others look at real data - statistics. They see how much insurers take in vs how much they pay our in every one of their categories such automobile or health insurance. Some look at BEA data to get a handle on the economy.

Many will give the fat one more credence than any other source. They don't have the work ethic, discipline and intelligence to research facts. They depend on the fat one and his cohorts to present them "facts". So convenient and painless, having facts "handed" to you on a silver platter.

[Guest Guest]

And how do YOU know my "facts" are wrong? That is always a problem, isn't it? The interpretation of "facts."

Many get their "facts" from Limbaugh and because it is a "fact" from the fat one, it must be so.

Others look at real data - statistics. They see how much insurers take in vs how much they pay our in every one of their categories such automobile or health insurance. Some look at BEA data to get a handle on the economy.

Many will give the fat one more credence than any other source. They don't have the work ethic, discipline and intelligence to research facts. They depend on the fat one and his cohorts to present them "facts". So convenient and painless, having facts "handed" to you on a silver platter.

Excellent point about Limbaugh, which could also be made about Coulter, Hannity and most of the red-meat types on the radical right, as well as of some on the radical left. There are at least three reasons this is more prevalent on the right.

1. Right wingers tend to be authoritarian types more than lefties.

2. Right wingers are more inclined than others to see things in black and white.

3. Right wingers are trying to destroy what they see as the social framework, namely the federal government. So they don't mind lying about their perceived enemy to achieve their ends. Many of them even manage to convince themselves they're not lying.

[Guest Guest]

And how do YOU know my "facts" are wrong? That is always a problem, isn't it? The interpretation of "facts."

Many get their "facts" from Limbaugh and because it is a "fact" from the fat one, it must be so.

Others look at real data - statistics. They see how much insurers take in vs how much they pay our in every one of their categories such automobile or health insurance. Some look at BEA data to get a handle on the economy.

Many will give the fat one more credence than any other source. They don't have the work ethic, discipline and intelligence to research facts. They depend on the fat one and his cohorts to present them "facts". So convenient and painless, having facts "handed" to you on a silver platter.

Your "facts" can't be proven one way or the other.

[Bern]

Your "facts" can't be proven one way or the other.

They can certainly be proven.

You can get historical insurance rates. You can get the increases they were allowed by their various state insurance departments over the years. You can look up how much is spent on actual services vs admin overhead.

You can look at the budget of the Federal Government and actually see how much is spent on social security administration. Compare that to private insurance or investment administration.

Its all a matter of retrieving public records.

All it takes is some intelligence (not much) and wherewithal.

Often the facts are obvious. Anyone who has had insurance has seen their rates go up significantly. It is a fact that you can mail a letter for less than 50 cents. Try mailing a letter using a private carrier, such as UPS, for less than 50 cents. You'll be laughed out of the UPS store.

But then, many are really not interested in doing work. They would rather be and are so used to being spoon fed the swill masquerading as "facts" by the fat one and his cronies. They can't even envision doing their own research. They are comfortable being part of the authoritative mind set hive.

[Guest Guest]

They can certainly be proven.

You can get historical insurance rates. You can get the increases they were allowed by their various state insurance departments over the years. You can look up how much is spent on actual services vs admin overhead.

You can look at the budget of the Federal Government and actually see how much is spent on social security administration. Compare that to private insurance or investment administration.

Its all a matter of retrieving public records.

All it takes is some intelligence (not much) and wherewithal.

Often the facts are obvious. Anyone who has had insurance has seen their rates go up significantly. It is a fact that you can mail a letter for less than 50 cents. Try mailing a letter using a private carrier, such as UPS, for less than 50 cents. You'll be laughed out of the UPS store.

But then, many are really not interested in doing work. They would rather be and are so used to being spoon fed the swill masquerading as "facts" by the fat one and his cronies. They can't even envision doing their own research. They are comfortable being part of the authoritative mind set hive.

You've hit the mindset of the radical right squarely on the nose. To them, the facts don't matter.