Slashdot Mirror


McCain Decries "Hobbits," Accused of Ringbearing

Oxford_Comma_Lover writes "Senator McCain decried Tea Party 'Hobbits' on Wednesday for their failure to support the GOP's debt deal, at times reading from a WSJ editorial that began the analogy. The Tea Party fired back, with a prominent member noting on CNN that McCain had been corrupted by the ring of power. The full text of his floor remarks should be in the Congressional Record later today."

722 comments

  1. Well ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... if the US Government had the same budget as a Peter Jackson movie we wouldn't be in this fiscal mess, now would we? ;-)

    1. Re:Well ... by redemtionboy · · Score: 0, Troll

      ... if the US Government had the same budget as a Peter Jackson movie we wouldn't be in this fiscal mess, now would we? ;-)

      Well, we couldn't really afford anything then could we. I mean, that doesn't even cover congress's salary.

    2. Re:Well ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      way to suck all the air right out of the room, fignuts.

    3. Re:Well ... by rwven · · Score: 1

      You apparently don't know satire when you see it.

    4. Re:Well ... by redemtionboy · · Score: 1, Troll

      I don't? Could you define it for me? I'm sorry, I'm quite horrible with these esoteric words. Perhaps a chart and graph or a video could better explain it.

    5. Re:Well ... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      that doesn't even cover congress's salary

      That's the main point!

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    6. Re:Well ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't? Could you define it for me? I'm sorry, I'm quite horrible with these esoteric words. Perhaps a chart and graph or a video could better explain it.

      We could put that together for you but you'd probably whoosh on that one, too.

    7. Re:Well ... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They do. They just went over the budget because they decided to do the war scenes with real extras instead of much cheaper CGI.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Well ... by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, it's a series of tubes...

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    9. Re:Well ... by characterZer0 · · Score: 2

      Right. Because CGI would all get done in one office in one representative's district, but we can a few extras from each district instead.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    10. Re:Well ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our military spending doesn't hold a candle to our entitlement programs...

    11. Re:Well ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only did they do the war scenes with real extras, they did the war scenes for real.

    12. Re:Well ... by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Are you entitled to the money you've put in your bank account?

    13. Re:Well ... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      more than half the extra's are job-stealing foreigners. Of course, they never get listed in the credits.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    14. Re:Well ... by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      No, but if their accounting is anything like Hollywood's then we would be losing even more money.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    15. Re:Well ... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      ... if the US Government had the same budget as a Peter Jackson movie we wouldn't be in this fiscal mess, now would we? ;-)

      You don't have much faith in the spending power of a Congressman. Watch them build a billion dollar bridge between two abandoned igloos, 10 feet apart.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    16. Re:Well ... by AgentSmith · · Score: 1

      Well, it's a series of tubes...

      What my distinguished colleague really meant is: the internet is a series of Hobbit holes. . .

    17. Re:Well ... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Or a car analogy?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    18. Re:Well ... by redemtionboy · · Score: 1

      Finally, someone who thinks on my level. :P Can't believe some people don't know how to take a joke.

    19. Re:Well ... by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      Only on paper though, and the defense contractors may have a harder time getting paid.

    20. Re:Well ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why this got modded a troll. Dude makes a valid point in drawing attention to how fat congressional salaries are. I think the first thing we should cut to address the debt crisis is to have the whole lot of them take a pay cut before they start cutting any entitlements for the general public.

    21. Re:Well ... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If only... like in the old joke "Hell, how are we going to pay all those extras?" "Don't worry, in the last scene I'll have them load the guns with life rounds, we won't have to pay that much".

      Sadly, the enemy shoots mostly with blanks and we got to pay all our extras.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    22. Re:Well ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason enough people voted for the Al Qaeda mole to put him in the White House in 2000 and again in 2004. His mission to destroy America is now well advanced and his disciples in the Tea Party have been useful fools, working day and night to destroy America all the while believing they are saving it.

      Bin laden couldn't have planned it better.

    23. Re:Well ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Can't believe some people don't know how to take a joke.

      Why would you expect to see a joke on a site that brands itself as 'News for Nerds ; stuff that matters'?

      Just asking.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    24. Re:Well ... by redemtionboy · · Score: 1

      Because I was replying to a joke?

    25. Re:Well ... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Now who do you blame, government of the private corporations that have corrupted it. Who is more at fault, the US Congress or the US and foreign corporations buying representatives, paying bribes and substantively profiting by the privatised corruption they create.

      In fact the more services and work the government do in house the less opportunities for grand scale corruption. A little bit of pilfering here and there but no grand scale multi-million dollar boon doggles all made possible by privatised contracting and you wonder why corporations fought so hard for it and why the Republicans are made to preach it at every opportunity.

      The reality is there would not be any budget short fall if they had not deregulated, had not created a bunch of corporate do not pay any tax loop holes and had not given the richest and greediest (those that most profit by society) idiotic tax reductions.

      It is not government wasting money, it is corrupted corporation paying their employees, those people pretending to represent the people, pouring money into their employers pockets. Virtually nothing is done to send the bribe payers to prison or to recover lost tax payer funds as a result of bribes. It is all buried under piles of mass media corporate funded lies, it is all government faults, if the corporations hate government so much why do they keep buying and controlling it.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    26. Re:Well ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      There was a joke? Why?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    27. Re:Well ... by redemtionboy · · Score: 1

      Because someone felt the need to expend a lulz?

    28. Re:Well ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Ð ÐнÐÐÐÑÐÐб ÐоÐÐÐÐÑÑÐ,

      (Which is approximately Russian for "In English, please.")

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Silly McCain... by TehCable · · Score: 5, Funny

    One does not simply walk into Metaphor.

    1. Re:Silly McCain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One does not simply walk into Metaphor.

      You are awesome.....

    2. Re:Silly McCain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One does not simply walk into Metaphor.

      You sir... are a genius. You know the drill, diet coke thru nose...new monitor, new keyboard, your fault.

    3. Re:Silly McCain... by RavenChild · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sir, please remove that 1 from your UID. You have been promoted.

    4. Re:Silly McCain... by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      It's not a metaphor; Michelle Bachmann really does have hairy feet.

    5. Re:Silly McCain... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      It's not a metaphor; Michelle Bachmann really does have hairy feet.

      I thought she had scales.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Silly McCain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought McCain was already dead... didn't he die a few months ago? I mean come on, I'm not an ass, but expecting him to live *yet* another year? Give the man a rest! How old is he? 110?

    7. Re:Silly McCain... by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      Ai! Ai! A Barack is come!

    8. Re:Silly McCain... by Trifthen · · Score: 1

      God. It's days like this when I actually look at UIDs and instantly shit myself. I didn't even get into Slashdot that early, but all these folks with accounts in the millions make it look like I did.

      --
      Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
    9. Re:Silly McCain... by Ossifer · · Score: 1

      You 5-or-less digiters never miss an opportunity to show the rest of us how few digits you have...

    10. Re:Silly McCain... by Trifthen · · Score: 1

      Hah. Actually, this time it was relevant. I was about to use a joke, "I don't think you have the authority to do that, son." But then I looked at his account number... I mean, really looked, and couldn't believe it. Has Slashdot really been around that long?

      Fuck, I'm old.

      --
      Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
    11. Re:Silly McCain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant.

    12. Re:Silly McCain... by sorak · · Score: 1

      If she does, is it a choice that she and her husband can wish away?

  3. hairy feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    better a hobbit than an old, worn out battle axe. I wonder if Senator McCain gets to ride one of them bit ole winged lizard thingies? That would be cool.

  4. Well That Does It by Lifyre · · Score: 0, Troll

    Tolkien is officially no longer cool. When stuffed up pretentious windbags are using his works to insult each other it's time to move on.

    So with Tolkien done and Superheros on the way out what's next?

    --
    I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    1. Re:Well That Does It by rwven · · Score: 1

      Congressmen?

    2. Re:Well That Does It by H0p313ss · · Score: 4, Funny

      So with Tolkien done and Superheros on the way out what's next?

      Krispy Kreme the movie?

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    3. Re:Well That Does It by hsmyers · · Score: 1

      Bullshit---that fact that idiots and assholes misquote and miss-characterize a work of literature has nothing to do with the literature. Your assumption that it does is right in there with their misuse. Now if this was meant in jest, your hints as to such use are really hard to see---use darker ink next time...

    4. Re:Well That Does It by Lifyre · · Score: 1

      I shall use that darker ink next time. It was supposed to be a comment about old people trying to be cool by using things from pop culture.

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    5. Re:Well That Does It by korean.ian · · Score: 1

      I shall use that darker ink next time. It was supposed to be a comment about old people trying to be cool by using things from pop culture.

      Pop culture? That's just not on.

    6. Re:Well That Does It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Krispy Kreme the movie?

      I'd like to cite the Stay Puft marshmallow scene from Ghost Busters as early inspiration for the genre. I plan to eventually do my doctoral thesis titled The History and Evolution of the Sugar Product Tie-In Genre at UCLA film school. Scary thought... there is probably a real thesis like that somewhere...

    7. Re:Well That Does It by Lifyre · · Score: 1

      LotR was very much pop culture for a few years. Not quite so much these days but honestly if these people know the month much less the year it currently is without it being written in front of them I'd be impressed.

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    8. Re:Well That Does It by hsmyers · · Score: 1

      Ah! That is a statement with which I agree completely. Although given his audience had he used anything normal to his generation, the target of his remarks would have been completely confused. They don't understand even their 'own' culture, let alone anyone else's. In fact I'm not sure they understand anything except the bizarre notions that pass for 'truth' among them.

  5. LolzSec? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ok, which one of you hacked his teleprompter?

    1. Re:LolzSec? by sarysa · · Score: 1

      Particularly the part about defeating the evil Mordor.

      --
      Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
  6. Gross Ugly Old Man by jimmerz28 · · Score: 1

    Let's please not compare Tea Party members to sex icons like Elijah Wood and Sean Astin.

    Now you're just being plain disrespectful McCain.

    1. Re:Gross Ugly Old Man by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      Yeah! I mean where would we be without without gems like "Huck Fin" and "The Goonies"?

    2. Re:Gross Ugly Old Man by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Tea Party as Lemon Party?

      Don't picture that.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:Gross Ugly Old Man by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      Dude. Don't mess with the goonies. Huck Fin I understand, but Goonies was classic geek kid television.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    4. Re:Gross Ugly Old Man by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      O I know..I'm def a Goonies fan....after I hit "Submit", I tried changing it to "The Faculty" and "Encino Man"...but I wasn't quick enough....doh.

    5. Re:Gross Ugly Old Man by justsayin · · Score: 1

      I type pretty fast. Call me next time you hit submit by mistake.

  7. It's OK by glueball · · Score: 3, Funny

    McCain was the last Democrat I voted for in a Presidential election

    1. Re:It's OK by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Heh... You got that right McCain's nothing more than a Republican In Name Only.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    2. Re:It's OK by JustOK · · Score: 1

      I thought McCain was a brand of very popular french fries and other assorted wholesome meals like pizza. I was very confused, and hungry, during the last election.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    3. Re:It's OK by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's pretty much the same. Looks great on the cover, but once you took a bite out of it you wonder why you chose it and you'll suffer for a long time afterwards and wish you never touched it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:It's OK by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      McCain is a moderate republican. We don't have many of those out there any more... What happened in the last election was during the primaries he had to seem like he was far right, after he did that he failed to move to the center very well. Oboma had the advantage of being after Bush, If Donald Duck won the Democratic primaries he probably would have been president, and he made the shift from Far Left to Center very gracefully.

      We have a hole society who thinks that Moderates are week minded. They are not, they can hold strong to their convictions however they are not stupidly just holding onto Redirect and take each issue as it comes up. We need to demand more moderates, but the ext reams on both sides have us believe if we elect a moderate the ideals of the party will be compromised away, which isn't true.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:It's OK by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      It's pretty much the same. Looks great on the cover, but once you took a bite out of it you wonder why you chose it and you'll suffer for a long time afterwards and wish you never touched it.

      In my experience that's true of all politicians at all levels.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    6. Re:It's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... says the extremist trying to purge the ranks of the Republican party of anyone rational.

    7. Re:It's OK by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Clinton was the last Democrat I voted for in a Presidential election.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    8. Re:It's OK by black+soap · · Score: 1

      McCain might have stood a chance, if not for Palin. I wonder how many democrats are secretly donating money to her, hoping she'll be prominent enough to cost GOP the 2012 election too?

    9. Re:It's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dear Dragon Naturally Speaking,
      Please buy a good grammatical reference and learn how to use it.

      ...hole society [...] week minded. [...] ext reams...

    10. Re:It's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those of you who are not historically illiterate:

      John McCain is to the Tea Party as Paul von Hindenburg is to the XXX party.

    11. Re:It's OK by operagost · · Score: 0

      ... says the leftist using ad hominems as the basis of his "arguments".

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:It's OK by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Speaking of, so far most of the Republican candidates are far right Tea Party nut jobs, which is not exactly how you woo the moderates. I'm definitely voting in the primaries this year (thankfully I live in a state that doesn't force primary voters to be party affiliated). I'll also toss a vote against Obama in the Dem primaries, though I've never seen an incumbent ousted (I tried with Bush, too - I'm not a big fan of leaders of Republics that treat them like dictatorships).

      Note to parent - you mean "whole" not hole, and weak not "week" - if you don't want to sound weak minded you should use the correct word and not the homophone (word that sounds the same but is spelt [and yes, Firefox spellchecker, spelt is a legal alternative to spelled in English] differently).

    13. Re:It's OK by jd2112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      McCain is a moderate republican. We don't have many of those out there any more...

      Moderate Republicans aren't hard to find, however most of them call themselves 'Democrats'.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    14. Re:It's OK by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mind stopping to post bullshit until you finally educated yourself enough as to know what an argumentum ad hominem actually is. One tip, numbnuts, this ain't one. This was a straight insult.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    15. Re:It's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... says the leftist using ad hominems as the basis of his "arguments".?

      That's especially funny considering that it's the Republican Ad-hominem of "RINO" that started this all. Oh right: it's bad if liberals respond in kind, but it's perfectly okay for Republicans to begin their arguments with ad-hominems. Seriously, do you ever think about the ridiculous double-standards of the right?

    16. Re:It's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, not cool. What if he is using Dragon or something like that? What if he's disabled?

    17. Re:It's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McCain is a moderate republican. We don't have many of those out there any more... What happened in the last election was during the primaries he had to seem like he was far right, after he did that he failed to move to the center very well. Oboma had the advantage of being after Bush, If Donald Duck won the Democratic primaries he probably would have been president, and he made the shift from Far Right to Extremely Far Right very gracefully.

      We have a hole society who thinks that Moderates are week minded. They are not, they can hold strong to their convictions however they are not stupidly just holding onto Redirect and take each issue as it comes up. We need to demand more moderates, but the ext reams on both sides have us believe if we elect a moderate the ideals of the party will be compromised away, which isn't true.

      Fixed that for you.

    18. Re:It's OK by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 2

      Or we're called RINO and aren't invited to the republican reindeer games.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    19. Re:It's OK by englishknnigits · · Score: 1

      There is nothing inherently wrong with being a Moderate but there is also nothing inherently good about being a Moderate. As with any politician, judge them based on how much they vote in alignment with your beliefs/values/morals. You should only "demand more moderates" if you agree with them. If one politician is in favor of murder and another is against murder, would you demand a moderate who is for murder in moderation? It is a silly example but it illustrates the point that moderation is not inherently good or bad.

    20. Re:It's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama has never once expressed a position anywhere left of center. Everyone who thought he was "far left" was either engaging in wishful thinking (if Democratic) or scaremongering (if Republican).

      Unless you think single payer healthcare is "far left." Obama did back that during the elections, only to run the other way as soon as he won.

    21. Re:It's OK by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I will admit that Obama is the best republican president we have had in a long time.

    22. Re:It's OK by blair1q · · Score: 1

      McCain is a moderate republican.

      Only when he's acting on his own recognizance.

      When anyone -- and I mean anyone -- grips his ear and pushes his head down to his desk, he's among the most venal of right-wing shills.

    23. Re:It's OK by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Heh... You got that right McCain's nothing more than a Republican In Name Only.

      So was Reagan, by today's standards. He raised taxes, raised government spending, granted amnesty to illegal immigrants, and raised -- hell, nearly tripled -- the debt ceiling. Oh yeah, and there's that pesky funding-Osama-Bin-Laden thing. Whoops!

    24. Re:It's OK by hey! · · Score: 1

      We have a hole society who thinks that Moderates are week minded. They are not,

      True, but nobody listens to them because of their speling impediment.

      Anyhow, how many people do you know who would rally to a battle cry, "Y',know, the other side has some valid points."? Well, there's *me* and probably *you*, but I mean *normal* people.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    25. Re:It's OK by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Enough with the revisionism already. Jeesh! The GOP was completely disheartened until Palin spoke. They had watched for 8 years as the party of smaller government took over and, instead of reducing government, gave us hearings on steroids among professional athletes. At some point, you throw your hands up and say, "What the hell. We're dead.", and many in the GOP were feeling that way. The only difference between McCain and Obama was which government programs they wanted to increase spending on.

      Palin came in and mouthed the right words to invigorate conservatives. After listening for a while, most understood that she was just mouthing words without understanding, but at least she was mouthing the right words. Mc "Let's suspend the campaign" Cain is still an idiot, and Palin kept him from loosing by an even larger landslide.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    26. Re:It's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oboma had the advantage of being after Bush, If Donald Duck won the Democratic primaries he probably would have been president, and he made the shift from Far Left to Center very gracefully

      Not to quibble or anything, but Obama never came anywhere near to occupying anything that even remotely resembled the far left. Of course since the right has defined the issues consistently for 30 years what was once considered the center is now typically seen as being far left.

    27. Re:It's OK by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      His call to "spread the wealth" isn't far left through government confiscation? Nationalizing health care isn't far left? His constant campaigning against anyone more right than himself isn't far left? The appointment of left-wing wacko's like Van Jones isn't far left?

      I don't think you've been paying close attention.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    28. Re:It's OK by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      So you're saying he's exactly like a Democrat until someone reminds him that he's in the Republican party?

      Great.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    29. Re:It's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McCain is a moderate republican. We don't have many of those out there any more... What happened in the last election was during the primaries he had to seem like he was far right, after he did that he failed to move to the center very well. Oboma had the advantage of being after Bush, If Donald Duck won the Democratic primaries he probably would have been president, and he made the shift from Far Left to Center very gracefully.

      We have a hole society who thinks that Moderates are week minded. They are not, they can hold strong to their convictions however they are not stupidly just holding onto Redirect and take each issue as it comes up. We need to demand more moderates, but the ext reams on both sides have us believe if we elect a moderate the ideals of the party will be compromised away, which isn't true.

      Please, oh please, go back to 7th grade English class. It's "whole" not "hole" as in the whole society. And it's "weak" as in weak minded. A hole is an area where something is missing, as in a hole in the ground and week is the a grouping of seven days into a week.

    30. Re:It's OK by D'Sphitz · · Score: 1

      By tea party standards the great Ronald Reagan wasn't a "true" republican either, so stop worshiping him already.

    31. Re:It's OK by D'Sphitz · · Score: 1
      I think Palin is out, but I would seriously consider donating to Michelle Bachmann's campaign. I don't have enough faith in American voters to believe Bachmann running would be a guaranteed victory for democrats, but even so I think it would be better for the country in the long run if she actually won the presidency. The voters need some "shock & awe", the sooner the country can bottom out the quicker the ignorant public will wake up and realize what has been going on before their very eyes, and hopefully be motivated to vote the ideologues and corporate shills out of office.

      And it would be fun to watch.

    32. Re:It's OK by D'Sphitz · · Score: 1

      It's funny that Obama is much closer to a Ronald Reagan Republican than any of the tea party loons. So far his policy has certainly been middle-right, he is nowhere near the extreme leftist that the teabaggers insist he is. Republicans *should* adore him, that they despise him more than any president in history just highlights the irrationality of the tea party. Race certainly has something to do with it, but the steady stream of misinformation coming from FoxNews is probably the biggest culprit.

    33. Re:It's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange. I thought he had been the last living Republican.

      And now he's dead, just like all the other Republicans. All that is left are the Death Eaters and the Residual Zombies.

    34. Re:It's OK by Hatta · · Score: 1

      McCain WAS a moderate republican. Now he's just senile. Obama is a moderate republican.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    35. Re:It's OK by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Oral sex may make your day, but anal sex makes your hole week.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    36. Re:It's OK by Hatta · · Score: 1

      His call to "spread the wealth" isn't far left through government confiscation?

      No, that's moderate. Taking care of the least advantaged is one of the essential services of government. Denying that basic fact is far right.

      Nationalizing health care isn't far left?

      Obama's health care plan is to the right of Nixon's. Was Nixon a leftist?

      His constant campaigning against anyone more right than himself isn't far left?

      Obama is a right leaning Democrat. Anyone to the right of him is a Republican. Of course he's going to campaign against them. Also, you're forgetting that he's appointed several Republicans, as well as people like Timothy Geitner. Hardly something a leftist would do.

      The appointment of left-wing wacko's like Van Jones isn't far left?

      As special advisor for green jobs? Sounds like busy work.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    37. Re:It's OK by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This is proof that we need more edumacation funds!

    38. Re:It's OK by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yes, Palin invigorated a lot of Republican voters. However these were the true believers, those who were going to vote Republican anyway. Palin also alienated all the undecided voters and Republican moderates. Sure McCain had a lot of gaffes but he was not doing too badly in the race and even some Democrats were leaning his way, until Palin screwed it all up.

    39. Re:It's OK by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It's an ideological war. The problem is we're stuck with two parties by virtue of "winner takes all" democracy, and no real way to fix it without going with a parliamentary system (with its own serious flaws). So both Republican and Democratic parties are formed of uncomfortable coalitions.

    40. Re:It's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly

    41. Re:It's OK by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      I typically vote Democrat (or third party). However, I was strongly considering voting for McCain until Palin entered. Had McCain beaten Bush in 2000, it would have been a tough choice there as well. If Bush had declined to run in 2004, McCain would have been a much better choice over Kerry. If it had come to Hillary vs. McCain in 2008, and Palin (or an equivalent) was not in the VP slot, I would have gone to that side. He doesn't energize the Republican Conservative Base, true, but he is a great candidate as a Centrist, and he is... I guess I want to say "rational". Willing to listen to arguments, see evidence, and change his opinion when he realizes he was wrong. He's also willing to stick to an unpopular opinion when he believes he's right. I can understand why the Republicans don't all like him -- he's not a dogmatic yes-man. He's willing to cross party lines to get things done. He compromises, and makes deals, and listens to all of his constituents, not just the ones that fund him, or that think the way he already does.

      Obama pulled off a very smooth campaign, and held the center well, but McCain was a serious threat to Obama losing the Democratic Base until Palin entered the race. With his health problems making surviving his full term a serious question, no one on the liberal-side of the Republicans and into the Conservative Democrats wanted to see Palin take over. She might have helped him recover the Conservative Republicans, but she lost him the Center and Swing Votes.

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    42. Re:It's OK by blair1q · · Score: 1

      He's never exactly like a democrat, and what he becomes is part of the farthest-right reaches of the Republican Party.

    43. Re:It's OK by J+Story · · Score: 1

      I think the only similarity is that they both ran/are running huge deficits, but the purpose for those deficits is very different. Obama is doubling-down on the notion that government spending will pull the economy out of the depths, whereas Reagan's mega-spending was in aid of playing military "chicken" with the Soviets, who bankrupted themselves trying to keep up. Obama, on the other hand, thinks that government makes better investment choices than individuals.

      On the international stage, Obama and Reagan also have distinctly different approaches. Obama, in trying to be friends with non-allies, has pushed allied interests to the back -- and has effectively thrown Israel under a bus. Reagan, however, formed close relationships with the UK, and began the process with Canada that has become today's North American Free Trade Agreement -- an economic success. Anyone remember: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" and (during a mike test): "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.

      Reagan was one of America's great presidents. To be fair, though, Obama did win a Nobel Peace Prize ... for something ....

    44. Re:It's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >"Obama...shift from Far Left to Center"

      Center? Obama is a moderate Republican.

    45. Re:It's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean society with a hole in it?

    46. Re:It's OK by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      Taking care of the least advantaged is one of the essential services of government.

      Not according to the Constitution. Don't like it, pass an Amendment.

    47. Re:It's OK by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      McCain might have stood a chance, if not for Palin. I wonder how many democrats are secretly donating money to her, hoping she'll be prominent enough to cost GOP the 2012 election too?

      No. Palin hurt him, but it was the economy that sealed the deal. The economy *collapsed*. We're weathering it fairly well, though it's still REALLY hard for a lot of people--but the fact is that almost everyone with any savings at all got a whole lot poorer one weekend a few months before the election, when the sub-prime crisis came to a head, BoA bought Merriyl, etc... Nobody in the country was buying anything for a while, and everybody was facing massive losses.

      When people take that big of a hit, they do not vote for the status quo. McCain would have had a difficult, but possible, sell before that. After that happened, his presidential bid was over.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    48. Re:It's OK by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      When was Obama ever "far left" or even "center"? He's G.W. Bush's third term.

      (Also your 2nd paragraph is so illiterate as to be incomprehensible.)

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    49. Re:It's OK by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      If by moderate you mean a warmongering torturers' accomplice who prosecutes whistle-blowers, spies on Americans without warrants, kills lotsa brown babies, and gives trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to financial industry parasites. Yeah, I guess that is moderate for a republican these days.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    50. Re:It's OK by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      That doesn't logically make any sense. If you take away the times he acts like a Republican, then all that's left is the Democrat.

      Unless to be a Democrat you have to march lockstep with your party and only do exactly what your party says.

      Doesn't look like anyone in the Democrat party is "exactly like a democrat"

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    51. Re:It's OK by operagost · · Score: 1

      You can't insult me, because you don't even know me, you ignorant cretin. Attacking your opponent's argument by calling them "extremist" deflects the argument. Choke on that, basement-dweller.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    52. Re:It's OK by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Ronald Reagan would be considered a RINO in today's Republican Party.

    53. Re:It's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, the legend goes that Thomas Gatling invented the machine gun because such a horribly efficient weapon would make armies ridiculously small and make war unthinkable.

      It didn't quite work out. Don't underestimate the power of human stupidity.

    54. Re:It's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McCain is a crazy old coot that I will never forgive for creating the Balrog that is Sarah Palin. May he spend eternity in Mordor for his doings.

  8. Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Tea Party aren't Hobbits by any stretch of the imagination - hobbits are more like 1970's back-to-the-land hippie organic farmer types.

    No, the Tea Party seems to be much more like the Easterlings, who's society has been thoroughly corrupted by promises of power regardless of the decency or lack thereof of the individual members. And Obama seems to be playing the role of Denethor, trying to hold back the tide but not really being able to do so and kinda ambiguous about where he's loyalties really lie.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] and kinda ambiguous about where he's loyalties really lie.

      Wow. I've seen flagrant abuses of apostrophes before, but you, sir, have shown me an entirely new level of disrespect for the concept of communication.

    2. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Lifyre · · Score: 1

      It was so bad that my mind auto-corrected it inline... Thank you for pointing it out.

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    3. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by XJHardware · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Disagree. In Tolkien's narrative the Hobbits were clearly an analog for simple English villagers that he grew up around. They want to live life without the bother of the ambitious and the power hungry. The Tea Party are those same simple folk, transplanted into our modern era, who have reluctantly decided to get involved. A few years back they were being denigrated as the inhabitants of "flyover states". Nobody cared about them and they didn't matter, until they decided to get involved and upset the status quo. Because both parties represent two faces of the same shit mountain. Choosing between Democrat and Republican is like choosing between Saruman and Sauron.

      --
      The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
    4. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by MontyApollo · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was a sarcastic remark - he was quoting the Wall Street Journal who was saying that the Tea Party rather simplistically see themselves as being heroic good little hobbits out to vanquish the obviously evil Mordor without regard to reality. Basically, the Wall Street Journal was saying the Tea Party worldview was rather fucked up, and McCain was emphasizing this.

    5. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And picking the Tea Party is like picking Melkor.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TEA Party's more akin to the Founding Fathers of this Country than anything else

      I think you're missing the point of the game. We're drawing analogies from LOTR. You can't bring outside characters in.

    7. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by fermion · · Score: 1, Interesting
      There are Hobbits and then there are Frodo and his friends. The Hobbits pretty much kept to themselves, eating six meals a day, drinking, doing the minimal work, not really advancing the world is what we would call a productive manner. This is pretty much the Tea Party, whining because thier entitlements as white americans are going away.

      This is really about entitlement. The US was founded based on the idea that birth did not define one's future. This was basically started in England with the Civil list and the Magna Carter in which the lesser aristocrats said the the King and his family did not deserve all the money and control simply by the fact they were born royal, that god did not in fact endow them with special privileges. This continued to the Americas where wealthy briton living here diid not think there were inferior to the aristocrats in England, and set up a new country to prove it.

      And now we have a new aristocracy, people who think by birth they deserve a job, and toys, and a cool place to live, and a big car. They don't want to take the time to educate themselves, or work for it. Look at the Tea Party whining that the government won't give them jobs. This is not the party of Reagan and the welfare queen, where if one didn't have a job that was a personal failing, not a government problem. No, we have Hobbits that are used to six meals a day, and now that times are rough, they do not blame themselves for being uneducated and lazy, they do not leave the shire and take risks to better themselves, no they sit there and cry.

      This would be easily solved if the entitlement of birth were taken away. Every child in this country should have equal access to education and housing and food and health care. But maybe adults who don't want work should not receive citizenship. Maybe the US would be better off if those like the tea party who don't want to work, don't want support their children, don't want to part of the political process of the US, would not earn the right to be American. It is a complex issue, this entitlement. Look at Romney. His great grandfather emigrated to mexico. His grandfather basically lived as mexican, his father lived in mexico, but because the family travled back to the US so their kids could be born, they are not considered mexican, and Romney is eligible to be President. Now, these are hard working people so I have no problem with them pretending to have allegiance to the US, but the Tea Party is not based on work, it is based on perceived entitlement of the white race. Obama, whose mother is a US citizen is not qualified for president, but Romney who is for all intents and purposes a Mexican is?

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    8. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Yes, I forgot to change "he's" to "his" at some point over the course of rewording the sentence. I realized that mistake somewhere in between clicking "Submit" and the post going up.

      My apologies for any confusion that might have caused.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    9. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem is, it seems when picking their leader they rather went with Saruman and Sauron rather than Gandalf.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by MontyApollo · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think claim is that while the Tea Party see themselves as hobbits, the reality of modern politics and finance does not lend itself to fairy tale endings no matter how much the "hobbits" believe their righteous cause and unwillingness to compromise will prove themselves reluctant heroes. The Wall Street Journal was in fact claiming that they were clueless to reality and will greatly harm the Tea Party and Republican cause.

    11. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please. Democrats and Republicans are warring factions of Easterlings. Stop giving your party of favor so much credit. They're both rotten to the core and neither one of them has your best interests in mind.

    12. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by gman003 · · Score: 1

      If any LOTR character is a good match for the Tea Party, I would have to go with Tom Bombadil. Completely fucking nuts, make absolutely no sense, have an annoying tendency to speak in song, and (hopefully) forgotten by the end of the first book.

    13. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Wovel · · Score: 1

      The tea party world view is not just fucked up, it is naive and childish. They have nn concept of the world we live in and the stupidity is spreading.

    14. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Tea Party aren't Hobbits by any stretch of the imagination - hobbits are more like 1970's back-to-the-land hippie organic farmer types.

      No, the Tea Party seems to be much more like the Easterlings, who's society has been thoroughly corrupted by promises of power regardless of the decency or lack thereof of the individual members. And Obama seems to be playing the role of Denethor, trying to hold back the tide but not really being able to do so and kinda ambiguous about where he's loyalties really lie.

      The TEA Party wants LESS government power, not more. Think of them as "Fiscal Libertarians".

      So, if they are corrupt, as you say, wouldn't that means they want MORE government power? I think you got it backwards.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    15. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      If any LOTR character is a good match for the Tea Party, I would have to go with Tom Bombadil. Completely fucking nuts, make absolutely no sense, have an annoying tendency to speak in song, and (hopefully) forgotten by the end of the first book.

      I was thinking the Orcs, but that works. I always hated that part, it makes you wonder exactly what Tolkien put in his pipe.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    16. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea behind calling other people "entitled" is intellectually bankrupt. It's shorthand for saying that someone else would like something that you don't want them to have. It is an expression of your preference rather than a statement about the people you are talking about - it is a way to obfuscate what you are saying. What's worse, the Tea Party is based on cutting government spending, and something like removing citizenship from the unemployed is just like something they might conjure up. From the ideas you endorse you might as well be a Tea Party member yourself, which makes it a little weird that you are condemning them so strongly.

    17. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by XJHardware · · Score: 1

      And the Wall Street Journal has access to universal truths that allow them to see the only clear path out of this mess? Right. Pull the other one. It's got bells on it. The Wall Street Journal is another status quo organization. It's paid to say things that it's readers want to hear. In fact, I don't think there is a way out of this mess. It's just a question of who can keep the broken machine running a little longer. It has been broken for over 50 years and nobody has bothered to fix it. They've just thrown more grease at it to keep everything lubricated. No overhaul, no replacing broken parts. Party polarization has reached the point where if one party can't have it's way they'd rather see nothing happen than the other guy's vision come true. That is not a working political system. Sorry for the nihilism. Go back to your television. Nothing to see here.

      --
      The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
    18. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obvious shitty troll headlines your resume.

    19. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this particular scenario, the teapartista seem to be more akin to Rimmer from the show Red Dwarf, and more specifically, the episode "Meltdown" wherein Rimmer assumes control of the 'hero' faction and the ensuing planetwide war is won (in his opinion), because everyone else but him perishes.

    20. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly spot-on. The basic platform is to remove unnecessary powers from others -- to tell all those wizards to stop interfering with the Shire. But in trying to get representation, they lost their way and went with, amazingly, Republicans!

      Not sure how to use the analogy to talk about Democrats. They have an ambitious plan (makes me think Sauron) but also tend to pull people reluctantly into joining them out of self-preservation, sort of like Gandalf getting the Rohan to stand up to Saruman.

    21. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by rajanala83 · · Score: 1

      He prefers Morgoth, btw

    22. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Sauron and Saruman presidential bid provided this country with the strong leadership it needed, backed with wisdom and experience. The Gandalf, Aragorn bid gave us a man on his last legs hitched to an unknown forest ranger from a state not even contiguous with the rest of Gondor!

      Now, it's true that the Denethor administration left the country in a terrible way, in considerable debt, fighting losing wars on two fronts, and many were uncomfortable with the presidents stance on religious issues, especially funeral rituals. But that is no reason for people to turn away from strong leadership and a prosperous future, in favour of weed smoking, sound-bites about all the free peoples of Middle Earth, most of whom the majority of Gondorian's don't even know exist outside of legends!

      I remind the house that in Mordorian society, there are no taxes, and no unnecessary labour or environmental protection, and all that is needed to succeed is drive, ambition, and a phalanx of orc mercenaries. The Sauruman bid allows us to partake in this forward looking society, abandon the failed liberal policies of Eldarianism, and return Gondor to the glories of its manifest destiny, as it was in the days of Ar-Pharazon!

      Therefore, I urge citizen to cooperate with the new regime and offer up their young as orc feed as eagerly as I would offer up my own. Thank you, and God Bless Gondor.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    23. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      When the tea party stops trying to impose their morality on me perhaps.

      Currently they have no real sense to them.

      The backman's live off of government money (our evil government funded medical programs and farm subdidyy)I wonder how motivated they willl be to cut things.

      Additionally as government shrinks you need more lawwsuits , yet nobody that supports a reduction of goovernment wants to make sueing easier or more attainable.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    24. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for example...

      (Now I'm staring at you in suspenseful anticipation of the triumphal completion of your thought.)

    25. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      If anything, the Tea Party are the Haradrim, Variags of Khand and others who have been seduced by Sauron($$$).

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    26. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Brilliant!

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    27. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Bombadil was an incredibly powerful being in Middle Earth. The One Ring had no power over him. You must have read a different book...

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    28. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that's what I call a good analogy. They're harder to find these these days than the Dunedain.

    29. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Grave · · Score: 1

      The Tea Party are not the simple folk who don't want to be bothered. The simple folk who don't want to be bothered are the "silent majority" who are not that interested in getting involved, but when pushed hard enough, or bothered enough will finally join the fight. The Tea Party is "supposed" to represent those people, but so are the Republican and Democratic parties. Realistically, the parties represent only themselves. If we're going to qualify the Tea Party as a distinct and separate party from the Republican party, then I would say that all three parties are fueled primarily by a relative handful of individuals with large monetary influence. The founding fathers were by-and-large simple folk who became sufficiently fed up that they chose to get involved. The Tea Party might have some roots in that idea, but the current stance of the party is not in line with that reality (see the overwhelming poll numbers in favor of compromise on the debt ceiling vs. the "default-or-our-way" Tea Party line).

    30. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Even Tolkien was quoted as saying he doesn't know Bombadil's backstory.

    31. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The One Ring had no power over him."

      The Tea Party can't be Bombadil for that reason alone.

    32. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by brainboyz · · Score: 2

      So the guys asking for a balanced budget, reduction in government size/cost, and generally looking to reduce government payouts are the ones "whining" because they're losing entitlements? I think you have it backwards. They don't think anyone is entitled to education, housing, sustenance, and healthcare: they want you to work for it.

    33. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You gotta be fucking kidding me. There is nothing simple, wholesome, grassroots, or legitimate about any teaparty candidate. It's an image that's been sold to you and nothing else. These people did not "decide to get involved" there were handpicked by rich conservative interests to front for extreme pro-business and pro-wealthy agenda.

      Recent effective uncapping of campaign contributions let private investors buy elections with unrelenting media saturation. You just don't care to question where the money came from. Nobody has ever been to a teaparty fundraiser.

      Their voting record reveals the truth. Complete lockstep, unwavering synchronization. Zero deviation among the ranks of a group of people that are supposed to be 'grassroots', 'mavericks', and 'fiercely independent'. They're employees, not politicians.

      Fake politics, fake people, fake values, fake truth. This is the modern republicanism. Real conservatives are gone.

    34. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Look at the Tea Party whining that the government won't give them jobs.

      I am somewhat confused by just where you get this idea. The whole Tea Party movement grew out of an idea that the government is too large.

    35. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 1

      they think they are getting that too! That's what's so sad/infuriating! What they are getting is the chance to be controlled by a new master, not the lack of one. One they can't vote out.

      --
      CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
    36. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 1

      he served as a balance to the drop into the basest worries throughout the book. By showing Frodo Bombadil timeless nature - that of the universes - against evil and the ring in specific, he provided Frodo with the spiritual strength to survive in his darkest moments. Frodo's flashes of insight in mordor about the moon and realization of the passing nature of Sauron's realm got Frodo through his darkest moments... that's the point of Bombadil

      --
      CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
    37. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone's been tampering with your pipe-weed.

    38. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Tea Party certainly has some racist aspects (and a few overt racists), I'll say that to start. However...

      "think by birth they deserve a job, and toys, and a cool place to live, and a big car"
      "they do not...take risks to better themselves, no they sit there and cry."
      "don't want to work, don't want support their children, don't want to [be] part of the political process of the US"
      "based on perceived entitlement of the white race"

      This is going too far. Your description demonizes the Tea Party unfairly. In fact, it sounds remarkably similar to the hateful comments of many racists. It's hard to take you seriously about racism, when you sound like a racist yourself. Like this guy:

      'This country wants waking up and setting to rights,' said the ruffian, 'and Sharkey's going to do it; and make it hard, if you drive him to it. You need a bigger Boss. And you'll get one before the year is out, if there's any more trouble. Then you'll learn a thing or two, you little rat-folk.'

    39. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'm curious; what's the Tea Party view?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    40. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This continued to the Americas where wealthy briton living here diid not think there were inferior to the aristocrats in England, and set up a new country to prove it.

      Yes. Very clearly, sir, the residents of Jamestown where quite wealthy. As well as the Pilgrims. Very wealthy indeed...

      Have you ever actually read anything on the history of the foundation of the United States of America?

    41. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by operagost · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, people believe these lies because they, in fact, are the ones who want to remain oblivious to the problems in our nation. Just like Fermion, they want to shoot the messenger, and keep swiping the credit card.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    42. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by demonbug · · Score: 1

      I think claim is that while the Tea Party see themselves as hobbits, the reality of modern politics and finance does not lend itself to fairy tale endings no matter how much the "hobbits" believe their righteous cause and unwillingness to compromise will prove themselves reluctant heroes. The Wall Street Journal was in fact claiming that they were clueless to reality and will greatly harm the Tea Party and Republican cause.

      I think of them more as the Jar-Jar Binks of politics. Stupid, annoying, don't really add anything at all in the way of ideas, and ultimately responsible for the destruction of the Republic (well, not _really_, just the unwitting tool of those who sought said downfall).

    43. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      By European, and even by Canadian standards, the Democrats are a conservative party.... What's gone in the US is liberalism.

    44. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is pretty much the Tea Party, whining because thier entitlements as white americans are going away.

      That's the exact opposite of the Tea Party.

      The Tea Party are the working class who spend 40-80 hours a week busting their hump, come home and barely make their ends meet, and then Uncle Sam takes 30% of their money away with a threat of imprisonment, all the while saying "Next year, it'll be 40% because this is simply not enough for me."

      What part of "TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already" did you not understand? People who aren't making money are not taxed to the point of frustration. You've been brainwashed and this is a wake-up call.

    45. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 2

      That is a pretty good analogy and description.....of the Democrats - whining about entitlements. The Republicans represent the New Aristocracy and protects their wealth. Nothing you said is an accurate description of the Tea Party though. Start doing your own thinking and stop sealing sound bites from everyone else and you won't present yourself as having no idea what you are talking about.

    46. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Thank you, and God Bless Gondor.

      So much perfection destroyed by that one line. Should've been "Ëa bless Gondor."

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    47. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by formfeed · · Score: 3, Funny

      an unknown forest ranger from a state not even contiguous with the rest of Gondor!

      Good point, I never even saw Aragorn's birth certificate.

    48. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      As if "less government power" or "small government" was a virtue in itself. That's pretty much the core of the problem, the tea party has no ideology, except for an irrational hate towards everything "government" and in extension, everything democratic. Should they actually succeed to break the US, which is the only goal they seem to share, you'll be able to watch a quite entertaining power grab by them. Expect a feeding frenzy, pigs on the trough.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    49. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by neiras · · Score: 1

      Aragorn has been corrupted by marrying a powerful agent of Rivendell. The affairs of men must remain such! The White Council must be kept in its place, performing magic tricks at Birthday Parties.

    50. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by MontyApollo · · Score: 2

      According to the WSJ, their view in this instance seems to be that if they shut-down government and cause the US to go into default, that somehow everyone in the country will place all of the blame upon Obama while seeing the Tea Party as heroes, and that this miracle of somehow the general public placing all the blame on Obama will be outweigh the damages in the long run caused by the default and lowering of the US's ratings because the Tea Party would then have free reign to enact all the financial policies of their wet dreams and the Democrats would have no power to stop them (even if they do control the White House and the Senate...because the Tea Party would be heroes to most of the population...).

    51. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is Aragorn's birth certificate? He can't even prove he was born in Gondor!

    52. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      If any LOTR character is a good match for the Tea Party, I would have to go with Tom Bombadil. Completely fucking nuts, make absolutely no sense, have an annoying tendency to speak in song, and (hopefully) forgotten by the end of the first book.

      Tim! Tim! Benzedrine!
      Hash, boo, Valvoline
      Clean, Clean, Clean for Gene
      First. Second. Neutral. Park.
      Heigh the hence, you leafy Narc!

      (Sorry, it just fell out of my brain)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    53. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really need to get out more; you obviously don't understand the story yourself.

      The hobbits are quite hard-working individuals, though they tend to keep to themselves as a society and don't involve themselves in OPPs (Other Peoples' Problems). They may eat six meals a day, but they grow their own food, market what they can't eat and police themselves efficiently and quietly. They are absolutely nothing like whiners and entitlement-seekers, they merely want to be left alone to do what they do.

      The Tea Party, on the other hand, is nothing like that. The Tea Party makes the Religious Right look like Centrists and the overall Republican party look slightly left of center. What we basically have now is one group that wants to seal off the US from all outside communication--the Concrete Wall isolationists, one group that believes the US should be a Christian-Only theological nation (remember why we left England in the 1600s?), one group that thinks our country needs to be completely and unrestricted Capitalist and one group that thinks we need to be fully supportive of its people even to the expense of those who can best afford it.

      I'll tell you now that there is no country on this Earth that doesn't survive by some form of tax, whether it be a tribal society where everybody works to fill the common coffer to the most wealthy of oil producers who still requires their people to serve their nation either militarily or through some form of public service. There is no nation that gives everything away for free and there never will be as long as people and personalities are different.

      No matter how you look at it, the issues are complex and there are no simple answers. Anyone trying to make you believe there are is doing nothing but scamming you. Watch your wallets because the ones trying hardest to force the issue are the ones most likely to rob you blind.

    54. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by blair1q · · Score: 1

      The Tea Party are orcs.

    55. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by blair1q · · Score: 2

      The TP wants less government power over big business. They couldn't care less if you have to be forced by the government to carry any pregnancy to term.

    56. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "Ea" is the created world (literally: "being", as in a noun formed from the verb "to be"). It should have been "Eru" or "Iluvatar". That said, there's nothing wrong with "God", it is exactly what he is.

    57. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah... wait, isn't the ancient white haired Gandalf played by McCain and the unknown forest ranger from a state not even contiguous with the rest of Gondor, Palin from Alaska?

    58. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by lysdexia · · Score: 1

      /me passes out from the awesomeness.

    59. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by lysdexia · · Score: 1

      Finally a use for Jar-Jar.

    60. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh I am not so sure that nobody cared about them. I have never seen a presidential candidate come by NYC or its suburbs to campaign, they are always in the "battleground" states in the midwest that are fairly evenly split, and catering their campaigns to those voters.

    61. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by lysdexia · · Score: 1

      This was basically started in England with the Civil list and the Magna Carter ...

      I think you were referring to the Magna Carta. The Magna Carter is Laura

    62. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may be Fiscal Libertarians but they are also Social Talibans.

    63. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're going to labor the point....

      The cardinal virtues in Lord of the Rings are courage and willingness to sacrifice. The isolationism and disinterest of hobbits in the world at large is not depicted as a virtue, nor is fear and distrust of the elites (the elves and Gandalf) which is characteristic of most hobbits. What makes the laziness, insularity and gluttony of the hobbits acceptable is that they're willing to put them aside; to do without in the service of a greater cause.

      If courage and sacrifice are the cardinal virtues, fear and selfishness are the cardinal vices, vices that weaken the hobbits of the Shire until they are prey to Saruman who Tolkien, in a feat of ironic brilliance, depicts as talking like a 20th C politician who plays of the petty weaknesses of his victims. The heroic hobbits, who have learned the lessons of courage and sacrifice, rekindle those virtues in the Shire. Frodo, the greatest of the hobbits, sees Saruman not as an object of fear or hatred, but of pity.

      To my mind the signatures of the Tea Party are fear, resentment and anger, not understanding and forbearance. The refrain you hear over and over is "I want my country back." Can you imagine *Frodo* saying such a thing? He feels the loss of what once was keenly, but accepts that he must lose that so others can make a new future.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    64. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      "They" didn't choose Republicans. First of all, they didn't organize tightly for the express purpose of making the "they" more difficult to apply. The individual chapters are tied together with nothing more than common ideals. Second, about 30% of those identifying with the Tea Party voted for Obama. It was the Man-Child in chief that constantly chose to denigrate them, because they represent a force that is looking to take his major power away, the ability to tax in order to buy votes with.

      The Tea Party didn't choose Republicans. People who associate themselves with smaller government were rejected by Democrats.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    65. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think maybe you would be better off if you spent more time in the real world?

    66. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Shotgun · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Tea Party supporters are living a fairy tale, but continuing to spend 40% more than you makes all the sense in the world?

      I see.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    67. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      That's ok, because they all see you as stupid, annoying, don't really add anything at all in the way of ideas, and ultimately responsible for the destruction of the Republic. At least we can all agree on something.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    68. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Strong words...too bad you don't believe them.

      People stand behind their words when they matter. When they don't, they're just useless whispers from the shadows... Anonymous Coward.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    69. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Could I imagine Frodo saying such a thing?

      Before or after the scouring of the Shire?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    70. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      I'm part of the Tea Party.

      Where in the world has "Less power over big business" been listed as a Tea Party goal?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    71. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      The TP wants less government power over big business. They couldn't care less if you have to be forced by the government to carry any pregnancy to term.

      Strange. Everyone I know that has attended a TEA Party rally doesn't give a rat's ass about big business. They want the federal government out of THEIR lives. Also, abortion is not a TEA Party position. Letting the states decide whether or not to allow abortion, however, is. I've met just as many TEA Partiers that want the legality of marijuana to be state issue as I've met that abortion to be a state issue. And sure, there are those at the really that are just there because they are further right than Republicans, but these people are idiots who don't know what they are supporting. Unfortunately, these are the people that you see on TV. See, reporters want you to think that the TEA Party is full of a bunch of gun-totin' red-necks. They even showed a picture of a man carrying a gun at a "racist charged" TEA Party. What they didn't show was the man's head, where you could see clearly see that black. HERE is a video of reporters calling the TEA Party an angry, racist group with "white people showing up with guns strapped to their waist." Remember, the man they were talking about was black.

      Don't let the media form your opinions for you.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    72. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice.. this is essentially racism under the guise of decrying racism. So the tea party is all about rich whitey trying to oppress the black man, hmm. If that's all you glean from them you don't understand anything about them and this is just a nasty smear tactic. What they want is for the Federal government to reduce it's burden on people (everyone) and stop growing like crazy. Simple. They may be inflexible and hardheaded about it to a fault, yes, but as to who cries the most about deserving entitlements and what they feel they are "owed', it ain't the tea party, it's liberals. Oh, and if pulling one example of teh net serves to represent the entire party, then here: She sure doesn't look white or filthy rich to me.

    73. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Well, that's what all the characters said, but what, exactly, did he do to demonstrate such power? He didn't help the Fellowship at all - you could make a better argument for Boromir being more powerful, since he actually accomplished something. Don't get me wrong: I love Tolkien, but the entire Bombadil thing was just bad storywriting.

      Actually, that helps the metaphor. The Tea Party, if you listen to the news, is powerful and will probably wipe out at least one of the major parties, if not upset the entire two-party system. But from what I see, they haven't done anything. They're just the same Republican party, except without the now-damaged brand identity.

    74. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Denethor was also insane.

    75. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by raehl · · Score: 1

      And the Wall Street Journal has access to universal truths that allow them to see the only clear path out of this mess? Right.

      If by universal truths you mean "addition", then yes, it appears the WSJ (and the rest of us) have access to those truths while the tea party does not.

      The tea party position is that we can not raise taxes and must balance the budget by cutting spending.

      That's not mathematically possible, unless we cut federal government to the point that new drugs don't get approved, corporations can lie about their earnings to scam stock sales without fear of enforcement, Mexican drug cartels can invade and take over Texas, nee, a flood of brown people into the country can't be stopped... ...or you let Grandma move in with you until she spends your inheritance on healthcare until she runs out of money, then you can decide whether you want to let grandma die or will pay for her health care yourself.

      That's the thing... if the Tea Party wins, you don't get anything. The rich keep their lower tax rates on all that income they get by not providing any benefits or enough pay for people to save for retirement, and instead of Medicare paying for nursing home care once she's broke, you get to bankrupt yourself too.

    76. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm..
      Aragorn is from the north, from Angmar?
      So Palin == the Witch-King of Angmar, chief of the Nazgûl.

    77. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Does their "less government and regulations" include stopping their attempts to ban abortion, teach creationism in schools, etc.? It looks like a lot of the same old republicans, just pretending they are narrowly focused on the single fiscal issue they have been caught ignoring.

    78. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Rufty · · Score: 1

      I can see the Tea Party as hobbits - Lotho Sackville-Baggins, for example.

      --
      Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
    79. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Tea Party aren't Hobbits by any stretch of the imagination - hobbits are more like 1970's back-to-the-land hippie organic farmer types.

      No, the Tea Party seems to be much more like the Easterlings, who's society has been thoroughly corrupted by promises of power regardless of the decency or lack thereof of the individual members. And Obama seems to be playing the role of Denethor, trying to hold back the tide but not really being able to do so and kinda ambiguous about where he's loyalties really lie.

      The TEA Party wants LESS government power, not more. Think of them as "Fiscal Libertarians".

      So, if they are corrupt, as you say, wouldn't that means they want MORE government power? I think you got it backwards.

      You are missing the next logical step: less government power necessarily means more power for big companies and the very rich.

      And guess who are backing the various Tea Party factions financially and politically? The Murdochs, the Koch brothers, etc.

    80. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But the Hobbits didn't ally themselves with Sharky willingly, whereas the Tea-party "we're just common folk" types are gladly in bed with big corporations.

    81. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      And what are these hobbits doing in Gondor? Did anyone check their papers? I hear one of them is even taking a job of tower guard away from decent hardworking Gondorians!

    82. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Tea Party aren't Hobbits by any stretch of the imagination"

      We are, my Precious.

    83. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Look at your sources of funding. The TP was created by the Koch brothers.

    84. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Don't let reality form yours:

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129926390

      The people who attend the rallies are being spoon-fed dogma to guide their votes, while the candidates they elect have an agenda set by the $$'s.

      It's a McParty, and it's willing to destroy the country and sell off the pieces.

    85. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by vinn01 · · Score: 1

      +1 from me if I had mod points.

    86. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by vinn01 · · Score: 1

      "Their voting record reveals the truth. Complete lockstep, unwavering synchronization. Zero deviation among the ranks"

      That would match the Democrat and Republican statistics. Most of our current "representatives" could be replaced with central party robots without anyone noticing.

    87. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they want DIFFERENT government power, not less.

    88. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>The TP was created by the Koch brothers.

      The Tea Party was a grassroots movement in response to both Bush and Obama increasing the size of the government, with I/R/D fiscal conservatives becoming disillusioned at their lack of good choices at the ballot box.

      While Koch is the Soros of the right wing (why not rant about all the crazy shit Soros funds, eh?), he more capitalized on the grassroots movement than started it.

      I think the Tea Party is crazy on some issues, like eliminating the Federal Reserve or moving back to the gold standard (as the Pauls want), but in general they were the only political force in America fighting for smaller government. Now Obama and Boehner are both talking cuts. Normally a budget increase in the federal government is about as permanent as these things come, so I call that a success for the Tea Party, regardless of how many people they get elected in 2012.

    89. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>The people who attend the rallies are being spoon-fed dogma to guide their votes

      I love how your worldview is so distorted, and that you so entirely lack fiscal conservative friends, that you are completely unaware of the amount of voter anger there was in America over our drunken-sailor spending habits in the last 10 years (it's not just anti-Obama, it's anti-Bush as well).

      The only way your mind can deal with the cognitive dissonance is to invent the theory that these people *weren't* actually angry over the spending habits until "someone" told them to be. Lol.

    90. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by c0lo · · Score: 1

      The problem is, it seems when picking their leader they rather went with Saruman and Sauron rather than Gandalf.

      Now you lost me... Just who this Gandalf is?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    91. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are other forms of power and corrupting influences in this world that have little if anything to do with government. With respect my friend, you're the one not seeing the whole picture.

    92. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by blair1q · · Score: 1

      America is no doubt not pleased with the Bush era spending.

      But you and your TP moron friends are dead wrong as to the solution.

      Over 70% of Americans want the Bush tax cuts repealed, and over half want taxes raised even further on high-income individuals, who have successfully skated on having to pay for what the Republicans did to this nation.

      The TP is the epitome of cognitive dissonance, a pretend grass-roots organization whose democratic end goal is the installation of a plutocracy. An organization whose symbols are those of the American Revolution, whose aims are to undo the American Revolution. You're being mocked by your own political choices. Stop listening to your propagandists long enough to realize you've been had.

    93. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by blair1q · · Score: 1

      You are being played for a sucker.

      "It turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News."
      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html

      That's just one link with facts showing the "grass-roots" nature of the TP to be a fraud. The Internet is full of them.

      If you want to affect this nation positively, try building it up, instead of supporting people who want to crash it to the ground so they can sell it for parts.

    94. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      The people who attend the rallies are being spoon-fed dogma to guide their votes, while the candidates they elect have an agenda set by the $$'s

      How's that Hope and Change working out for ya? Don't pretend politics are different in any other party.

    95. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who says government power is the only kind of power?

      Less government means more power for strong (read: rich) individuals within society. That's what the Tea Party wants, which is why it gets all its money from that class of people.

    96. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by bughunter · · Score: 1

      The Tea Party are those same simple folk, transplanted into our modern era, who have reluctantly decided to get involved.

      I was with you up until the reluctance part.

      There's nothing "reluctant" about the Tea Party. They are an exceptionally vocal minority with a political influence far exceeding their proportion of the population due to their exceptional organization, unity and cohesion. Not to mention the leverage of very, very deep pockets by members who are wealthy capitalists.

      No, the closest analogy I can think of is the Sheriffs of the Shire that Frodo and Sam discovered after they returned from Mordor.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    97. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, Aragorn had the Sword. That was all you needed in them days :)

    98. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the government is forced to give up power, who is taking over? Hint: It's not We the People

    99. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      Saruman was accounted among the very wise, and there are no politicians on the national stage I can think of whom I would truly call wise. Wisdom is rarely a trait of politicians.

      Sauron would have had great charisma--so Obama is closer than the Republican candidates, though some would say less evil, because he is more charismatic.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    100. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by hitmark · · Score: 1

      The Libs are likely to say it is McCain. I am not sure there is a Gandalf figure around these days, even considering a global view rather then a US one.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    101. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by hey! · · Score: 1

      You obviously missed the point of the book's ending.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    102. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by randyleepublic · · Score: 0

      I tried to join the "Tea Party". (For wholesome reasons, you can trust.) Well, guess what? There ain't one, and there ain't "one". There's a whole bunch of them, all with slightly different names, and nobody ever contacts you, no meetups, no nothing. Astroturf may not be real grass, but it exists in the physical universe. The Tea Party? Virtual Astroturf... *sigh*

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    103. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by sjames · · Score: 1

      So you're saying people who don't work deserve nothing but people aren't entitled to a job. So you're saying some people just intrinsically deserve nothing regardless of their willingness to contribute to society? That they need to get busy knowing the right people so they can get work?

      That sounds wrong somehow.

      If you're going to demand that people work for a living, then by virtue of that demand you DO owe them an opportunity to meet that demand. That is, they are owed a job. Otherwise, they have every moral right to take what they need through any means necessary from those who would deny them a fair share.

      Sorry, that's just the way things have always worked.

      Things must really be going to hell. We used to have pampered rich people telling stories of how hard someone related to them worked (they themselves did no such thing, of course) and decrying people unwilling to accept good jobs offered to them to make a living. Then the pampered rich kids were decrying those who wouldn't take two or three crappy jobs offered to them to scratch together an almost living. Now the pampered rich kids decry people who don't have any job offers available to them because...well because we gotta shit on someone and by god it won't be the pampered rich kids!

    104. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html

      Ah, yes, Krugman. A totally unbiased opinion. Even a fairly liberal NPR article on "Is the Tea Party a grassroots organization" admits that is a real grassroots movement, with some opportunists jumping on the bandwagon once it got rolling (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129926390).

      They're not astroturf. The TP really is a grassroots organization, as I have friends and family involved with the organization at the local level. There was never anybody from a national organization acting behind the scenes, and it was looked on with disfavour by a fair chunk of the RNP, as the Tea Party was against neoconservatism.

      >>That's just one link with facts showing the "grass-roots" nature of the TP to be a fraud. The Internet is full of them.

      It's also full of porn and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please tell me you don't buy into those, either.

    105. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>America is no doubt not pleased with the Bush era spending.

      Correct. Though to be fair, the stimulus is both Bush and Obama's fault. And a lot of congressmen from both parties.

      >>But you and your TP moron friends are dead wrong as to the solution.

      Naturally. Your little mind cannot comprehend those scary "numbers".

      50% increase in spending, 20% decrease in revenues, in five years. It might hurt your brain cell to realize it, so I'll explain it to you slowly. We've spent too much money.

      We need to reset our budget back to what it was about five years ago. Why five years ago? That was the last time our budget was $2.4T, which is also what our revenue estimates are for 2011.

      >>Over 70% of Americans want the Bush tax cuts repealed

      Que?

      http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=1136

      >>The TP is the epitome of cognitive dissonance, a pretend grass-roots organization

      It would only be cognitive dissonance to believe it was a "pretend grass-roots organization" when I have seen with my own eyes it is not. I also don't identify myself with the Tea Party, I just noted that I have friends and family in it, and that it's quite extraordinary that you do not.

    106. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      "The isolationism and disinterest of hobbits in the world at large is not depicted as a virtue..."

      Bullshit.

      "nor is fear and distrust of the elites (the elves and Gandalf) which is characteristic of most hobbits."

      Double bullshit. Look what happened to the elite Saruman and Wormtongue. Nor is fear and distrust of the Elves and Gandalf "characteristic of most hobbits."

      "The refrain you hear over and over is "I want my country back." Can you imagine *Frodo* saying such a thing? "

      You need to reread the penultimate chapter of "The Return of the King": "The Scouring of the Shire". Frodo not only wanted his country back, but fought a battle to get it, and won.

      The practical difference between the Hobbits of the Fellowship and the Tea Party is the former's willingness to actually use deadly force to expel the enemy and the latter's being co-opted as a mere tool of media manipulation.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    107. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      "This was basically started in England with the Civil list and the Magna Carter "

      I dunno. The 70s was a long time ago. Is that really relevant today?

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    108. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Charismatic leaders are more dangerous because they can get away with more before the criticism starts, which could well be too late to do anything about it anymore. Judge your leaders by their actions. Not their words and not their looks.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    109. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Tea Party aren't Hobbits by any stretch of the imagination - hobbits are more like 1970's back-to-the-land hippie organic farmer types.

      No, the Tea Party seems to be much more like the Easterlings, who's society has been thoroughly corrupted by promises of power regardless of the decency or lack thereof of the individual members. And Obama seems to be playing the role of Denethor, trying to hold back the tide but not really being able to do so and kinda ambiguous about where he's loyalties really lie.

      The TEA Party wants LESS government power, not more. Think of them as "Fiscal Libertarians".

      So, if they are corrupt, as you say, wouldn't that means they want MORE government power? I think you got it backwards.

      Less government power but more government power to make sure you didn't go to the wrong church, aren't having sex out of wedlock, don't teach evolution and believe the world is 6000 years old.

    110. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if ALL of funding came from "Baby Eaters Anonymous".

      Unless you see "More baby eating!" as a written goal of the party somewhere, it's not part of the party!

      You're working off of the old rules. Where the leader can keep it's goals secret until they have the power to implement them. The Tea Party doesn't have one of those, and it's not built that way. The goals are open and distributed so everyone can work on them to the best of their ability, at their own pace.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    111. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      AstroTurf means that there's hardly any real supporters, and what you see on the news have to be paid to show up/Bussed in.

      I've been to several Teaparty events, and that wasn't the case. And what about the march on Washington? Are you saying the majority of those people were simply PAID to be there?

      Look at the budget battle. The country is already crashing into the ground. If the Tea Party didn't exist, you would see this exact same scene a few years from now as people refuse to loan the US any more money, and the US Congress refuses to cut spending.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    112. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real conservatives are gone.

      Darn! We should start a party dedicated to preserving the status quo to prevent that from happening again!

    113. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by hey! · · Score: 1

      I reread that chapter every year, and have for the past three decades. Frodo did not fight in the scouring of the Shire, and none of the actions he took were to save his country for *himself*. As for Saruman and Wormtongue, most hobbits didn't know they existed.

      Only the ignorant hobbits like Ted Sandyman take no interest in the outside world, or are suspicious of Gandalf or the Elves. The noble hobbits are without exception interested in the outside world and often have surprising connections to it (Bilbo to the Elves, Dwarves and Gandalf; Merry to Farmer Maggot to Tom Bombadil).

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    114. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by blair1q · · Score: 1

      I don't have maniacs in my family, and don't consider idiots my friends.

      Seventy-two percent support raising taxes on income above $250,000

      What you have seen with your own eyes is called "anecdotal evidence", and is not probative. That the Tea Party includes people who believe they created it is their own cognitive dissonance. The facts are clear. It's paid for by people who would sell you for cattle feed.

    115. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seventy-two percent support raising taxes on income above $250,000

      Big deal. 75% support having mutton for dinner when you poll three wolves and a sheep.

    116. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TP wants less government power over big business. They couldn't care less if you have to be forced by the government to carry any pregnancy to term.

      On the contrary, the government isn't forcing anyone to carry a pregnancy to term. Last I checked, it takes two folks to make a pregnancy and neither of them is the government. The government does not exist to be a magic cure-all of everyone's personal problems. If someone didn't want to be pregnant, they shouldn't have stuck Tab A into Slot B. Yes, contraceptives fail when you don't know how to use them properly. Stupid hurts. What if you're one of the magic sub-1% where you weren't stupid? Well, suck it up, cupcake.. It isn't like nobody knows that folks get pregnant from screwing.

          What your statement is trying to do is shift the responsibility for that pregnancy to the government, which is asinine, clueless, and classless. It's also one of the biggest reasons why the government is as schizophrenically messed up as it is now because so many clueless idiots insist that the government should take care of their every whim when it was never designed to do that and should never do so in the first place.

    117. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Ah, but did you read the actual survey, as opposed to the Pew Survey (and other one that agrees with the Pew survey). If you phrase it as keeping the Bush Tax cuts, people are evenly divided between keeping them, keeping them for people $250k, then 72% said yes.

      Also, that very NYT survey shows that people favor reducing spending over raising taxes by a 2-to-1 margin.

      >>The facts are clear.

      The facts are clear in your mind. That people can't disagree with you.

      If you've actually gone out and talked with a lot of ring wing people, they were all very concerned about increased government spending/stimulus spending, increased government expansion of its role in our lives (Obamacare, whether that's true or not), the national debt, and so forth. The established right wing organizations, to paraphrase John Kerry, were against the Tea Party before they were for it. Once it became clear that this genuine grassroots revolt was going to make a difference in the 2010 elections, there was a lot of bandwagoning. Look at the dates of your conspiracy-theorish Koch brothers support for it. Did the funding come in before the Tea Party was started, or after it gained pre-eminence?

    118. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, if they were calling for the winding down of America's wars and the Patriot Act, then I would believe that they were libertarians. They aren't, so I tend to see them more as a shadow of the Gingrich revolution, a last ditch attempt to save the Old Time Religion in an era which increasingly sees Big Government Foreign Policy and Small Government Internal as a bad idea.

    119. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not sure there is a Gandalf figure around these days, even considering a global view rather then a US one.

      What about Assange?
      Grey hair? Check. Only brings bad news? Check. Imprisoned and later rescued? Working on it.

    120. Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you'll care for the situation better when the Tea Party candidate's financial backers are writing the rules. Washington sucks, but at least they have to *pretend* to like us :S

  9. Smeagol by vawwyakr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think we have to admit that McCain does bare some resemblance to Smeagol. I think the problem with the Tea Partiers is that they see it as being their way or nothing. I understand their perspective and conviction but I think the issue is that they want to do it ALL at once. No compromise, every vote they make must include everything they think has to be done for the next 20 years of government. I think the problem is if we do it their way the whole economy is going to come crashing down. People complain about government spending but then seem to forget that a large % of the US is employeed (directly or indirectly) by the government. You YANK that out all at once and I think we'll be reminiscing about the good old days of only 10% unemployment.

    1. Re:Smeagol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes you just have to rip the band-aid off....

    2. Re:Smeagol by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      The lack of compromise is one thing but my issue with most if them is an apparent lack of sense. Yes we all hate raising taxes but they don't seem to understand simple economics where cutting costs can only do so much without increasing revenue.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Smeagol by cultiv8 · · Score: 1

      I think the problem with the Tea Partiers is that they see it as being their way or nothing.

      Isn't that the party line that got them elected into office in the first place?

      --
      sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
    4. Re:Smeagol by Beelzebud · · Score: 2

      And sometimes you don't. Sometimes it's not a band-aid, but a society. I know there is a fraction of you vocal keyboard commandos that would love to go back to the early 1800's, but it's not going to happen. If you actually hate this society so much, just move. We won't miss you.

    5. Re:Smeagol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When our economy is plagued by the cancer of debt then compromise is not the best idea. Lets wait a few more years for the tumor to grow, or just chop tiny parts off it. Either you deal with it or let it consume you. The Tea Party movement is just the rationalization of that fact, after years of denial the populace is finally accepting the situation and urgently want it dealt with.

      Hearing McCain complain about peoples actions inadvertently re-electing Obama is just hilarious. After his amazing run fro the presidency last time I thought McCain was Obama's number 1 supporter.

    6. Re:Smeagol by redemtionboy · · Score: 1

      I think the Tea Party is upset that no one is actually cutting anything though. It's not like this is a legitimate plan that either side is presenting that puts us on a path to a balanced budget. Both plans don't even come close to balancing the budget within 10 years and still ad tons of money to the deficit and even the cuts that they do make are years down the road when there's no guarantee they happen. Personally, I'm a huge advocate for cuts. Even though I am a pure federalist and advocate any downsizing of the federal government, I would be perfectly willing to compromise and approve tax increases and a steady 5 year plan that balanced the budget, but none of these plans come even remotely close to doing that. Any plan that doesn't actually cap spending and include a balanced budget amendment or tie spending to under 19% of GDP is a complete load of crock. (Average budget under Clinton was 18.5% with 18.2% in 2000, so it's not archaic like some people claim)

    7. Re:Smeagol by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We're seeing what was predicted two or three years ago. The Tea Party is poisonous to the Republicans, not the Democrats. It's pretty clear that Boehner is at maximum frustration level, and I think it's beginning to dawn on mainline and moderate Republicans that the Tea Party tail is now wagging the GOP dog. There's a level of hysterical irrationality about the Tea Party that is now coming into full view. They're not interested in governing at all.

      I'm sure the White House has a long list of contingencies in place just like Clinton did when he was up against the Gingrich mob, and is probably quite content to watch the Republicans and the Tea Party wing battle it out. I think 2012 is pretty damned safe for him.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Smeagol by redemtionboy · · Score: 1

      By 1800s, you mean the year 2000 right? Spending 18.2% of GDP as opposed to the current 25%. Because the government has added so much in the past 10 years that we just can't live without now.

    9. Re:Smeagol by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Smeagol is actually Joe Lieberman, I forget who pointed that out, I think it was probably the Daily Show back a couple years ago when he switched parties to keep his Senate seat.

    10. Re:Smeagol by sheehaje · · Score: 1

      The thing is, if the Tea Party gets everything it wants, and the whole economy does come crashing down, they will still blame the Democrats.

    11. Re:Smeagol by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Forcing a default on the US government, sending massive shockwaves through the global economy, which is already trying to deal with a potential partial Eurozone meltdown, that's not a sensible solution. That's the solution that self-destructive nihilists would take. It's almost like a financial Armageddon cult has taken over Congress.

      And Obama, well, he gets the chance to do a number of things, including the 14th Amendment stunt, and look like the calm, collected rational president, just like when Bill Clinton outmanoeuvred House Republicans. I'm sure Clinton has told Obama that if he gives the Republicans enough rope, they'll hang themselves.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:Smeagol by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Good thing that we don't need tax dollars to pay for Medicare and Social Security and other private services...

    13. Re:Smeagol by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The Tea Party has made it damned clear they won't tolerate tax increases. Despite Boehner's whining about compromise, the people he can't convince to make a compromise aren't the Democrats, but the Tea Party. That bunch of crazies is fucking the GOP over seriously.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:Smeagol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's actual a key reason we have many problems that we do. The government should never be a majority employer for any society that seeks stability. There's no difference between Walmart employing the majority of the population vs the government doing so. They are both corporations, they are both driven by public opinion only to a point with majority power laying with the investors.

      Did everyone forget the old adage about eggs and one basket?

    15. Re:Smeagol by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We have to deal with it fast, but if you deal with it the TEA party way, what we'll end up is exactly what the US founding fathers rebelled against: A thin layer of rich aristocracy with poor peasants underneath them to shove around as they deem fit. This is essentially what you end up with if your solution is to reduce tax to next to nothing and thus take away the government's ability to actually govern. If you want that, ok. But unless you are one of the thin layer, I definitely doubt that you really want that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:Smeagol by metrometro · · Score: 1

      It turns out one way to reduce the Debt Per GDP is the grow the fucking economy, and it turns out 25% unemployment is not a great way to do that.

    17. Re:Smeagol by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      I understand their perspective and conviction but I think the issue is that they want to do it ALL at once. No compromise

      A friend of mine has a nice analogy about compromise.

      "Let me stick my dick in your mouth"

      "Come on. Let me."

      "You should compromise with me. How about just the tip? Can I stick just the tip of my dick in your mouth?"

      The point being that when the opposition wants something unacceptable, its always going to be unacceptable. It doesnt magically become acceptable just because its only the tip of his dick.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    18. Re:Smeagol by medcalf · · Score: 1

      I think you would be well served by checking out exactly how much money the government is spending, and on what. There is a need for some level of government, but what we have now is unsustainable. We will simply run out of money, no matter how we tax. (And remember, higher levels of taxation lead to lower levels of economic growth, and thus lower revenue generated to the government.) So really, I'm not opposed to some new taxation, but we'd be far better off by dramatically cutting spending and, especially, cutting the regulatory burden that makes high economic growth rates impossible.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    19. Re:Smeagol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is completely impossible to get a balanced budget amendment in before August 2. You do realize you need three-fourths of state legislatures to vote it in, too, right? This is aside from whether or not it's a good idea (economists differ on this point, I don't really know either way).

      I'd like it if we as a nation had the discipline to keep spending low when the economy was doing well so that we could reasonably run with a deficit when we need to, but "save up for the future when things are going well" doesn't seem to jive with our national spirit.

    20. Re:Smeagol by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 1

      By that logic, taxes will eventually reach 100% correct? When is the tax rate too high? We're at 70% in some brackets. Use your own life as an example. If you were spending too much money, and you knew a lot of the stuff you were spending it on was not necessary, would you stop spending so much or try and convince your credit card company to raise your limit so you can borrow more money from them? Would you spend less, especially on things you really didn't need, like infrastructure repair in the name of creating jobs, or would you demand a raise from your boss?

      Simple economics indeed!

    21. Re:Smeagol by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Despitebrepublican claims to the contrary, the Bush tax cuts did not increase government revenues by stimulating the economy. Those cuts have resulted in a direct reduction of revenue around 1.8 trillion dollars. in any case, we need massive spending cuts and some tax increases to get out of the mess. The tea party has neither the integrity or the knowledge to play any role in balancing the budget.

      The misguided people who voted in these "ordinary people" should have looked for reasonable ordinary people instead of zealots.

    22. Re:Smeagol by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1, Interesting

      One of my high school friends is a strong Tea Party supporter and she was upset that they media portayed them as "silly" and "hypocrits" when they first started holding their rallies and protests. She asked me if I thought she was silly. Based on the signs I saw at the rallies, I responded "Yes". But I supported her right to protest. She didn't understand the "hypocrit" label even when I explained that years earlier the same Tea Party people were labeling war protestors as "unpatriotic" and questioning the war protestors right to protest. She never grasped the irony.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    23. Re:Smeagol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forcing a default on the US government,

      The Treasury takes in ~$2T/yr in revenues. Interest payments on the debt are ~$200B/yr. This still leaves enough for SS, Medicare/caid, military salaries, and pretty much all the bare-bones essentials.

      The thing that horrifies Progressives is that it would necessitate slashing the Federal bureaucracy. The only way a default on the debt would happen is if the President ignored his Constitutional duties and chose to spend the money elsewhere.

    24. Re:Smeagol by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Then what's your solution dipstick? Cause playing kick the can with a hand grenade when the further down the road you go the more inflammable your surroundings get is not an answer.

    25. Re:Smeagol by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      To put it backwards, I think they probably have too much integrity, fanatical and idiotic, but they honestly seem to believe that compromise on tax increases is akin to signing a deal with the devil. They're a naive populist movement that seems to have drunk way too much of their own kool-aid. Worst of all, they don't see how forcing this divide in the Republican caucus isn't going to make their movement stronger, but simply marginalize it. Obama still can probably sneak past this either by a controlled shutdown as Clinton did, or via the 14th amendment trick, and defy Congress to come after him over it.

      It's been a masterful thing Obama and the Democrats have done. They have literally forced the Republicans to make the same mistake twice in fifteen years.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    26. Re:Smeagol by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The Tea Party is poisonous to the Republicans

      The Tea Party apparently represents the will of the people as was demonstrated by the people voting them in in large enough numbers to shake the status quo. They are poisonous to "Party Politics" and the "Culture of Washington" and that is by design. That is what the people want to change, poison, kill. They will not fall back on their promises, and you deride them for that. No wonder this country is in such a mess. It's people like you, who cannot see the forest for the trees, who can only see in blue and red, that are the true cause of this problem. People who continue to re-elect politicians to fix the problems that they themselves created and expecting that to work. It won't, not now, not ever. Congress's approval rating is in the toilet, yet most of the people there have been for the past 20 years or more. It's time to drop party-affiliation and vote all of them out. I want to see a rainbow congress (metaphorically speaking) that represents more than just 2 view-points, but the views of as many American groups as possible. When the media paints the Presidential Map, I want to see more than 2 colors. The running of the government/country should not be left to the flip of a coin which is all a 2-party system can produce.

    27. Re:Smeagol by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The solution is a compromise, accept some tax increases and then work towards a rational solution. Pulling the pin on the hand grenade will help US interests how?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    28. Re:Smeagol by Rockoon · · Score: 1, Troll

      Since the democrats are the ones that borrowed well over half the money that the federal government owes, its not a very far stretch to blame them for the money we owe, or the mess we are in.

      The score over the past 30 years is $7.9 trillion borrowed when the Democrats controlled both House and Senate, and another $3.6 trillion when control was split between Republicans and Democrats, with only $1.7 trillion borrowed when Republicans controlled both House and Senate.

      Yes. That is exactly how unbalanced things have been, yet amazingly its those evil Republicans that are "known" to be the most irresponsible. More was borrowed in the first 2 years of Pelosi (House Speaker, Democrat) and Reid (Senate Majority Leader, Democrat) than the Republicans ever borrowed in the entire history of the country.

      STOP LISTENING TO WHAT THEY SAY - The Democrats constantly tell us how bad the Republicans are...
      START WATCHING WHAT THEY DO - The data is available. Dont listen to what they say. Take a look at what they actually do.

      One graph is enough to get you to question things, but you have to take some of the steps yourself (don't listen to what I say either.. the data is available.. you don't need to trust anyones claims)

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    29. Re:Smeagol by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The United States is a representative democracy, not a direct one. That means, some times, the representatives have to think beyond the sometimes errant, even moronic views of the masses. The masses, in turn, have the opportunity to turf those representatives at the end of their term if they feel they've been ill served.

      If those voters who support the Tea Party think an absolutist stand against tax cuts leading to a default will somehow improve their lot in life, then those voters are sadly mistaken. What's more, the US Constitution itself does not permit the "validity of the public debt" to be questioned.

      The Tea Party is oh so big on holding the constitution up, so why don't they bother reading the document every once in a while.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    30. Re:Smeagol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can't really grow the fucking economy in one week, now can you?

      But I must say, as a European with very little financial baggage, this would be fun to watch if it wasn't so terribly tragic. It's like a whole deluge of backwater states are suddenly realizing they've been getting too little of the corruption pie, and they now have a way to correct that. Go, cowboys!

      If it splinters the republican party, all the better. Maybe the first seeds for a democratic reform have been sown. Now, if only some news agencies could find a way to topple themselves like they did in England... no I wouldn't hold much hope, as reporters^Wnational nitwits can connect the Norway tragedy to the Hitlerjugend without even being reprimanded...

    31. Re:Smeagol by joggle · · Score: 1

      No, we're not at 70% in some brackets. The highest tax bracket hasn't been at 70% since 1980. It's been in the low 30s ever since Bush Jr was in office, and that's only on income that is taxable, which for wealthy people is only a fraction of their true income. In addition, capitol gains tax is even lower than that, at about 15%.

    32. Re:Smeagol by Straif · · Score: 1

      You can argue their effectiveness and impact but the facts are that federal revenues did increase after the original Bush tax cuts, and at a historic rate.

      Some people have hypothesized that they would have increased at a higher rate if not for the cuts and some have hypothesized the opposite, and both have some evidence to back their claims, but the hard numbers do show a rise in revenues above the norm. The problem was there was also a rise in spending to offset any revenue gains.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    33. Re:Smeagol by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The three biggest areas of the federal budget are Defense, Medicare, and Social Security. Yes you can get some cost savings by cutting other programs but franky they are minuscule compared to those three. Also I've heard the same red herring about regulation before. I believe it was lack of regulation that led the entire world into the housing crisis to begin with. Cutting regulation would add tiny portions and may lead to disastrous consequences. As for taxation, the main proposal is restoring the tax rate to what it was under Clinton by eliminating the tax breaks.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    34. Re:Smeagol by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      Forcing a default on the US government

      There you go, swallowing those lies and mistruths you've heard blasted louder than anything else, on every major media outlet (and on some of the smaller ones). Refusing to not borrow more money will not, in fact, force the government to default on it's loans. The government still has enough money to pay the interest on the loans, no muss, no fuss. It may not be able to pay other people; foreign aid, congress, defense contractors, but it will not default on it's loans unless the President chooses to. Not to mention, the government has other assets which could be sold and turned into cash to pay those other obligations, with out much of a problem. The real deadline before the government must default is lot further down the road then they'd have you believe. Insider knowledge is not required to draw these conclusions, just common sense.

      Even if we do "default", who do we owe the majority of money to? I bet you're going to say China, or some other foreign investor with an army to backup their demand for payment but you'd be wrong. The largest holder of US treasury debt is....The Federal Reserve Bank. Although, an independent entity, it's board is appointed by the government. It was created by Congress so that it could manuever around the Constitution and legally create a fiat currency. So, when you really look at it, we owe ourselves a lot of money plus interest. We could very easily, if we wanted to (and by we, i mean the government), cancel a significant portion of our debt eliminating the need to raise the debt ceiling. Of course, the bankers would lose out on a lot of interest but I think they can afford it. I'm sure the American people would rather it be them then us anyway and that's all that really matters.

      And for anyone else who says you can't balance a budget by spending cuts alone: This is true in common business/personal finances where their are financial obligations that cannot just be cut. This is not true of the Government, there are plenty of programs the government pays for, that it doesn't absolutely need to and those should be cut. Only once all of the extra programs and there is still a deficit can one say revenue increases are necessary - not before.

    35. Re:Smeagol by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      70%? Citation needed as I believe personal income is as high as 38% but few ever pay that amount as exceptions and deductions are allowed. As for economics, you can cut costs but you don't seem to grasp that some costs can never be 0. If I have a financial gap I can increase my income by asking for a raise, getting another job, getting a second job, or even temporarily selling things. If I have a business, I can raise prices. What the Tea Party is advocating is never looking at or considering the revenue side at all.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    36. Re:Smeagol by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      The Tea Party are shills for Karl Rove, and the rest of the Neo-Cons who blew the budget surplus left over from the Clinton administration.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    37. Re:Smeagol by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Lieberman is Gollum...

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    38. Re:Smeagol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lack of compromise is one thing but my issue with most if them is an apparent lack of sense. Yes we all hate raising taxes but they don't seem to understand simple economics where cutting costs can only do so much without increasing revenue.

      Analogy time!!!

      We're over weight - some (many?) would say we're obese. Nine doctors out of ten (1) say that the best way to get our weight under control is to eat less and exercise more. However the Tea Party and the politicians that are playing to them are holding out for the Weight Watchers(tm) diet. They will not consider the Paleo diet, or any other diet, because it reduces some of the foods they want.

      Worse, they absolutely will not consider exercising. Why? Because it's hard and they've been taught by Dr. Reagan that exercise is bad for you and that you'll actually get stronger by sitting on the couch. And this despite many studies and examples that show exercise improves physical fitness while burning calories. So they continue to reject any weight reduction plan that includes exercise beyond going to the kitchen to pop another "meal in a box" into the microwave.

      (1) The other is typically trying to sell some type of drug to control weight irregardless of the drug's side effects which include diarrhea, nausea, head aches, runny nose, ulcers, and the risk of strokes.

    39. Re:Smeagol by joggle · · Score: 1

      Except, in this case, your analogy fails almost 100%. This isn't a case of someone trying to do some sexual assault on you or something. We're trying to balance the books. That's done in two ways, lower expenses and increase revenue. Revenue has not been keeping pace with expenses due to tax cuts, a large number of baby boomers retiring, and the rapid increase in medical costs. Tack on the enormous recession which caused a further drop in tax receipts and the enormous hole we were already in and you can get an idea of why we're not going to be able to do this with tax cuts alone.

      If you look at every austerity measure enacted in Europe recently, they have all included raising taxes and lowering expenses. Why? Let's just take the US for example. We could cut all discretionary spending and still have a budget deficit (including all military spending).

      This isn't some small problem that can be solved by simply cutting spending. You could get rid of Medicaid and Medicare, but where would that leave us? Just with a bunch of poor and elderly people not getting health care, much like how it was in the US before FDR.

      However, whether it's a good idea to drastically cut expenses and raise taxes now is a good question. The UK did this over a year ago and their economy has struggled ever since, with marginal economic growth at best.

    40. Re:Smeagol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but under Clinton we weren't fighting 2 expensive wars and hadn't signed on to a Medicare prescription drug benefit either. So either stop those things or raise the revenue to pay for them.

    41. Re:Smeagol by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Polling in the last few months consistently shows the American public are blaming(what passes for...) Republicans more than Democrats in regard to the budget debacle, and Congress' inability to make a deal. Both the American public, and the business community understand that compromise is needed. This is reality, not a game. Politics is all about compromise. You rarely get exactly what you want, unless of course you run a totalitarian state. Getting exactly what you want is a fantasy that the baggers have bought into. Absolute bullshit. Integrity in politics? Remember how Cato the Younger ended up...

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    42. Re:Smeagol by halivar · · Score: 2

      The founding fathers had no problem with rich aristocracy: they WERE rich aristocracy. What they had a problem with was the unfettered power of unelected government and its intrusion into the everyday business of the common man.

    43. Re:Smeagol by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Their point is that the US cannot and will not default - but it can cut government benefits. The outcome of refusal to raise the debt ceiling is unknown and probably unknowable right now, but it is apparent that their hope is to shrink government (I.e., what they've been after from the beginning). I doubt that they will succeed, but they do have one very good point: the US is on an unsustainable path. Sooner or later we will face a reckoning in which taxes will go way up and spending will go way down. That is going to cause a lot of problems. Delaying that day is unlikely to make those problems smaller.

      They might even be persuaded to raise taxes, if they had any real reason to believe that Congress would hold to the spending cuts. I don't hold much hope of that happening.

    44. Re:Smeagol by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      If those voters who support the Tea Party think an absolutist stand against tax cuts leading to a default

      Are you sure you know what is going on? The Tea Party isn't against Tax Cuts they are against Tax Hikes (increases). They aren't for having the government default, they are for reigning in reckless spending. You know the reckless spending that has tripled (you know, multiplied by a factor of 3) the entire national debt within the last decade. The trajectory of spending we are currently on is unsustainable. This is a fact, it cannot be argued against. So the question is, do we deal with it now, or wait until later when it is even worse. Remember the part that makes it unsustainable means that eventually there will be nothing we can do to fix the problem as it will already be too late. Most of the media, Democrats and Republicans, want this to happen (whether they realize it or not). It will be the end of the United States, not conquered militarily but economically.

      Now is the call to action and the Tea Party is trying to rally around it. Now is the time to say; enough is enough, we will not allow this to continue another step. We will draw the line in the sand and refuse to cross it. That is the adult thing to do, it is the right thing to do. Sure, it may cause hardship, but that is inevitable anyway, but doing what is right is rarely the same thing as doing what is easy.

      What's more, the US Constitution itself does not permit the "validity of the public debt" to be questioned.

      How about separating different ideas and looking at them individually. Refusing to borrow more money does not mean the same as refusing to make payments on that which we already owe. It just means we won't owe more later. We have plenty of money to pay the interest and keep the loans in good standing. We have assets that can be sold to pay other bills until we balance the budget. The key is actually balancing the budget. Now. Not tomorrow, not ten years from now, but now. Once we eliminate the deficit and deficit spending, the problem will go away. Of course, that will mean our politicians will have less to do, without having a blank check to keep on spending. They may actually have to work to create a budget but that is what they are paid to do.

      Put another way. If this way your personal financial situation; where every month you spend significantly more than you earn and have to borrow to make up the difference. Would anyone say that eliminating unnecessary expenses and balancing your budget is a stupid move? No, of course not. They would say it was your only move to solve the problem and that the longer you waited the harder it would be to achieve. That is exactly why both the Democrats and Republicans (except the Tea Party) want to keep putting it off until later. They know that eventually, there will be no choice but to default as the interest on the debt will be too large to pay along with all other necessary programs. Stop listening to the talking heads, to entrenched party members, they all have an agenda this is not for the benefit of the Country, it is only of benefit to themselves. Start thinking for yourself.

    45. Re:Smeagol by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      The Tea Party are shills for Karl Rove, and the rest of the Neo-Cons who blew the budget surplus left over from the Clinton administration.

      Citation needed.

    46. Re:Smeagol by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      Well said Sir!

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    47. Re:Smeagol by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      Whatever you think of the tea party it has been spectacularly successful at "wagging the dog". Either the traditional parties will learn to get their tails back in control, or other "tails" will emerge on the far right or the far left spurred on by the success of the tea party. I rather suspect the main parties will find a way to control this better because some of the trends that have helped this along (like signing pledges) that seemed initially to be zero cost are now being seen as burdensome.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    48. Re:Smeagol by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that the US founding fathers - all well-educated and almost all well-heeled, many slave owners - in establishing laws that were significantly preferential to land-owners, were all the time rebelling against a thin layer of rich aristocracy with poor peasants underneath" ?!?

      When you said "US founding fathers" did you actually mean "USSR founding fathers"?

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    49. Re:Smeagol by Politburo · · Score: 1

      It took until 2007 to get back to 2000 revenues in inflation-adjusted dollars.

      As %GDP, it still hasn't recovered (part of this is due to the recession, naturally).

    50. Re:Smeagol by medcalf · · Score: 1

      Really? If the government doesn't specify how many gallons per flush our toilets have, we face disaster? I think not.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    51. Re:Smeagol by Politburo · · Score: 1

      This is a poor methodology.

      The Bush Tax Cut was already passed when Pelosi and Reid became Speaker/Leader. You're assigning that debt to them even though they voted against it.

    52. Re:Smeagol by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      It's also worth pointing out that Obama and the moderate Republicans aren't talking about *only* raising taxes to cover the shortfall. The people in Washington who actually have a functioning set of synapses between their ears realize that the only way to balance the books is to decrease spending at the same time as increasing income.

      It's the tea baggers who seriously don't understand that their stance is going to cause serious problems for the world economy who are screwing things over for everybody else. What boggles the mind is that they're willing to do this over an ideological stance without actually considering the impact of what they're doing or how it would affect the middle class, who make up the majority of their electorate.... if they're seriously in it to try to further their political goals, I would think the best way to do that would be to avoid hurting their core demographic with their stupidity.

    53. Re:Smeagol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your last phrase isn't about economics or simple understand - it's all politics, money and power. So I have to kindly disagree.

      Actually you can do both - the trouble is both D's and R's will not let go of their sacred cows. D's sacred cows are Welfare and R's sacred cow is Warfare. Guns n Butter. Cut both and no need to increase taxes (However I am about to point out new sources of revenue but they're offset by huge reductions in spending).
      1. End Needless Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the painful failure that is the War on Drugs (add a slight tax to all drugs - weed, meth, cocaine, heroine etc - use money to educate people and support true medical rehabilitation centers).
      2. Cut needless Federal Departments that are unconstitutional, wasteful and ineffective.
      -TSA
      -DHS
      -Dept of Education (return responsibility of education to local and state level - let the states keep their money - the DoE is an abysmal failure)
      -Dept of Agriculture (end the billions wasted here and the hundreds of billions given away to mega farming corps through subsidies)
      -Dept of the Interior
      -Dept of Energy
      -I would cut more depts but these are a start.
      3. Any remaining depts will face a strict 5% cut to all employee salaries and 5% overall budget reduction. Pensions and benefits will be changed from "Defined Benefits" to "Defined Contribution" packages.
      4. Restructure Social Security to allow younger generations the ability to opt out. Make sure we take care of the folks who are currently dependent on SS.
      5. Restructure Medicare and Medicaid - again allow the youth to opt out if they wish. Utilize huge savings mentioned above to make up the difference and slowly phase these programs down to their bare minimum.

    54. Re:Smeagol by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      The teabaggers don't give a shit about the finances. They have seen an opportunity for a major power grab and are on to it now. They redefined a routine move, that was expected to come when the last budget was voted for, into a make-or-break moment for the US. And they are perfectly willing to break it for their power gains.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    55. Re:Smeagol by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I think this is a great analogy as many doctors will recommend against starvation diets as it leads to more problems than it is worth and that any diet should be sensible in what is removed. Removing all protein or all carbs may be dangerous. Also recent studies have confirmed that to truly lose weight and keep it off, people need to both control food intake and exercise.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    56. Re:Smeagol by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

      And what, exactly, do you think is going to happen when a government with zero income tries to enforce the laws its passed in an effort to reign in the rich aristocracy that's trying to push around the middle and lower classes? How, with no money, do you think they're going to pay for the enforcement of the laws that are established to prevent the unelected corporations from exercising their unfettered power over the everyday business of the common man?

    57. Re:Smeagol by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Citation needed. Please show me, in writing, from a reputable source, how the US economy is doing better now than it was when Clinton was still in office.

    58. Re:Smeagol by rhsanborn · · Score: 1

      Let's stop the thread here. The USSR founding fathers were hiding behind a veneer of support for the working class, while themselves being rich aristocracy who liked their power and opulence. That wasn't communism, it was fascism parading as communism.

    59. Re:Smeagol by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      They don't need to balance the budget by August 2, they need to raise the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is a legislated limit saying "this is how much we're allowed to borrow, not a penny more".

      The debate isn't whether the debt ceiling needs to be raised. Everybody but the tea baggers knows that it needs to be raised, and August 2 is merely the deadline for getting the legislation passed in time for it to pass through the channels it needs to in order to be signed into law. The debate is about how they're going to go about balancing the budget once the debt ceiling is raised, so that they can continue to pay their obligations while trying to restore the budget surplus that was there before Shrub took office.

    60. Re:Smeagol by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Which of these is not true: (1)Speculation in the unregulated derivatives market was a primary cause of the financial crisis of 2008. (2) Removing regulations like gpf does very little to actually reduce government spending in areas like the Defense sector and does very little to increase revenue in taxes. Deregulation is a red herring in this debate. Pro-business forces keep touting it as some sort of panacea while ignoring it might in their best estimates save hundreds of a percent while Medicare, SS, and Defense represent something like 60% of the budget.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    61. Re:Smeagol by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      If by "power" you mean, power to reduce the size of the Federal Government, then you are right. Redefining a routine move? If you don't understand that raising our borrowing limit and borrowing more money being a "routine move" is a major problem that needs to be corrected, then I'm afraid you are mind controlled.

    62. Re:Smeagol by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Borrowing money isn't bad. Not paying it back is bad.

      You need to look at how much of that money was paid back while the Democrats were in office, too. More appropriately, you need to look at which presidencies ended with a budget surplus, and which ones ended with a budget deficit.

      There's a nice little graph for you:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

      From Truman to Nixon, every President, both Democratic and Republican, decreased the national debt as a ratio to GDP. Since Ford, every Republican president has increased it as a ratio to GDP, and every Democrat (with the exception of Obama, who inherited the largest US deficit in history) has decreased it as a ratio to GDP. And yet somehow, the Democrats are the ones who don't know how to manage money.

      And in direct response to your numbers, that very same graph (it's the first table on the page) lists how much the national debt has increased under Democrat vs. Republican presidents. Not the debt ceiling, the debt itself. The two are very different numbers... the debt ceiling is just a limit on how much can be borrowed. The debt itself is how much was actually borrowed. When you see the amount actually borrowed, it's obvious that the Republicans have been worse at managing money.

    63. Re:Smeagol by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Technically, young Lieberman is Smeagol and old Lieberman is gollum.

    64. Re:Smeagol by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      I don't consider myself to be tea-party as I'm a libertarian (yeah, I know you just stopped reading and will start the ad-hominem attacks now). But you are sorely mistaken...

      First of all, the US is not a representative democracy. It is a constitutional republic. The fact that people elect representatives in a democratic fashion does not make us a democracy. New laws are still supposed to follow the Constitution regardless of how popular they are.

      The Constitution itself does permit congress "To borrow money on the credit of the United States;" However it does not restrict our desire to minimize the amount of borrowed money.

      And if you'd read the Constitution you'd see that the Tea Party is not nearly aggressive enough in eliminating all spending that is not in line with the Constitution. If we stopped spending money on parts of the government that are outside of its limits, we would not have a debt crises.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    65. Re:Smeagol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Tea Partiers, and the rest of the Republicans along with them, are just playing the political game to win. If they refuse to ever compromise then they'll either get exactly what they want or be able to paint the Democrats as incompetent because they can't ever get anything done. On top of that they can trump up how they stick to their political promises by refusing to negotiate whilst their Democratic rivals are forced to compromise those promises just to get any legislation passed. They not only don't care if the country ends up going to shit due to their stalwart refusal to work with the Democrats hamstringing the entire government, they want it to happen. There's currently no shortage of Republicans hoping the debt ceiling never gets raised, because if the US defaults and the economy collapses it'll just mean a catastrophe during a Democratic president which means an easy Republican victory the next election.

    66. Re:Smeagol by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      To continue your analogy, the Democrats insist we are actually starving, and we just need to keep eating like we have been to "create jobs for fat cells". Meanwhile the Republicans claim to be disgusted by our bellies and while we are eating 5000 calories today, we need to make drastic cuts and only eat 5999 calories tomorrow because the Democrats want to eat 6000 calories. Bear in mind, we only actually have 4000 calories of food per day of supply, but there's no need to cut back right now. If we start running low on food, we can just raid the rich neighbor's pantry and take some of his food. He can afford it. Stupid bastard's just been stocking it up for a rainy day.

      I would suggest that unlike the tea party's plan of becoming anorexic and capping spending, we go bulimic instead. Start vomiting up entire portions of the government that aren't needed at all. We've been gorging for far too long at the buffet, and it's time we go for a purge.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    67. Re:Smeagol by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Because the rational solution (Reducing spending) never happens.

      It's Lucy and the football. "Sure, we'll reduce spending in the future, just raise taxes now."

      Every time the Republicans fall for it, spending is never reduced.

      This time they're asking for cuts NOW, and the whining, and bitching and COMPLAINING from the Democrats being forced to cut is ridiculous.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    68. Re:Smeagol by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Ah, one dollar for everyone without an argument making a snipe at my username. It's a pretty good idiot trap, isn't it? Helps me recognize the point when further discussion is useless.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    69. Re:Smeagol by halivar · · Score: 1

      Those are questions we could have asked ourselves before we spent all the money.

    70. Re:Smeagol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tea party seems to be what Nader and the Green party were to the Democrats. Aligned with, yet politically separate and more extreme than most Republicans. They probably aren't going to disrupt an election though, as their doesn't seem to be anyone able to get the whole party behind them for a serious presidential run, but it is still very early.

    71. Re:Smeagol by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      That would be true if I didn't present an argument before sniping your user name. Now it just seems to be more of an excuse than a trap.

    72. Re:Smeagol by Straif · · Score: 1

      Are you even in the right thread? We were discussing Bush tax cuts and revenue, not the Clinton vs. Obama economies.

      But for the record both Clinton and the Republican Congress lucked out in that the economy they oversaw was riding high on both the tech and start of the housing bubbles without ever really having to deal with the downturns. It was a dream time in the US economy before people started to wake up and realize that maybe some of these companies who produced no real goods and had no real income strategies weren't really worth their overinflated values and that maybe it wasn't a good idea to give people mortgages on houses that are worth more than 20 times their yearly income.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    73. Re:Smeagol by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Pulling the pin on the hand grenade will help US interests how?

      By removing the hand grenade as a tool of negotiation. If you survive the blast, that's darn handy.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    74. Re:Smeagol by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      The thing is, if the Tea Party gets everything it wants, and the whole economy comes roaring back, the Democrats will take all the credit.

      And then want to increase taxes.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    75. Re:Smeagol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with a balanced budget amendment is that the government budget is not the same as a household budget. For a household, a balanced budget makes sense. For the government, according to the best economic theory, the government should run surpluses when times are good (cooling down the economy by taking money out of the system), and deficits when times are bad (the government spends when others refuse to, thus heating up the economy).

      So writing a balanced budget into the constitution is more then a little brain dead.

    76. Re:Smeagol by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      I think the problem with the Tea Partiers is that they see it as being their way or nothing.

      Isn't that the party line that got them elected into office in the first place?

      It sure is. The problem is that the sane people in society have to pay for the votes of those idiots.

    77. Re:Smeagol by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      This isn't a case of someone trying to do some sexual assault on you or something.

      Its worse. Its a case of congress stealing the futures of hundreds of millions of people that havent even been born yet.

      Furthermore, my anaology had nothing to do with sexual assault. It had to do with asking someone to do something unacceptable and then asking for a compromise that is still completely unacceptable.

      That's done in two ways, lower expenses and increase revenue. Revenue has not been keeping pace with expenses due to tax cuts

      Revenue has not been keeping pace with spending ("expenses") because spending has gone through the roof over the past 30 years.

      Furthermore, those tax cuts you are talking about increased revenue. Did you forget that fact?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    78. Re:Smeagol by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I meant tax hikes.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    79. Re:Smeagol by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Except that the Tea Party has been integrated more closely into the GOP, at least that's what the GOP and the Tea Party wanted everyone to believe. Obviously it's not the case, the Tea Party feels no particular loyalty to mainline Republicans, seeming to view them not as opponents as they would any given Democrat, but as traitors to the true conservative cause.

      The mainline Republicans are terrified that if they don't appease the Tea Party somehow, it will become a third party, and as a third party, the damage to the Republicans will be enormous, particularly in a White House bid. That's why the playing field of candidates right now, with a couple of exceptions, is dominated by those who will be viewed as Tea Party friendly, if not outright members themselves.

      I think the Republicans know that their 2012 presidential bid is unwinnable, and are still hoping that this latest populist rump burns itself out. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Boehner's hoping Obama simply takes the debt ceiling crisis out of his hands. He can then reunite the fractured party in universal condemnation, having been spared being torn to shreds by the Tea Party wing. But Obama clearly has little interest in sparing the Republicans this torment, and if I was Obama neither would I.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    80. Re:Smeagol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. There is no way to appease the Tea Party. They will cut off their nose to spite their face, and then blame everyone else for all of the blood. The rest of the GOP should just ignore them, and it seems that that may actually happen.

    81. Re:Smeagol by kvezach · · Score: 1

      (And remember, higher levels of taxation lead to lower levels of economic growth, and thus lower revenue generated to the government.)

      Only if you're to the right of or at the optimal point on the Laffer curve. The supply-siders kept saying the US was to the right of it, again and again, but two can play that game. In truth, the Laffer curve probably looks like this, a chaotic mess at any significant distance from 0% or 100% taxation.

    82. Re:Smeagol by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      Sure sounds like you're confused about what caused the great depression and this current recession or depression, whatever you want to call it. High economic growth rates are not sustainable and lead to bubbles. Regulatory burdens as you put it slow the growth down to manageable levels and their lack of action resulted in the housing bubble and resulting collapse. A steady economy with slow sustainable growth is the goal.

      If we want to cut spending how bout we slash the TSA budget in half or get rid of it alltogether? Of course that leaves out the simple and obvious fact that we fund things in the past for a reason and unless those reasons have gone away removing funding is exceedingly difficult as you're not going to allow some sort of problem to resurface. This is not a value judgement on the TSA but of funding social programs in general, they exist for a reason and if you cut funding you had better be prepared for the inevitable consequences. That is the reason for the push to raise taxes to minimize all the problems we're going to recreate.

      There is a serious lack of historical perspective in this country today and it scares me as some mistakes I am not eager to see repeated.

    83. Re:Smeagol by kbdd · · Score: 1
      It's one thing to be an idiot, and realize one's limitations, but it's another to combine that with the feeling of empowerment and self importance. In any democracy, different viewpoints will be expressed. If any group believes that it does not need to respect or even consider other's viewpoints, and that it has to be their way, all the way or else they don't care if the country goes bankrupt, then it should not be surprising if that's the result.

      I think the only logical solution to this mess, given the current predicament, is the break-up of the GOP into a radical, Tea-Party party and a more moderate business-minded party. The problem with that is that suddenly neither of these parties would have a majority in the House, so nobody on the right side of the aisle wants to take the initiative to break it up, and our political system is based on two parties, not three. Until the radicals take a good spanking, I don't see that getting any better.

    84. Re:Smeagol by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I think the problem with the Tea Partiers is that they see it as being their way or nothing. I understand their perspective and conviction but I think the issue is that they want to do it ALL at once.

      You're forgetting how Reagan struck a deal with Tip O'Neal. In exchange for the tax hikes Reagan agreed to, there would be tax cuts. We got the taxes raised, but the cuts never came. "their way or nothing" translates to we ACTUALLY get the cuts before we raise the taxes. You've heard the cliche, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.", right?

      The political reality, which McCain and the WSJ are all to quick to ignore, is that if the TP gives in, there will never be a tax cut and the FEDERAL government will continue to borrow and grow. Their intransigence IS the balance.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    85. Re:Smeagol by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Borrowing money isn't bad. Not paying it back is bad.

      The problem is the borrowed money, that we cant afford the minimum payment, and the solution according to you is to borrow more money. Anything to keep the illusion alive I guess... right?

      There's a nice little graph for you:

      A graph that breaks it down by president during this specific crisis... really? Doesnt this crisis prove that the president doesnt have shit-all to do with spending, or the budget? Doesn't it? Are you eyes even open?

      Anything that seems to support your preconceived notions no matter how dishonest, is that it? What is wrong with you?

      And yet somehow, the Democrats are the ones who don't know how to manage money.

      If presidents get the credit, then isnt this all Obama's fault? Isn't this your metric? The president bust be responsible right now, as well as then, right?

      Who exactly told you that the President was responsible? Wasn't it the Democrats in power, doing all that spending, that told you that? Wasn't it?

      And in direct response to your numbers, that very same graph (it's the first table on the page) lists how much the national debt has increased under Democrat vs. Republican presidents. Not the debt ceiling, the debt itself. The two are very different numbers...

      Because the President doesnt have dick-all to do with it! DUH!

      Every time you appeal to the President, you are being dishonest. Every single time. I'm sorry that you were lied to all these years, and I'm sorry that its so damn embarrassing that you didn't pay any attention then, but the fact remains THAT YOU WERE LIED TO AND YOU ARE JUST REPEATING THE LIE. Want proof that you are repeating the lie? This crisis, in which the *only* thing the president could do was get on television and make a speech, IS THE PROOF YOU NEED.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    86. Re:Smeagol by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      So where is the President's list of spending cuts for his side of the compromise?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    87. Re:Smeagol by RedDeadThumb · · Score: 1

      The reason that they "aren't talking about *only* raising taxes to cover the shortfall" is in a large part because of your tea baggers. The extremist views coming into play at this time are a reaction to the continuous status quo that is getting us no where. When a spring is wound too much in one direction it takes a lot of tension in the other just to pull it back to the middle. I keep hearing people say that they will not vote for a libertarian because if we do the radical changes they make will cause things to break or conditions to worsen. But to me that is an excuse to remain with the status quo. Our system doesn't work in a way that anyone gets what they want, especially not overnight. If you vote for the moderate that accurately represents your position, you are unlikely ever to see a system that has that position. You need to weigh how far things are out of whack and put enough tension in the other direction that the system arrow will come to rest at the position you want when it balances out.

    88. Re:Smeagol by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      But, really, we'll settle for him getting a friggin' clue.

      Have you heard how Karl Rove talks about the Tea Party. He can't STAND those people, which is understandable considering how they've upset his apple-cart.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    89. Re:Smeagol by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      There are a LOT of people that have tried to start small businesses that would vehemently disagree with you about both the cost and effect.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    90. Re:Smeagol by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      It's also worth pointing out that Obama and the moderate Republicans aren't talking about *only* raising taxes to cover the shortfall. The people in Washington who actually have a functioning set of synapses between their ears realize that the only way to balance the books is to decrease spending at the same time as increasing income.

      Citation needed. A quote from the President's plan would be a good start. Mostly what has been put forward is raise taxes now, reduce spending later. This approach has been tried. Several time. The spending never gets reduced.

      The Tea Party is standing up and saying, "Enough, dammit! We don't have any money left. No more promises of we'll get to it later. Cut spending NOW, before we give you any more money."

      What boggles the mind is the so-called educated on this forum that can't grasp the idea that you can't spend more than you make forever.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    91. Re:Smeagol by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      The Bush Tax Cut was already passed when Pelosi and Reid became Speaker/Leader.

      When Pelosi and Reid because the dynamic duo, they didnt need a single Republican votes to pass anything. The evidence of this is the Health Care bill which between both House and Senate got exactly 1 Republican vote. This is in fact another fine example of their talk being a disconnect from what they do. When they were drafting that Health Care bill, they told the country that all those "compromises" were to please Republicans... but wait.. only 1 Republican voted for the thing in both House and Senate (combined) and it still passed.. so who were they really pleasing? We could debate about who they were actually pleasing, but there is no debate at all that they were lying.

      Those two had unchallenged power and could have raised taxes, but didn't. They could have cut spending, but didn't. Stop listening to what they say and look at what they did. What did they do exactly? They paid off Wall Street, Hollywood, Insurance Companies, Automobile Manufacturers (Unions), and Banks. That isnt what they said.. but its what they did.

      Stop listening and start watching.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    92. Re:Smeagol by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      That's a laughable and untrue perspective because the Democrats and moderates concede we need to cut some spending but highlighted that we also need to raise revenue. It's the Tea Party that refuses to look at any increases in spending. As the supposedly pro business as they claim to be they sure as hell don't know know basic accounting. If your business is experiencing loss, you can cut costs, raise revenue, or both. The Tea Party wants to declare 2 of the 3 options as unacceptable without acknowledging that there is a limit to cutting costs. At some point a business might want to think about getting more business.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    93. Re:Smeagol by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      That's FEDERAL tax. Now add State tax, county tax, city tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax and fees for any service that you actually get from the government.

      The Tea Party is advocating that we've alway looked at the revenue side, and it is high time we actually make some of those budge cuts that everyone is always promising. And going from spending 40% more than you make to only spending 20% more than you make still leaves you in the hole.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    94. Re:Smeagol by Straif · · Score: 1

      According to the CBO revenues increased every year after 2003 (the year the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented) and at a rate more than 2 times inflation. You can argue the "why", but not the numbers. It could have been a natural bounce back after a tech bubble recession and an unprecedented terrorist attack on American soil or it may have been an affect of the tax cuts increasing disposable income and making investing more appealing, or it may have been any number of other things or all of the above.

      Claiming the tax breaks cost 1.8 trillion in revenue (over 10 years) should be taken with a big grain of salt since it is merely a hypothetical number based on assumptions of the rate at which the economy would have grown without the cuts in place; an impossible situation to completely predict, but it is also really a moot point. As the the historical data clearly shows, there was more than enough revenue coming into the government coffers to maintain all programs, even accounting for inflation. The problem was and is that politicians always love to expand and create new programs and the concept of 'living within their means' is completely foreign on Capital Hill, regardless of who is holding the purse strings.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    95. Re:Smeagol by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      You can't loose weight unless you consume less calories than you take in. You'll have us believe that we can make a promise to see a nutritionist in a few years, at which time we'll go on a sensible calorie deficit diet, and everything will work out fine.

      There's a term for people that think that way, morbidly obese, an apt description of the federal government.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    96. Re:Smeagol by black+soap · · Score: 1

      They voted for Tea Party people in many cases because the voters wanted something different, not because they specifically wanted Tea Partiers. Classic political ego: thinking they voted FOR you, instead of AGAINST the other guy.

    97. Re:Smeagol by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      2. Cut needless Federal Departments that are unconstitutional, wasteful and ineffective.

      Perhaps you haven't looked at a federal budget lately but Medicare, SS, and Defense represent 60% of the budget. All other areas combined represent 40%. As for needless, just because you don't think or like the purpose of an agency doesn't mean it is needless. Take for example, Dept of the Interior. Under it, are agencies like the Bureau of Land Managment and the National Park Service. Believe it or not some people want to preserve areas of the country where it is relatively untouched by man. The total budget for the whole Dept is $20B which is between 0.5% and 0.6% of the budget.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    98. Re:Smeagol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrats and legislation that forced banks to write loans to people who had no business getting loans is what led the entire world into the housing crisis.

    99. Re:Smeagol by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      All that says is that the Democrats have better press agents. No small wonder given how much of the press is on their side.

      I have started seeing some independent commercials lately. Those numbers *may* start to swing very soon now.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    100. Re:Smeagol by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      This isn't a case of someone trying to do some sexual assault on you or something.

      Either you don't have a job, or haven't looked at your paycheck lately.

      We're trying to balance the books. That's done in two ways, lower expenses and increase revenue.

      To continue with the sexual assault analogy, let's say you work the corner of Main and 5th St. One particular patron got his service last week and then ran away. I mean, he promised that he would pay up at the end, but he didn't. And your pimp beat the snot out of you for not getting him his money. Do you trust the John when he comes around the second time, or do you demand to see the money up front?

      Considering what previous Congresses have done, why are the Tea Party politicians reticent in their duties for demanding to see the cuts before agreeing to give up their services?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    101. Re:Smeagol by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      Classic political ego: thinking they voted FOR you, instead of AGAINST the other guy.

      It's not really ego - it is how things are supposed to be. There is no way for an individual citizen to vote against something (only Congress can do that), we can only vote for something. To the citizen, voting for a Senator, Congressman, President is not a binary choice; there are more than two options. That fact alone makes voting against someone impossible. Votes were created, intended and, for all intents-and-purposes, are an indication that someone is for the thing for which they voted. no other interpretation of the system makes sense.

      On a side-note, people also forget that a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. It is still individual consent to be led by evil. So when evil happens, they are still at fault. Voting for a Vampire is akin to inviting him into your house. You wouldn't do that, not even if the choice was between him and a werewolf. You'd find a third, better option, and pick that. I wish people voted in same way.

    102. Re:Smeagol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Bush Tax Cut was already passed when Pelosi and Reid became Speaker/Leader.

      When Pelosi and Reid because the dynamic duo, they didnt need a single Republican votes to pass anything. The evidence of this is the Health Care bill...

      Way to try and change the subject moron. Unfortunately for you, your demonstrated ignorance is still etched in stone above.

    103. Re:Smeagol by joggle · · Score: 1

      What tax cuts increased revenue? The Bush tax cuts cost about 1.4 trillion dollars over 10 years (the cost will keep increasing the longer they stay in place). Reagan's initial tax cut was so drastic that he had to raise taxes just a couple of years later (although we've had large budget deficits ever since, with the one exception of the last year of Clinton's presidency).

      The fastest rising expenditure of government is costs resulting from entitlements, primarily Medicaid and Medicare. This is because medical costs nation-wide have been increasing much faster than inflation for decades. It's ironic how the tea party movement, which formed when the current administration attempted to address this issue, is now worried about the deficit, which in the future will largely be due to the growing costs of entitlements. When they started out they were worried about losing Medicare, now they seemed determined to get rid of it themselves.

    104. Re:Smeagol by joggle · · Score: 1

      I don't know what you're referring to. Tax rates are at the lowest rates they've ever been since I've been alive (late 70s).

      My healthcare costs have gone up, but that's been going on ever since I started working back in the late 90s.

      One of the most prosperous decades in the US was during the 50s, when tax rates on the rich were above 90% and tax rates for others were higher as well. We managed to grow the economy, pay off debt from WWII and carry out another war in Korea all at the same time. I think people tend to forget that fact since it doesn't compute with their current beliefs that higher taxes always causes a worst economy.

    105. Re:Smeagol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong about the Bush tax cuts:
      http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts

      Also, tax cuts do not "cost" anything. Saying that a tax cut "costs" money is basing your argument on the premise that all money belongs to the government first.

    106. Re:Smeagol by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Change the subject?

      I demonstrated quite succinctly that they could have raised taxes, in spite of any previous tax cuts.

      They didn't. How is this changing the subject?

      You appear to be uncomfortable with watching the Democrats instead of listening to them. Why is is to hard for you to take things at face value? Is it the years of investment you have put into believing what they said rather than noticing what they did?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    107. Re:Smeagol by joggle · · Score: 1

      It's added 1.4 trillion dollars to the federal deficit, you know, the thing we're trying to get rid of? Happy now?

      The Heritage Foundation is a very conservative think tank. Got a non-biased source? Almost any other source will be less biased (or at least not more biased)...

      In addition, notice when that article was written, prior to 2008? Most of those arguments ring pretty hollow now.

    108. Re:Smeagol by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      What tax cuts increased revenue?

      The so-called Bush tax cuts. Which ones did you think?

      You keep going on about the President(s) and Taxes and Budget. Why is this? Have you not taken a civics class?

      The President does not draft budgets, nor can the President increase or lower taxes. If that were true, wouldnt the current crisis be Obama's fault for not lowering spending and raising taxes? Why hasn't Obama done that?

      Every single time you attempt to pin the Federal fiscal situation on the President, you are demonstrating your ignorance. Every time you make a "point" by making the association between President and Debt, you are saying nothing at all. You ate only repeating a lie. You want proof? THE CURRENT CRISIS IS PROOF THAT THE PRESIDENT DOESNT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    109. Re:Smeagol by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Tax rates are at the lowest rates they've ever been since I've been alive (late 70s).

      ..and its 35% for those homes making over $311,950/year ($155,975 if married but filing separately)

      We dont need to go on about "lowest ever" when we can state the actual values. The rate is currently 35% for rich people.

      One of the most prosperous decades in the US was during the 50s, when tax rates on the rich were above 90%

      Federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was at its lowest since 1950.. in the year 1950.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    110. Re:Smeagol by toadlife · · Score: 1

      Change the subject?

      I demonstrated quite succinctly that they could have raised taxes

      Raising taxes and/or cutting spending during an economic depression is bad policy.

      The fact that you are unware of that further cements your status as a moron.

      Have a nice day, moron.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    111. Re:Smeagol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn right. Like the Air Force, Marines, FBI, NSA, TSA, FCC, wait a sec - what were we talking about again?

    112. Re:Smeagol by joggle · · Score: 1

      If they increased revenue compared to what would have otherwise occurred, then why did they add the sunset provision? The answer is they knew it would not, so had to add a sunset provision so that it wouldn't violate the senate rule designed to stop legislation like this from passing (legislation that would add to the deficit for 10 years or more).

      FYI, this law is commonly referred to as the Bush tax cuts. This isn't some liberal/conservative or intelligentsia/ignorant issue. Heck, Fox News even has a section on its website called "Bush Tax Cuts": http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/taxes/bush-tax-cuts.htm

    113. Re:Smeagol by joggle · · Score: 1

      Federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is about the same now as it was in 1950: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg

      It should be noted that in 1951 they responded to this by increasing tax rates. Also, that 35% rate only applies to income earned above $373k, so if you make $500k (after deductions), the 35% rate would only apple to $500-373k of your income ($127k). Your overall tax rate would be much lower than 35% in that case on your taxable income, and even lower when compared to your total income.

    114. Re:Smeagol by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      We were talking about how the Tea Party seems to believe that about 150 years of history never happened.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    115. Re:Smeagol by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      The Air Force and Marines are logical extensions of the Army and Navy clauses of the Constitution. The FBI is debatable, the NSA, TSA, and FCC can definitely go. Add to that the IRS, CIA, FEMA, Departments of Education, Agriculture, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, get rid of Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicade, and such and that will solve our budget problem right up. And we could even afford to have some tax cuts.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    116. Re:Smeagol by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      If you want to talk about people who don't understand business, talk to politicians. If the government operated as a business, it would have gone Chapter 11 years ago. The problem with your "raise revenue" comparison is that unlike a company, if the government raises prices, you can't stop purchasing or cut back your consumption. The Tea Party has realized that the government takes by force, and if you want to believe that we can just keep raising taxes to get us out of this hole, then why don't we just tax everybody at 100%? The government is spending WAY too much no matter how you slice the cake, and yet both parties have made suggestions to cut from the CBO baseline, which is NOT a cut. I don't want to cut a trillion over the next decade, I want to cut a trillion from just THIS YEAR's budget (which still hasn't been finished I remind you), and even THAT won't cover the deficit.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    117. Re:Smeagol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I think 2012 is pretty damned safe for him.

      Just wait until you see the impeachment trial they have planned for him. Tiger Woods was the test-run.

    118. Re:Smeagol by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't so much that they're "hypocrits" [sic] as that they're gullible, ignorant, illiterate morons begging to be used as tools by the worst elements of the corporate-media complex. (i.e."True Americans")

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    119. Re:Smeagol by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      "[The Federal Reserve] was created by Congress so that it could manuever around the Constitution and legally create a fiat currency."

      The Congress cannot delegate powers it doesn't have. The Congress has the power to " lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises", "To borrow money on the credit of the United States", To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin", "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

      The Contract clause does not apply to the Federal government, but only to the States:
      "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

      By implication, the Congress is not forbidden by this section of the Constitution to do any of those things (elsewhere, in art.I sec. 9, Congress is prohibited from passing bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and granting titles of nobility, but not from the other items in the Contract Clause) thus if it falls into one of the (poorly) enumerated powers such as regulating interstate commerce (as any law affecting the national currency presumably does), Congress may "emit Bills of Credit", make "Things other than gold or silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts", and "pass Laws impairing the Obligation of Contracts." Thus Congress can issue a fiat currency under the Constitution. If the Congress can do so, then the courts have held that they can delegate that power. Congress has done so to the Federal Reserve. If there is any end-run around the Constitution, it is in delegating powers, but not in the powers themselves.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    120. Re:Smeagol by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      The Bush tax cuts did not increase revenue, they cut revenue by over a trillion dollars. If you don't like the term "Bush", then call them "Republican". (And don't call the health care bill (insurance company tit-sucking act) "Obamacare", by your logic.) The Bush wars (and they were his alone, although Congress rolled over) cost trillions more, with absolutely no effect other than gutting the constitutional rights of Americans, killing millions of brown people (mostly under the age of 5, continuing the Bush I and Clinton policies) and enriching the most evil plutocrats the world has ever seen. The financial parasite enabling acts ("financial bailouts") started in the Bush presidency, drafted by Bush appointees. Neither Obama nor the Democrats objected. In the meantime, the Social Security and Medicare system more than paid for itself (exclusively with regressive payroll taxes on the poor and middle class, and despite the Bush pharmaceutical giveaway - no price negotiation with big pharma) and even produced a surplus which was stolen to finance the wars.

      Both parties are complicit in treason. There isn't a bit of real difference between them when you look at their acts rather than their rhetoric. We live in a one party police state. If you aren't willing to remove all of them from office, if you favor either "party", you are not free, you are an enemy of freedom. If you side with the corporations who control them both, you are not an American, you are not a human, you are the common enemy of all humanity, your kind will be annihilated, and the world will be a better place for it.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    121. Re:Smeagol by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 1

      My mistake, 53%. But it looks like Carter era rates > 70% are back in, and some democrats (remember, the guys who championed slavery about 100 years ago?) don't see anything wrong with taxation as high as 94% as they were in the 1950s, more great democrat ideas. Conservative Republicans (remember the guys who were founded as the abolitionist party?) want to spend less money and tax you and me less.

      Conservatives are not the demons here, they want to spend less of our money on bull shit of any kind. On the other hand, the democrats want to spend more, on anything and everything so much more that we need to continuously raise the debit ceiling without explanation. In the opinion of "progressive liberals" nothing is outside of the scope of "things the government should be involved in". Where money can be spent by the government, outside of defending ourselves from foreign invaders of course, spend it!

      The government never has enough power! Liberals opine: If only Obama had dictatorial control over the country! Obama isn't against that, indeed, he argues that Obama can do this debit ceiling stuff himself under the 14th amendment. Of course using this liberal reading of the 14h amendment, why, congress really doesn't hold any power over the spending of the executive branch. Similar arguments have been made, for example a liberal interpretation of the commerce clause in Wickard v. Filburn. And of course they're using the same argument to compel everyone to buy health insurance.

      Was I wrong? Ya, I'll admit that, but I'm not crazy by any measure, I was just off by 17%.

    122. Re:Smeagol by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The problem with your "raise revenue" comparison is that unlike a company, if the government raises prices, you can't stop purchasing or cut back your consumption.

      Huh? From the viewpoint of a business, they can raise revenue. You're taking it from the viewpoint of the consumer which this is not about. That's as disjointed as saying that you cutting your electric costs by not turning on as many lights does little to help your neighbor's budget. It's not logical at all is it?

      The Tea Party has realized that the government takes by force, and if you want to believe that we can just keep raising taxes to get us out of this hole, then why don't we just tax everybody at 100%?

      Wow talk about hyperbole. No one is talking about a 100% tax and your hysteria about it does little for intelligent debate. One item that has been discussed is restoring the tax rates to what they were under Clinton by eliminating the Bush era tax cuts. This would affect those making over $250,000 and would raise them some percentage points but certainly not 100%.

      The government is spending WAY too much no matter how you slice the cake, and yet both parties have made suggestions to cut from the CBO baseline, which is NOT a cut. I don't want to cut a trillion over the next decade, I want to cut a trillion from just THIS YEAR's budget (which still hasn't been finished I remind you), and even THAT won't cover the deficit.

      That is plain impatience and idiocy to cut a trillion dollars today. That's one fourth of the budget. That's like saying you can cut your budget for this year by not eating for the year.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    123. Re:Smeagol by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Tell me how removing the gpf limit on newtoilets will save businesses and the governement any decent about of money? At the same time removing the limit will cause homeowners and businesses to use more water, which costs more money, which requires more infrastructure to deal with both the increased supply and sewage. Just because there is some regulation exists does not mean eliminating it removes all cost. There are hidden costs.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    124. Re:Smeagol by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      That's FEDERAL tax. Now add State tax, county tax, city tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax and fees for any service that you actually get from the government.

      I believe since we are talking about the federal government here, your point is rather irrelevant.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    125. Re:Smeagol by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the democrats want to spend more, on anything and everything so much more that we need to continuously raise the debit ceiling without explanation.

      Your lack of history is appalling. Who engaged in massive deficit spending in the 80s? Reagan, a Republican. Who initiated the Medicare prescription bill without formulating a way to pay for it? Bush, a Republican. Both sides spend money on their causes. Pretending it is one side is ignoring history.

      Was I wrong? Ya, I'll admit that, but I'm not crazy by any measure, I was just off by 17%.

      My math says 70% - 38% = 32%. I'm not sure where you get 53%. Also that is the base tax rate which is before deductions and exemptions.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    126. Re:Smeagol by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Long term studies has shown the most effective way to lose weight and keep it off is to do both. One or the other will not do it. You can't just cut calories especially if you engage in starvation diets. Bodies actually reacts opposite to what you expect and begin to take steps to hold onto fat if when the body gets signals that starvation is about to begin. If you don't believe me, watch any reality show where they take the morbidly obese and try to get them to lose weight. The experts don't just cut their calories; they also start them exercising. Nutritionists and the trainers are both in agreement that both have to be done.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    127. Re:Smeagol by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 1

      Please read this: Frederic Bastiat - The Law. It's very short and I think explains my position better than I can. Everything else in this argument is nuance 38, 53, 70, 90, it's all far beyond the needs of the government to preform the duties needed of it. I live in California and the combined tax rate here is >= 53%. If you really need citation for 53 you can do the google search. But don't get hung up on that, just read the Bastiat link and tell me what you think of that.

    128. Re:Smeagol by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      The Bush tax cuts did not increase revenue, they cut revenue by over a trillion dollars. If you don't like the term "Bush", then call them "Republican". (And don't call the health care bill (insurance company tit-sucking act) "Obamacare", by your logic.)

      Did I call it Obamacare? Oh, no.. I didn't.. did I?

      In fact, in other posts I specifically named the House Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader when talking about the helathcare bill.

      In other words, my logic and usage is CONSISTENT. Thats because I am not out to deceive with bullshit.

      The Bush wars (and they were his alone, although Congress rolled over) cost trillions more

      Looks like someone here might be out to deceive tho...

      killing millions of brown people (mostly under the age of 5, continuing the Bush I and Clinton policies) and enriching the most evil plutocrats the world has ever seen.

      Yep. Confirmed. You are out to deceive.

      Surely the facts of both of these wars is enough to convince us that the decision to enter into them was a bad one. Surely we don't need to lie and exaggerate given that the actual facts are so damning all on their own.

      What is it about Bush that makes you think that you need to deceive everyone you talk to about him? Seriously.. Do you really need him to be worse in order to defend your other opinions?

      The financial parasite enabling acts ("financial bailouts") started in the Bush presidency, drafted by Bush appointees.

      The draft was a few pages and never approved as H.R. 3997 was rejected by the Democrat controlled House. The Democrat controlled Senate then revised their own H.R.1424 to include a bailout, which was then approved by the House. In short, the draft wasnt even the starting point of the bill that passed. The bill that failed began with the draft.

      Can we get a little fucking honesty here? Seriously.

      (A) The draft wasnt part of what was passed.
      (B) The Democrats had control of both House and Senate in 2008

      Both parties are complicit in treason. There isn't a bit of real difference between them when you look at their acts rather than their rhetoric.

      This is just it tho.. one party has a substantially better track record in House and Senate. Thats the entire point here. The difference between the two is extreme. If you do NOT favor one party over the other, its because you've been listening (rhetoric) instead of watching (acts.) ... and every time you mention the President with regards to Acts of Congress (like you just did) you are only demonstrating a lack of even a fundamental accuracy in your argument.

      Why you dipshits cant seem to remember that the President doesnt draft budgets or alter tax rates for more than a few seconds is beyond me. You should remember it forever because its always been true. Stop assigning Acts of Congress to the President. Seriously. Just stop. Its dishonest. Bush was bad.. we don't need to be dishonest about how bad he was.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    129. Re:Smeagol by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      The cost of documenting compliance will often cost more than the compliance itself.

      Visit aircraftspruce.com and look up their batteries. Compare the manufacturer, size, power capabilities. You'll find that the only difference is that the "certified" batteries come with a pile of paperwork that has had the Federal holy-water sprinkled on it. Now, compare the cost of "certified" and "experimental" batteries. It's just one example, but there are a LOT more on that website.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    130. Re:Smeagol by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree with you at all. But do all the exercise you want...if you're still eating like crap, you WILL stay fat. The Democrats (and a lot of the old-guard Republicans, though they won't admit it publicly) have no intention of slowing the eating, and will hide the twinkies under their bed if they can.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    131. Re:Smeagol by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't anyone ever compare the tax rate to what it was before one of the biggest wars ever was fought? And the economy was going gangbusters because Europe's manufacturing capability was destroyed. The fact that the Feds were able to tag a little extra drag on that doesn't mean that the drag somehow helped.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    132. Re:Smeagol by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      No, I am not speaking from the viewpoint of the consumer. What I am trying to say is ALL businesses would increase their prices if they knew they wouldn't lose any customers. If the government raises prices, you have to either move out of the country (expensive) or stop making as much income (which makes the debt problem worse) to avoid the increased taxes. However, businesses only raise prices if the increased cost brings in more revenue. That is to say that the marginal increase brings in more revenue than the lost customers would have brought in. What I am trying to say is that the Laffer Curve exists, and it based on good economic theory. What I argue is that we are already past the point where increasing tax rates will increase revenue. You obviously don't believe that is true. I believe if anything decreasing tax rates (or even better making the progressive taxation curve flatter) would bring in more revenue.

      And as for the spending, I guarantee at least one quarter of the federal budget is pure waste anyway. I admit, a large portion of the public employees would be laid off, which is why we need tax cuts to encourage the private sector to hire these people.

      And if you want to talk about MY budget, not only do I live within my means, I save for the future. In fact, unlike the federal government, I pay off my ENTIRE debt every month, and can afford to take in no income for an entire year without reducing my standard of living or accepting any charitable or federal handouts. I realize that I am extremely lucky to be able to do that, but I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that maybe we should turn off the debt faucet.

      If I were like the Federal government, I'd have maxed out my credit cards, I would be trying to get a new one, and would demand a raise. I wouldn't dare cut back spending on the servants in the yard of my mansion, I couldn't possibly stop buying a new car every month, and I would in no way turn down any of the millions of beggars that rang my doorbell.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    133. Re:Smeagol by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 1

      What don't you like about the tea party? Give me some specifics, not some rhetorical talking point about "racist xenophobes". What specifically makes you want to call another group of people "those idiots". I'm not a tea party member by any measure, but I'm really curious what would elicit such a vitriolic response. The only thing I've ever heard about the tea part is that they 1. want a smaller government, and 2. want lower taxes. Both of these ideas: smaller government, less taxation, is what this country is founded upon and can hardly be called "idiotic". So what is it then that evokes such hatred? This is a serious question, not an attack.

    134. Re:Smeagol by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      What don't you like about the tea party? Give me some specifics, not some rhetorical talking point about "racist xenophobes". What specifically makes you want to call another group of people "those idiots". I'm not a tea party member by any measure, but I'm really curious what would elicit such a vitriolic response. The only thing I've ever heard about the tea part is that they 1. want a smaller government, and 2. want lower taxes. Both of these ideas: smaller government, less taxation, is what this country is founded upon and can hardly be called "idiotic". So what is it then that evokes such hatred? This is a serious question, not an attack.

      Alright.
      1.) They don't understand that the government actually does stuff. Smaller government means less government services, and they don't even realize they benefit from those services because they take them for granted.
      2.) They assume that all you have to do to succeed in life is to work hard, and that anyone who needs help is leaching off of society. Social welfare programs exist because they're better than letting the poor and infirm die of starvation or easily treated diseases. And regardless of what Ayn Rand tells you, some people just get shit luck, and they don't deserve to die for it.
      3.) Though somewhat counter-intuitive, low taxes are actually very bad for the economy. The higher tax rates are, the more likely the rich are to invest their money long term in order to avoid having to pay taxes. When taxes are low, the rich tend to horde.
      4.) Hipocrasy. Michelle Bachman rails against welfare, yet receives farm subsidies. The House Tea Baggers think the best way to be fiscally responsible is to not pay our bills. Despite claiming that they desire to cut all government spending, they refuse to make meaningful cuts in military spending, else they would rally behind the Reid bill, which is almost exactly like their bill, but includes over 1 trillion more in cuts to military spending.
      5.) Corporate welfare. Most corporate welfare is done through tax incentives. Remember how GE didn't have to pay taxes last year? that's because they receive corporate welfare. Tea Baggers are against social welfare, but love corporate welfare, and call any attempt to reduce it a "tax hike".
      6.) Idealogues are stupid. This is true of the left, the right, and anyone else who believes in following an ideology blindly and without question. Ideologies are guidelines, not rules. If you can't see any circumstance in which you might have to make an exception to your general beliefs, then you can't see very far. Some on the left (i.e. Pelosi) are guilty of this as well.

      I could continue, but I think I've made my point. Also, I'd like to point out that smaller government and less taxation were not the principles on which this country was founded. Individual liberty and the right of a society to choose its government were the prime motivating factors.

    135. Re:Smeagol by jriding · · Score: 1

      You do understand the these same people who are now fighting for budget cuts before approving to raise the debt ceiling are the same people that voted and approved the spending to begin with? House votes to approve spending on items. Then the credit card that this was put onto is now coming due. So now the tea party wants to put controls on spending??? What happened to when the budget was up for voting, did they miss that part?

      --
      love the taste, hate the texture
    136. Re:Smeagol by black+soap · · Score: 1

      I still think we should have the option to vote "no" for president, congress, with enough "no" votes in an election meaning the office stays vacant for 1 term and all^wboth parties running candidates are given a strong hint to find different kinds of candidates.

      "Vote NO for President" would make a good bumper sticker, too.

    137. Re:Smeagol by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      Except, how can the Country run for 4 years with out a President? Voting "NO" for President would just mean a person under the existing one would be promoted to the role of President (either officially or de-facto). This would mean that a vote "NO" for President would instead be a Vote for the Underling for President who isn't even running.

    138. Re:Smeagol by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Automatic veto, nothing requiring the president's signature gets to happen. Any actions taken in the name of the president during the interim are only temporary and can be immediately revoked by the next person to be actually be elected to the office. Also, nobody gets to sit behind the desk in the oval office. Hopefully the Red Phone has call forwarding.

  10. Tired of stories by John+Guilt · · Score: 1

    People live on narratives, and this makes them susceptible to magic, that is the use of patterned sounds and images to alter their brain-states. People say that it's too much to expect them not to do, that they are 'only human'...this is why I'm a trans-humanist.

  11. Typical politician by rossdee · · Score: 2

    He is not aware that Hobbits are the good guys (at least in LOTR)

    1. Re:Typical politician by rbrausse · · Score: 1

      but maybe he is aware that Hobbits are the filthy guys (at least in BOTR)?

    2. Re:Typical politician by MontyApollo · · Score: 1

      It was sarcasm...

    3. Re:Typical politician by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BOTR

      Brothership of the Ring?
      Board of the Rings?

      oh, you mentioned filthy guys...

      Bumhole of the ring?! [of fire]

    4. Re:Typical politician by rbrausse · · Score: 1

      Bored of the Rings, I thought this parody is well-known enough so even the misleading "Hobbits" instead of "Boggies" is sufficient. I was wrong.

    5. Re:Typical politician by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He seems to have said exactly what he wanted to say

      A rephrasing would be -- " Do this, do that, country defaults and Obama takes the blame,GOP is saved. And tea partiers go back happy as knights in shining armor". This does not mean that "Knights in shining armor" or Hobbits are bad guys, but that the Tea Party quest is Quixotian and they mistake themselves for Hobbits or Knights while they are not.

    6. Re:Typical politician by blair1q · · Score: 1

      He is. He's mocking the TP's cynical pretense that they, too, are good guys.

      He knows full well that the TP isn't grass-roots, but is rather a wholly owned production of the Koch brothers.

    7. Re:Typical politician by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, RTFA. You'll see, he is informed. He looks at the tea party hobbits (also republicans) as small men with small minds but with good intentions.
      He views the Democrats as the evil.

  12. Oh McCain by redemtionboy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Right, the Tea Party is the "Villain" here when the plan you support only cuts $1 Billion from this years budget and still adds $7 Trillion to our debt over 10 years. Anyone that thinks republicans are being extreme here in wanting cuts doesn't realize that no one is actually cutting anything. All of their cuts come years down the road after congress has completely changed and the successors have no obligation to keep the word of the predecessors. This whole Reid vs Boener plan is one of the biggest bunch of garbage smoke and mirrors dance we've ever seen in the US. It's just people yelling about ideals that no one actually backs up.

    1. Re:Oh McCain by redemtionboy · · Score: 1

      Gawd I miss Clinton.

    2. Re:Oh McCain by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      You think you have problems. I miss Carter, an engineer who may have been the last actual truthful president we ever had. Truth, however, doesn't win elections. We preferred the happytalk mythology of a has-been B-Actor in the beginning stages of Alzheimers who was little more than a shill for the financial industry in the person of Don Regan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Regan.

      Me? Bitter?

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    3. Re:Oh McCain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).
      http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

    4. Re:Oh McCain by redemtionboy · · Score: 1

      Oh, I know, I'm just saying in contrast to Obushma. He at least left office with a (for all intensive purposes) balanced budget. He didn't pass the buck off to a successor. He actually got things balanced. He never ran the surplus people claim as he just stole the money from SS, but his last budget was balanced.

    5. Re:Oh McCain by hedwards · · Score: 0

      The Tea Party is the bad contingent here because they turned down a much bigger package over $100bn in loophole closures and I think right now the biggest deal that anybody is proposing is in the $2-3tn range, a significantly smaller deal than what they could have had with a bit of compromise.

      What qualifies the Tea Party as the villain here is how they're so focused on getting their way that they're prepared to screw over the entire country to get it. That sort of spoiled, bratty attitude has no place in politics.

    6. Re:Oh McCain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you miss the tech bubble.

    7. Re:Oh McCain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I miss the guy who caused the First Great Depression too.

    8. Re:Oh McCain by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      It would only have remained balanced if the dot com bubble(and associated governmental revenues) had stayed stable. In his 2nd to last year in office it had already started to pop.

    9. Re:Oh McCain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sort of spoiled, bratty attitude has no place in politics

      On the contrary. That sort of spoiled, bratty attitude is exactly the behaviour of the US on international matters. It screams americanism. Why should that all-american attitude not be present in politics, if it is so prevalent in all other layers of US society?

    10. Re:Oh McCain by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      The phrase is "all intents and purposes." I'm not sure what an intensive purpose actually is.

    11. Re:Oh McCain by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Nobody's saying the republicans are extreme in wanting cuts; they're extreme in wanting ZERO tax increases.

    12. Re:Oh McCain by JerkBoB · · Score: 1

      (for all intensive purposes)

      ...

      As opposed to weak purposes? I think the phrase you're looking for is "for all intents and purposes".

      I'm sure you could care less about getting it right, but irregardless, that is a rediculous goof-up.

      --
      A host is a host from coast to coast...
      Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
    13. Re:Oh McCain by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Oh, please, the US is hardly the only nation that does that. Frequently it's the Russians and Chinese that are holding things up as much as the Americans.

    14. Re:Oh McCain by redemtionboy · · Score: 1

      The choice between Boener's plan and Reid's plan is like being asked if you'd rather be shot in the thigh or the calf. I mean, I guess I'd rather be shot in the calf. but they're both still no good and will do absolutely nothing to help the country in the long run.

    15. Re:Oh McCain by redemtionboy · · Score: 1

      If you took that budget and adjusted it for inflation to today, it would still remain balanced.

    16. Re:Oh McCain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For all intensive purposes"

      I believe you mean to say:

      "For all intents and purposes"

    17. Re:Oh McCain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see your "could care less", "irregardless" and "rediculous" and raise you a "would of".

    18. Re:Oh McCain by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      You're saying they're villains, because they refuse to buy into the same smoke an mirrors the career politicians have been pushing for the last 30 yrs.

      Are you one of those strange types that enjoy being lied to?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    19. Re:Oh McCain by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      And if you knew anything about modern history, you wouldn't accept the tax increases either. Bush 1's "Read My Lip's" doctrine fell to a promise from Democrats to cut spending. Bush was left looking foolish. Reagan agreed to raise taxes after an agreement with Tip ONeal to cut spending. Reagan got credit for a huge tax hike, and spending continued unabated.

      I wouldn't give an inch until I saw some real spending cuts.

      Speaking of which (and all this talk about compromise), just what spending cuts has the Great Man-Child in the Whitehouse proposed?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    20. Re:Oh McCain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you could care less about getting it right, but irregardless, that is a rediculous goof-up.

      I'm sorry, my sarcas-o-meter is in the shop. Was this intentional use?

    21. Re:Oh McCain by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which (and all this talk about compromise), just what spending cuts has the Great Man-Child in the Whitehouse proposed?

      "Man-child"? Obama is a lot more mature than any president we've had in a while, particularly the last president who thought he was a teenager. He's offered a lot of cuts. Do you not read the news? http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html?hpid=z1

    22. Re:Oh McCain by MadMaverick9 · · Score: 1

      Whilst I agree that Clinton wasn't perfect. And he didn't leave a surplus.

      But - please take a look at the following diagram attached to this article.

      I dare to suggest that if Clinton would have stayed on, the debt ceiling would not have risen to the heights where it is now.

      In the last two years of the Clinton administration the debt ceiling did not have an upward trend. We will never know of course what could've happened.

      And - from my personal experience - Americans were much happier during the Clinton administration than they are now and have been for the last ten years.

    23. Re:Oh McCain by MadMaverick9 · · Score: 1

      the debt curve was clearly pointing downward at the end of the Clinton administration. So I would say that he did something right to make Americans happy. USDebt.png

    24. Re:Oh McCain by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Another speech. The Congressional Budge Office has already stated that they don't score speeches.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  13. In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The estate of J.R.R. Tolkien announced a copyright infringement lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal, Sen. John McCain, the Tea Party Express, CNN, and Geeknet.

  14. Darth Cheney = Sauron by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    that is all.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    1. Re:Darth Cheney = Sauron by dkleinsc · · Score: 0

      No, actually - Cheney is more like one of the Nazgul, a symptom, not the cause.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  15. Easy enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.

    And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.

    Too bad government isn't voluntary, or the national debt would be a small fraction of GDP.

    1. Re:Easy enough by Beelzebud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you hate government so much, move to Somalia. Seriously.

    2. Re:Easy enough by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      This is one of those forwards that your crazy uncle sends you all the time. Unlike "Lets not buy gas on 9/11", this one actually makes a bit of sense.
      -
      1. No Tenure / No Pension.
        A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office. [You are paid X for being in 'full session'. If you show up to 50% of sessions, you get 50% pay.]

        2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

        All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

      3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

      4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

      5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

      6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

      7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.

        The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
      -
      I like the way that Indiana does it. "The Senate convenes its annual session the first Tuesday following the first Monday of January every year. In odd numbered years the senate must meet for 61 days (not necessarily consecutive days), and must adjourn no later than April 30. This is typically called a long session. In even numbered years, when elections are held, the Senate must meet for 30 days (not necessarily consecutive days) and adjourn no later than March 15."

      There should be no such thing as a "career politician".

    3. Re:Easy enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.

      Nah, you'd just see people get a realistic idea of how gov't programs work and realize that they've got to spread funding out across services that cover the country. While that would be a good, informative thing, it would ruin many a pundit's argument that the welfare state has taken over.

      And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.

      Just looking at the ongoing debt that the average citizen carries from month-to-month, this would just lead to the gov't spending most of its time and money merely trying to collect. While I would love a "pay once a year" system personally, it wouldn't work worth a damn if most folks can't save a penny to begin with.

    4. Re:Easy enough by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2

      The price of civilization is a bitch, isn't it. I read that Pakistan is closer to the libertarian ideal than Somalia, btw.

    5. Re:Easy enough by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      There are some things that we need that you cannot trust the individuals to properly fund... Most of us doesn't really understand how expensive stuff is or why it is so expensive, and just assume that someone is ripping us off.
      If you want the government to run a lot cheaper, be prepared for a very scary government where corruption is very common. A lot of the government funded money goes into making sure that it isn't abused. Managers on top of managers all making sure each other isn't abusing their own power, or getting secrete deals making sure no mistakes are made, and workers who are afraid of making mistakes will avoid being innovative. We can cut a lot of this overhead and things will still run... However there will be groups running illegal deals and giving money to corrupt officials for service. However it will be cheaper, but not better.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Easy enough by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you hate government so much, move to Somalia. Seriously.

      If you love water so much, why not move to the middle of the Atlantic?

      The problem is not government in general. The problem is TOO MUCH government, and too much CENTRALIZED government. You have much more power influencing your local and state government than you will ever have trying to influence the federal government. This should be obvious when you consider that 48/50 US Senators don't care about you or your state.

      If we had more local control over our lives, your argument would carry much more weight. You could say, "If you hate government so much, move to Mississippi. Seriously." and you would know that the person you are talking to could truly move to Mississippi. Of course, if they are already in MS, you could tell them to keep their noses out of your state's business.

      It's all clearly explained in the 10'th Amendment. Unfortunately, all three branches of our government seem to ignore it, even though they've all taken an oath to defend it. Clearly, the 10th Amendment means SOMETHING. I mean, the founders wouldn't have put in there for nothing. It's not like they had nine amendments and said, "Let's make up one more to make in an even 10."

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    7. Re:Easy enough by medcalf · · Score: 1

      This is an utterly stupid argument. Some level of government is necessary for collective action. The small government argument is not that there should be no central government, or that society should be so fractured that each faction has its own government and laws and otherwise lives in a state of nature with the other factions. Instead, the small government argument is that our government does too much, and has so extended its authority as to be destructive of its primary end of protecting our rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Your strawman is frequently-repeated, and utterly inane.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    8. Re:Easy enough by Jawnn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.

      And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.

      No. It would not, unless, of course, you have some facts to back up this remarkable assertion. No? Didn't think so. Please stop parroting stuff you've heard parroted by various Fox News personalities. Simplistic "solutions" like this sound attractive until one spends more than ten seconds thinking about them. Then their absurdity becomes obvious. And no, I don't mean fiscal responsibility is absurd. I mean that it's absurd to suggest that the government we want can operate on a tiny fraction of it's current revenue. Not even close. So this suggestion, one that is near and dear to Tea Bagger hearts everywhere, is nothing but an absurd distraction from the critical process of meaningful reform, reform that actually has a chance of solving the very real problems we are facing. It is the folly of indulging this absurd distraction that Senator McCain refers to, and (I can't believe I'm saying this...), he's absolutely right.

    9. Re:Easy enough by medcalf · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's the other way around. If there's less money available to be handed out to political allies and cronies or to buy votes, the amount of graft and corruption generally goes down. The layers of overhead and oversight and management generally do not serve to reduce graft and corruption, despite the best of intententions, but they do increase cost by orders of magnitude. I've been working with the Federal government for years as a contractor, and I assure you that there is no way in which managers abusing their own power, or secret deals being made, or mistakes being made, or innovation being promoted could possibly be attributed to the government. Quite the opposite, in fact.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    10. Re:Easy enough by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone thinks some of government should be cut.

      No one agrees on what that some should be.

      That's the entire problem.

    11. Re:Easy enough by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 1

      The price of civilization is a bitch, isn't it. I read that Pakistan is closer to the libertarian ideal than Somalia, btw.

      No, the cost of civilization is fine. It's everything else we're paying for on top of that that's a bitch.

      --
      "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    12. Re:Easy enough by Freddybear · · Score: 1

      Hey, you need oxygen to live, right? So why don't you pump your house full of 100% oxygen?

    13. Re:Easy enough by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Isn't that ironic, that people like you leave comments like yours and get moderated up like in this case while talking about the government in USA, a country, where people came to for freedoms?

      Freedoms, as in freedoms from government.

      The reason USA became the wealthiest country in the world in 19 century was capitalist free market and industrialization, which only became possible because the US was so free to do business in because the government was so limited, so small and so insignificant.

      Today, with government being what it is, USA became what it became, and people have to leave the country to search for those very ideals that their forebears left other countries to come to USA for? I suppose it does makes sense to do that for the folks who were unfortunate enough to be born in US in this time, the time of the great government involvement and destruction of freedoms.

      I invite everybody to think about moving to freer nations, there are nations like that. On the other hand I am sure some people would rather try to save theirs, but it doesn't seem that there is a peaceful way of doing it.

    14. Re:Easy enough by DrgnDancer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Do you really think this is the case? What I see is a lot of people saying: "Don't touch my Medicare, don't touch my Social Security, don't raise my taxes, and balance the budget." Which is sort of a ridiculous position to take. Even if we're allowed to touch defense (which a lot of people don't want either) that's not enough room to maneuver. Hell a strikingly large percentage of Americans don't even seem to realize that Medicare and Social Security are tied to the federal government and the debt. Remember back during the health care debate when the nice old lady stood up to President Obama to say something along the lines of "I hate socialized medicine and don't touch my Medicare?"

      I don't think people are stupid, but much like with technology they often lack the bandwidth in their daily lives to learn as much about politics as they probably should. People want more responsible government, and smaller government until they see how it's going to affect them personally. Everyone's happy with the idea that we should cut "stuff" out of the budget, but when the "stuff" gets personalized to "My Medicare", "My defense industry job", "My road project in my town" or whatever the happy starts to wane. Then you start hearing the "Well don't cut stuff like that, cut stuff like funding for research on the affects of cow methane on the local owl population (or pick your ridiculous government project of choice)" crowd starts up; blithely ignoring that fact that a) some of that research actually is valuable, just not in obvious ways, and b) it represents a really small portion of the federal budget.

      We have among the lowest taxes in the developed world in this country, and we have the infrastructure to prove it. I'm not saying we should move to the European model of 40% taxes (yes, I pulled this number out of my butt, your European taxes may be higher or lower than this figure), but we can easily balance the budget with some prudent and moderate cuts to spending, along with very modest tax increases to say, where they were just 10 years ago. I know that real "small government" people like you probably understand the cuts that would be needed for true "small government", I'm not saying that you don't full understand your position. I'm saying that if most people truly understood what it meant to cut government this way, far fewer of them would support the idea.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    15. Re:Easy enough by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Oxygen toxicity shouldn't be a problem until the partial pressure of oxygen exceeds 1.4 atm. Flash point of common materials becomes a problem much sooner.

    16. Re:Easy enough by Jiro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... the result being that Congressmen will be people who either are independently wealthy, or are doing backdoor deals which will get them lots of pay, benefits, and retirement money.

      Of course that happens anyway, but you really don't want to encourage it even more.

    17. Re:Easy enough by digitalsolo · · Score: 1

      There is a fundamental flaw with this concept.

      It's reasonable and makes sense. There will be none of that here.

      --
      Just another ignorant American.
    18. Re:Easy enough by IonOtter · · Score: 1

      The reason USA became the wealthiest country in the world in 19 century...

      Yeaaaaah, that turned out well, didn't it.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    19. Re:Easy enough by black+soap · · Score: 1

      8. Congress and staff are subject to drug tests, just like all other federal employees.

    20. Re:Easy enough by black+soap · · Score: 2

      Maybe we are addressing it wrong. If we don't all agree (for some large fraction of "all") that something should be part of the government, maybe it shouldn't be part of the government.

    21. Re:Easy enough by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Great Depression is your answer to what? Because Great Depression was created by the Fed, who monetized UK debt (yeah, English debt). Fed was printing obscene amounts of greenbacks and buying UK debt to prevent UK from defaulting (sort of like Germany is doing with Greece).

      The 1921 saw a depression that had higher unemployment than what is observed today, but by 1923 that depression was over. The difference? Government spending was cut by 70%.

      1925 US Fed started monetizing UK debt, this inflated the agriculture bubble, which burst by 1929, similar to what Fed was doing starting with Greenspan and Clinton, when they set discount rate at 1%, and later Bernanke and Bush, who set the discount rate at 0% and since gov't was mandating that Freddie/Fannie and FHA subsidize 30% of substandard mortgages by 1992 and 50% of them by 1999 and 65% of them by 2006, it's not a surprise that the bubble that burst 3 years ago was in housing and not in agriculture.

      The Great Depression started because the burst of the agriculture bubble inflated by the Fed was actively fought against by government bail outs and stimulus. I provided a time-line earlier on this topic, just like the bail outs and stimulus printed and given out by Congress and the Fed in 2008 and ever since. In 1929 this started the Great Depression. I am expecting the Greatest Depression this time around, because this time around USA doesn't have the savings and manufacturing (production capacity), that US of the twenties had and today USA is the biggest debtor nation with no savings and no understanding of economics on all levels and a enormous, all encompassing government, who completely abolished the idea of freedom by its mere existence.

      So you are going to make smart ass comments, maybe you should try and understand the subject first.

    22. Re:Easy enough by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Just curious ... How did you infer hatred in the above post?

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    23. Re:Easy enough by Plekto · · Score: 2

      And so it comes full circle.

      People originally wanted to escape the corruption, massive taxes, distant and uncaring government, and miles of paperwork and red tape that existed in Europe. We have become that which we fought so hard against.

      Except that there is no place to escape to any more. I'm not trying to be fatalistic, so much as if there was a solution that easy, half of the people in the World would be trying to take advantage of it as well. So we have to start cleaning it up. And grabbing back power from the Federal Governemt and giving it back to the states is the only rational course.

      Either that, or we have states simply leave and create their own nations in a few decades. Texas keeps talking about how they made a mistake in joining the U.S. And, while it used to be mostly crackpots talking about it, it's suddenly maybe not such a bad idea at this point. You actually hear normal people talking about it now. It's kind of scary that it's gotten that bad.

    24. Re:Easy enough by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Start giving law enforcement bonuses for every politician they throw in prison.
      That approach works so well in the private sector I'm sure that there could be no negative effects if we include it in law enforcement.

    25. Re:Easy enough by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Well, there are no places that are as idealistic as what USA used to be in 19 century, but there are places that do have more economic freedoms. Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland from the more developed nations, that's my choice.

      Of-course while everybody is completely bearish on Somalia and other African nations, I actually think in the long run it pays to go counter-trend, so I am looking to invest there but it's not easy for an outsider.

    26. Re:Easy enough by Phreakiture · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not convinced that it is the quantity of government, but rather its specific content. The government is doing things that it should not, and not doing things that it should. Reducing the size of government might reduce the number of things it is doing that it should not, but I assure you the other side of this imbalance will only get worse, because the government will likely also stop doing several things that it should be doing.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    27. Re:Easy enough by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      So you're calling him an elf?

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    28. Re:Easy enough by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2

      2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

      They've been doing this since the 80's. Not sure if I see the point in having Congressmen who paid into the previous system get switched at this late date; it disrupts predictability (people planned for their retirement according to assumptions that you'd now retroactively upset), and many of them are probably retired from Congress already, so it's not as though this can be used to pressure them into doing anything to help everyone who pays into Social Security out of self interest.

      5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

      Already done in the big health care reform last year. Of course, I'd be happy to see more substantial reforms along the lines of real universal health care.

      6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

      Basically already true.

      7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.

      So... what are you suggesting happens to a Congressman who took out a mortgage, or leased a car, or borrowed money for a student loan? Does he get a windfall, or does he lose everything? In what universe is this possibly a good idea?

      Your chain email makes no sense, everyone who read it is now dumber for having done so, I award you no points, and Snopes rated it as 'mostly false.'

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    29. Re:Easy enough by NevarMore · · Score: 1
    30. Re:Easy enough by Vancorps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What are you basing this on? In the 19th century the USA wasn't a super power and wasn't doing all that well with pretty much slave labor camps otherwise known as textile mills just to get started. In the 20th century we became a super power due to massive infrastructure investments giving us our highway system and DARPA helped us build the Internet as we know it today. Sorry, government played a huge part in all of that. Everything from establishing minimal wage to setting fire codes help improve the way of life of every American and not just the robber barrens of the 19th century.

      I don't see anyone leaving this country because they feel the government is too oppressive, if they did I'm not sure where they would go since Europe has a lot of the same policies, Asia is even tighter on freedom of expression and Africa is filled with strike. I guess that leaves Australia? While full of nice people and hot aussie chicks, they too have been spying on their citizens and doing the same things as our government including failed regulation leading to a massive oil spill off of their shores. So I guess that leaves Antarctica? Of course there are our dear friends to the north but Canada has its problems too, the grass is always greener on the other side. So I guess I have trouble picturing what a freer nation is. There aren't many nations out there where you will pay less in taxes, usually twice as much and don't forget the artificially low cost of gas here.

    31. Re:Easy enough by Creepy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The grandparent was referring to Somalia being in what we in the US consider a state of anarchy, but in fact most of the country has fallen under traditional tribal leadership and obeys tribal law for their various tribes and the central government has dissolved. No tribal leader has the influence or power to take control of the central government, so there is no central government, which has led to some areas being in a state of lawlessness. In some ways that is not necessarily a bad thing, because depending on who is in power, it could be a very oppressive dictatorship (think Taliban).

      As for the 10th amendment, it is and pretty much always has been filigree with little substance - States are considered subordinate to federal law in all cases, which is understandable in some ways - for example, the South could potentially still have slavery if it weren't for the government stepping in. Before you argue that slaves are human and should therefore have rights under the constitution, remember that up until the end of the civil war slaves were considered more like an animal than a human (by the South).

    32. Re:Easy enough by operagost · · Score: 1

      That's easier to figure out. When government is small, it is more transparent.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    33. Re:Easy enough by JordanL · · Score: 0

      You got rated Insightful, and the AC you replied to got rated Troll.

      Fuck Slashdot. People here are no longer interested in thinking. You've all fallen into the easy process of being complete fuck-wits. (Mod this shit down too, see if I give a fuck about what the parrots think about this post.)

    34. Re:Easy enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      48/50 US Senators don't care about you or your state

      There are 100 US Senators, not 50. Each state gets 2.

    35. Re:Easy enough by operagost · · Score: 1

      The salary is $174,000.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    36. Re:Easy enough by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Damn Democracy....

      Let's really go for representation. Why not get rid of the election of representatives. *gasp* What you say. Anti-democratic. You betcha!

      Democracy is 51% telling the other 49% what to do, a.k.a. two wolves and a sheep deciding who will be dinner. Liberty being a well-armed sheep. Anyways...

      Instead of voting, we draft people to Congress. Similar to jury-duty. For 2 years you find yourself serving the people for a reasonable stipend. 2x avg salary should suffice.

      Then the people elect 100 representatives to server a second term in the Senate. These do not make laws. Rather they rescind laws by a 1/3 vote (as proposed by Heinlein).

      Lastly, we elect one Senator to serve a 3rd term as President.

      While it may not be direct democracy. As I stated, I am not convinced of the merits of democracy. I am however, convinced of the merits of representation. And this system would do so. While at the same time ending most of the political machines. A single term, then you're fired or retained for Senate. No need to sell your soul for years before obtaining a national seat. And suddenly, Congress would go from being 90% lawyers to having a diversity of plumbers, teachers, engineers, computer programmers, CEOs, etc, etc.

      It would be a significant improvement over our current system IMHO.

    37. Re:Easy enough by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Because the percentage in the air is enough. Because your house would be a firebomb waiting to go off. Because it would cost a bunch of money for an unnecessary expense. Because it would kill you.

      Is that good enough or do you need some more?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    38. Re:Easy enough by operagost · · Score: 1

      Thanks for helping maintain the high percentage of straw man arguments here on Slashdot.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    39. Re:Easy enough by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

      Flash point is not the problem. LEL/UEL and autoignition temperature are the problems.

      In an oxygen-rich environment, the LEL is lower, the UEL is higher, and the autoignition temperature is lower. The flash point does not change.

      Flash point is the temperature at which a flammable liquid (at STP) releases a flammable vapor (Wikipedia says "the lowest temperature at which [a volatile liquid] can vaporize to form an ignitable mixture in air").

      Now, for a short quiz to verify that you understand the concept of flash point: What is the flash point of propane?

    40. Re:Easy enough by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, the argument that the current federal government should be cut to 1% of its current size amounts to exactly that - no federal government. Heck, it wouldn't even be able to fund the various military branches at that level. Heck, $40 Billion won't even fund NASA and the Department of Justice. You'll fund a bit of administration, a couple of foreign embassies and a small army that is less than 1/10 of what it is now (just going by budget figures). Furthermore, lack of a central authority will result in exactly what you think won't happen: every faction with its own government and laws and living in a state of nature with the other factions. Or do you really think that Americans from Maine to California will pull together on all topics, just because their American? They won't even care about the same foreign issues.

      The only utterly stupid argument is that you can have a unified country that is a super power in the world without a central government that can provide a single direction for business and foreign affairs.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    41. Re:Easy enough by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please don't mention Switzerland. Despite living there, you have no clue what "economic freedoms" means. The only economic freedom you care about is the one to reduce the taxes you pay.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    42. Re:Easy enough by andymadigan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The "lowest taxes in the developed world" isn't quite true when you take into account state and local taxes.

      However, I would say that the real problems are in the "My road project in my town" group. While the states have broad powers to tax, for some reason the argument has stuck that only the federal government can come up with the money for certain things. The federal government should not be funding the states, and any such funding should be cut. The states should administer their own taxes. When the states have more power, state elections will be even more contested, and better representation will result.

      Social Security should probably be in the federal realm, since plenty of people move after retiring (and thus there's an imbalance of retirees). Medicare/Medicaid is already 50% funded by the states. If individual states really need help with Medicare costs then we can implement a "transfer" similar to the system used in Canada.

      Defense spending certainly does need to be cut. Britain ruled half the world with 125,000 troops. We've got 1.4 million active troops. However, the time would be best spent finding a few large defense projects that can be cut for quick savings, and leaving the rest to an independent committee.

      The Social Security wage base should be removed, so that it applies to all wages, not just the first $100K.

      My bet is that if all that was done, overall taxes would still go up, but federal taxes might actually go down. Some laws would also change, without the threat of losing federal funding, states might be less willing to implement federal programs (e.g. drinking age at 21, abstinence-only education, etc.)

      Federal road tax shouldn't exist either. There are very few federal roads, even the interstates are maintained by the states. They can fund that themselves.

      Direct Payment and Grants to the states total $2 trillion. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_by_state.php?year=2010&chart=Z0&units=b&rank=t

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    43. Re:Easy enough by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      1 correction:

      I shouldn't have included direct payments, as that probably includes Social Security.

      The number should be $500 billion (grants) in 2008, I'm sure that's higher now.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    44. Re:Easy enough by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, that is what happens when you kill the government, isn't it? Reverting to tribalism or feudalism. The secret hope of right-leaning anarchists is simply that they would come out on top and fill the local warlord position. The secret hope of left-leaning anarchists, on the other hand, is so utopic, that you gotta view Marx as a stone-cold realist in comparison.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    45. Re:Easy enough by Plekto · · Score: 2

      Wow. You are so off-base with reality.

      Social Security has long ago been reduced to a line on paper. Our Government currently cooks the books and manipulates the fund to make it appear as if it's not broke. Also, Social Security was never envisioned by our Founding Fathers, and knowing their disdain for Rome and its history of corruption, I doubt if they would have ever have voted for it. (the fall of Rome can be attributed to the same pattern of social and military over-spending and lack of leadership)

      The largest single deduction on my paycheck is for Social Security. What really happens is "You can buy into another retirement plan with that's left after The Government takes its pound of flesh" (and then wastes it, naturally)

      The issue isn't any of that stuff that you posted. It's that Goverment Pensions, Social Security, Medicare, and Interest on the Debt account for almost 100% of our current budget. That leaves only 25 billion (less than 1.5%!) for our entire defense department, military, and, well, literally thousands and thousands of programs and agencies. Until we get rid of these four items, we're broke. We could cut the military to $0. Kill off every single social spending program. Get rid of student aid. Stop patrolling our borders. Stop foreign aid. Close down NASA. None of it would make any more difference than spitting on a bonfire. Those four items alone are literally killing our nation, and until we get rid of them entirely, we are doomed.

      Now do the "slashdot geek" thing and head over to www.debtclock.org and add up the numbers yourself. Everyone should have that site bookmarked, since it's not only useful by itself, but it also helps with arguments and getting your statistics correct when you post here.

    46. Re:Easy enough by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not exactly true. The only "economic freedom" roman is caring about, judging by his posting history, is the freedom to shit on his fellow man from a high perch, unchecked and unchallenged.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    47. Re:Easy enough by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reason USA became the wealthiest country in the world in 19 century was capitalist free market and industrialization, which only became possible because the US was so free to do business in because the government was so limited, so small and so insignificant.

      My, you are persistent. No, the reason that the US became the wealthiest country in the world is that it was able to harness enormous amounts of cheap resources without much interference by neighboring countries nor effective resistance by the native populations. The resources of the Western US (and various marine bodies) untapped (except by the locals who were rather quickly marginalized).

      This behavior also had a number of deleterious effects - raping of resources, the environment (would you want to live in a 19th century urban environment?) and impressive social inequities.

      So, government did step in and attempt to mitigate the hellbent robber baron / beggar they neighbor system. It was partially successful. Yes, we have problems that stem from going the other way - to much regulation, too much governmental control. But your slavish devotion to an anachronistic and time limited system (not much of the West available for plunder at bargain prices) suggests you really haven't looked at some of the finer points in American history.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    48. Re:Easy enough by Amouth · · Score: 0

      technically 96/100 is the same as 48/50 as 24/25.

      fractions are fun.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    49. Re:Easy enough by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      has fallen under traditional tribal leadership and obeys tribal law for their various tribes and the central government has dissolved.

      The way I read Somalia's history, they have never moved out of tribal law. When the supposed Somali government's power was at it's peak, there were huge areas of Somalia that they didn't control. No governmental body has ever really ruled in that land. At best, they ruled Mogadishu and surrounding areas, and made a show of force in outlying areas. At worst, the capital experiences running gun battles round the clock.

      England left Somalia because they were ungovernable nomads. Nothing has ever changed, that I am aware of.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    50. Re:Easy enough by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. People will bitch and moan about the government all day but then they get to drive to work on paved roads with traffic moderation and other amenities. There are several superfund sites in my state left over by the mining industry when it was policing itsself for years and years. Now who has to clean the mercury out of the aquifer so these ignorant a-holes can drink clean water? It isn't the company that created the mess I can tell you that for sure and it isn't the state government. The Federal government does have a very needed purpose in the lives of the people and anyone that doesn't think so is completely ignorant. I'm not saying everything they do is great, but there are some things that the market simply wouldn't care to do even if they had the opportuninty to do so. Safe food? Government. Safe housing? Government. Safe infrastructure? Government. Clean air and Water? Government. State government can only do so much and a lot of what it can do is pretty ineffectual when you consider the broader implications of interstate commerce.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    51. Re:Easy enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      8. Congress and staff are subject to drug tests, just like all other federal employees.

      ...and must share whatever it is they've been smoking.

    52. Re:Easy enough by soloport · · Score: 1

      Really? Do I really need to enumerate for you the virtually endless list of hyper-corrupt small governments? Oh. I get it. You're just trolling. Cool. (No one could be that full of BS.)

    53. Re:Easy enough by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      What are you basing this on? In the 19th century the USA wasn't a super power and wasn't doing all that well with pretty much slave labor camps otherwise known as textile mills just to get started.

      It appears that roman_mir's idea of utopia is based on the few robber barons of the 19th (and early 20th) century who managed to amass great fortunes by running rampant over man and beast. It's a narrow reading of a small portion of history.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    54. Re:Easy enough by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2

      technically 96/100 is the same as 48/50 as 24/25.

      fractions are fun.

      Um, actually it's 98/100, so the fraction you're looking for is 49/50.

    55. Re:Easy enough by nqz · · Score: 1

      technically 96/100 is the same as 48/50 as 24/25.

      fractions are fun.

      However, 96/100 != 98/100.

    56. Re:Easy enough by Freddybear · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's plenty, thank you. I think you get my analogy just fine.

    57. Re:Easy enough by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      What are you basing this on?

      USA should never have become a 'superpower', building empires is against its original ideals, that was distrustful of empire needs for standing armies, heavy taxes, large bureaucracies, and centralized decision making.

      USA however did manage to pay out all of its debts in 19 century and to become the world's largest creditor nation. It took on all sorts of loans during the century but US used the loans to build up production capacity, to increase its infrastructure and to start manufacturing that allowed it to repay the debts and become the largest ever creditor nation. Today, on the other hand, USA is the largest debtor nation not only in the modern world, but in history of the human civilization.

      with pretty much slave labor camps otherwise known as textile mills just to get started

      - people were coming to USA for more freedoms, many even entered serfdom to come to USA and were serfs for a few years before becoming free people, but this practice ended in 19 century because it became unfeasible, serfs became more expensive than hiring help.

      In the 20th century we became a super power due to massive infrastructure investments giving us our highway system

      - if you think so, you'll be totally astonished at what I wrote on this topic. The highway system built as a public works project became a catastrophe for USA, in many senses, starting from the economics of it, and destruction of viable alternatives in rail and air transport and subsidies to the auto-industry and becoming completely dependent on oil and building impossible to maintain without subsidies infrastructure, to the major cause of States losing their freedoms and sovereignty to the federal government, which usurped power and is destroying every freedom of every US citizen with this Trojan Horse of subsidized highway infrastructure.

      DARPA helped us build the Internet as we know it today

      - DARPA took an off the shelf idea of packet switching from telcos and POTS and applied it to already existing computer networks (yes, computers and computer LANs existed prior to TCP/IP, imagine that?!) Sure, DARPA did some good, but if US government was limited to research in sciences there wouldn't have been any economic disasters that the government has caused and is causing now, we wouldn't be talking about loss of freedoms in US, so that's a red herring.

      from establishing minimal wage

      - which should not exist. With millions out of work, with all sorts of regulations that punish employers for employing people in USA and taxing and regulating and inflating and subsidizing monopolies, why is there a surprise US is in such shit in terms of economy? Minimum wage is a terrible idea, that caused loss of many jobs and cause rise in tuition fees, as people were no longer hired right after school, because they weren't worth paying over minimum wage, but paying them that didn't make economic sense, all while this minimum wage law destroyed apprenticeships.

      setting fire codes

      - none of federal government's business.

      I don't see anyone leaving this country because they feel the government is too oppressive

      - Jim Rogers? I left because of lack of economic freedoms and observing the fall of USA to become the next USSR, and as I was born in USSR I can't imagine living in a new one.

      usually twice as much and don't forget the artificially low cost of gas here.

      - my corporation in Canada only paid 18% taxes.

      In Cyprus it's now paying less than 10%.

      As to gas prices - well obviously, USA highway subsidies are closely tied to USA energy policy and the wars on 'terror', which ensure lower gas prices. Empires need their cheap gas, don't they?

    58. Re:Easy enough by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      That's assuming an equal cut. Stating that we need to reduce Federal government and including the caveats of making it do what it should be doing and stopping it from doing what it should not be doing, means that we'll be getting rid of entitlements, putting infrastructure and other projects at the State level, and leaving the defense of the country (and world) and how to pay for that at the Federal level. Certainly, we can't go back to the late 1700's and early 1800's where we figured out some things really do need to be centralized. But there are things that we can repeal that have been around since the late 1800s that should not have been at the Federal level to begin with.

    59. Re:Easy enough by Lord+Dreamshaper · · Score: 1

      the point should be that 98/100 senators don't care about your state which != 48/50...fractions are even more fun when used correctly...

      --
      When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson
    60. Re:Easy enough by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      If you don't' see a way to perform a peaceful revolution in the United States, then you are advocating anarchy, in my opinion. The peaceful transfer of power has been a staple of the government and rights of US citizens. We are fortunate that when we cast our vote, we should not have fear of retribution for our vote (freed black panthers situation is noted). The winners do not round up the losers and take them out back to never be seen again.

      If things are not going your way, convince enough people to vote the way you want. (Not an easy thing, certainly.)

    61. Re:Easy enough by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      My, you are persistent

      - well, I am not your president, so what do you care?

      raping of resources

      - I don't see raping, I see people developing their economy. Everything else is secondary to that until the point is reached, where there is enough wealth to start caring about the environment. Just ask the people in the poorest nations what is the most important thing - environment or food? Only wealthy economies with large amounts of wealth and production can start caring about anything beyond food and minimum comforts.

      impressive social inequities

      - that's what free market capitalism was fixing, as the people were poor before free market capitalism of USA, but they became wealthy in a wealthy economy as US freedoms allowed them to become wealthy, not due to anything that any government could do, as government does not create wealth.

    62. Re:Easy enough by smelch · · Score: 1

      I know in the past I've argued with you over politics, but damn if you don't make a lot of sense in this story. It's a damned shame that your extremely interesting and informative posts are sitting at +1, when inane comments with nothing but strawmen are sitting at +4.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    63. Re:Easy enough by smelch · · Score: 1

      If Texas got serious about secession, I would move there. I'm already half considering it as it is.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    64. Re:Easy enough by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      No, not just taxes. It's about regulations of business, labor laws, minimum wage laws, everything that government does that I am against and I will always vote against all of it with my vote and with my money and with my feet.

      Your comments as always concentrate on the messenger and have nothing to do with the message.

    65. Re:Easy enough by smelch · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think Congressmen make more than the average salary. Independently wealthy would have to take a pay cut to get in there, most average people would get a pay raise.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    66. Re:Easy enough by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      I'm not convinced that it is the quantity of government, but rather its specific content. The government is doing things that it should not, and not doing things that it should. Reducing the size of government might reduce the number of things it is doing that it should not, but I assure you the other side of this imbalance will only get worse, because the government will likely also stop doing several things that it should be doing.

      Well put! The programs that are Constitutional should not be slashed. The programs that are not Constitutional need to be eliminated.

      Government has a purpose. Our government's purpose is spelled out plainly in the Constitution. Anything beyond that violates the Constitution per the 10th Amendment. However, I do believe that the government should not be limited to what's currently in the Constitution, but if it needs to do more, there is an amendment process that will allow for whatever expanded powers the federal government needs.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    67. Re:Easy enough by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      +1? No no, you should visit this thread tomorrow. The total moderation of my comments shouldn't exceed -5 (that's with a minus.)

    68. Re:Easy enough by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      There are very few federal roads, even the interstates are maintained by the states. They can fund that themselves.

      Part of the goal for the Interstate Highway System was to support land transportation for national defense. National defense shouldn't be something farmed out to the states.

    69. Re:Easy enough by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      It's not so much that people believe only the Federal Government can come up with the money for certain things as it is a subtle redistribution of wealth to make sure that low population states don't turn into bankrupt republics. Sure, if federal grants went away and the states had to fend for themselves, places like New York or California would just up the state tax rate by a few percent (after much political wrangling, no doubt) and be fine. Most people in those states would probably see little or no difference in their overall (state and federal combined) tax burdens, some might even see it lower. Places like Montana and Alaska would have a serious problem. They simply don't have the tax base to recover the lost revenue. At least not without substantial increases in state tax rates. By percentage they may not eat up as much of the federal money as more populous states, but per capita they get a level of support from the rest of us.

      The other issue I see with states taking on more of the burden (as a center-left resident of a very red state) is that in general Republican controlled states don't seem interested in taking up the ball of government service and running with it. They're constantly trying to trim and reduce state budgets too. For the Republicans that I deal with on a day to day basis, it's not a question of states rights, it's a question of cutting benefits and taxes all around, at every level. If the federal government stopped providing highway funds, Alabama would not say "Oh, we should raise state taxes by a mil so we can recover those funds and keep the roads up". They'd say, "well, the highways are going to suck more now".

      All-in-all I'd say that your ideas have more merit than many small government activists and you've given thought to a range of solutions much more reasonable than the usual "Hack budget till it bleeds" attempts I see posted here. To carry those idea through would require a significant level of state and federal cooperation as services were transferred and budgets adjusted to the new reality. I question if that could happen.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    70. Re:Easy enough by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      How is your comment not 'shitting on the fellow man', and mine are somehow?

      While in this thread I left comments based on ideas, some others left comments based on persona. I like the doublespeak that you are engaged in, carry on.

    71. Re:Easy enough by Amouth · · Score: 1

      good catch.. me not thinking - no coffee today.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    72. Re:Easy enough by ArcherB · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Exactly. People will bitch and moan about the government all day but then they get to drive to work on paved roads with traffic moderation and other amenities.

      The Interstate Highway System was created to move military equipment around. It serves a military function and should be funded through the military. The fact that civilians may use it daily is an added perk. All other roads should be purely state funded. That would cut our federal highway budget by a substantial amount. Of course, states would have to raise taxes to pay for the building and maintenance of state highways, so it would end up being a wash to the taxpayer. The difference is that my tax dollars would not be going to build a bridge in Minnesota and Michiganders would not be paying for the road that takes me to work. I would actually have more control over which roads are placed where and if my state doesn't think roads are worth maintaining, than we can use the tax dollars saved to repair our cars. It's OUR CHOICE!

      There are several superfund sites in my state left over by the mining industry when it was policing itsself for years and years. Now who has to clean the mercury out of the aquifer so these ignorant a-holes can drink clean water? It isn't the company that created the mess I can tell you that for sure and it isn't the state government.

      Actually, it is the state government. The state should have taxed the mine enough money to clean up the site. After the site was cleaned up, any left over money should have gone back to the company that owns the mine. This tax refund would encourage the company to be good stewards to begin with. If the state didn't tax that mine to begin with... well that's the state's problem. I'll bet they'll tax it next time! Either way, if I never used coal from a mine in West Virginia, my tax dollars shouldn't be used to pay for the cleanup of a WV coal mine. If I did use that coal, the price would have been inflated to pay the taxes used for the cleanup. Remember, companies don't pay taxes; customers do.

      The Federal government does have a very needed purpose in the lives of the people and anyone that doesn't think so is completely ignorant.

      I don't live in Boston. Billions of federal tax dollars went for the "Big Dig" there. How is the "Big Dig" a "very needed purpose" in my life? I've never seen it. I'll never drive through it. Why did I help pay for it? Why can't Boston, or the state of Massachusetts pay for that? They are the ones benefiting from it. The state government can do a better job of filling those "very needed purposes" to the people of that state than the federal government can.

      I'm not saying everything they do is great, but there are some things that the market simply wouldn't care to do even if they had the opportuninty to do so.

      Not the market. State and local government. If the product crosses state lines, then the feds get involved.

      Safe food? Government. Safe housing? Government. Safe infrastructure? Government. Clean air and Water? Government. State government can only do so much and a lot of what it can do is pretty ineffectual when you consider the broader implications of interstate commerce.

      You said the magic words, "interstate commerce". If food crosses state lines, it falls under federal regulation. But if I want to sell my world famous tomato sauce at a local farmer's market, the feds should stay out of it. You could say the same for air and water to a lesser extent as both tend to cross state lines. Although, if a city gets its water from a lake, I don't see how the feds could get involved. If a state pollutes a river that flows into another state, that other state should sue the state or company that produces the pollution in federal courts. If pollution from a power plant pollutes another state, the polluted state should sue. However, they would need to prove t

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    73. Re:Easy enough by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      The grandparent was referring to Somalia being in what we in the US consider a state of anarchy, but in fact most of the country has fallen under traditional tribal leadership and obeys tribal law for their various tribes and the central government has dissolved. No tribal leader has the influence or power to take control of the central government, so there is no central government, which has led to some areas being in a state of lawlessness. In some ways that is not necessarily a bad thing, because depending on who is in power, it could be a very oppressive dictatorship (think Taliban).

      As for the 10th amendment, it is and pretty much always has been filigree with little substance - States are considered subordinate to federal law in all cases, which is understandable in some ways - for example, the South could potentially still have slavery if it weren't for the government stepping in. Before you argue that slaves are human and should therefore have rights under the constitution, remember that up until the end of the civil war slaves were considered more like an animal than a human (by the South).

      Slavery is banned by the Constitution so the feds could get involved.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    74. Re:Easy enough by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      48/50 US Senators don't care about you or your state

      There are 100 US Senators, not 50. Each state gets 2.

      Correct, I meant 49/50. I guess I'll have to forgive that 57 states comment.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    75. Re:Easy enough by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Your ideas are based on the one single ideology to leave the unfortunate to rot in the streets - and to gleefully watch over it. You made that abundantly clear in hundreds of posts. Me, I am just insulting you. I know what you are. You have no ideas worth discussing, because your frame of mind is lightyears outside of civilization. Equating me insulting you with you wishing to cancel the social contract is just one more example for how far you are disconnected from humanity.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    76. Re:Easy enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the federal government restricted its activities to those areas where the Constitution explicitly grants it authority, rather than the current "If the Constitution doesn't say we can't, then we can, and if we can build a chain of reasoning, however tortured, to either weasel something into an enumerated authority or weasel around a specific prohibition, we can anyway" that resulted in things like Wickard v. Filburn and being required by law to obtain health insurance, the federal goverment would be significantly smaller, considerably less intrusive, and require enormously fewer tax revenues.

    77. Re:Easy enough by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You can't insult me with your comments, you only insult me with your presence, that I have to bear it in this world.

    78. Re:Easy enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you love water so much, why not move to the middle of the Atlantic?

      What? Is that supposed to be an argument, or are you just going for stupid?

    79. Re:Easy enough by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that summarizes it, doesn't it? The mere presence of anyone dissenting from you, it hurts, no? Your callousness, your open disregard for anyone else, your barely concealed hatred for anyone that does not operate on your "give me mine, fuck yours!" attitude. As long as some of us are around that are not like you, you are constantly reminded that your attitude is sociopathic. And that burns in that small remainder of your consciousness. It burns, no? But be at peace, if you get yours, we will finally die in the gutters and you'll have your sociopath utopia - until someone stronger comes around and shits on you. Savor the taste, then, and think of us.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    80. Re:Easy enough by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I read that Pakistan is closer to the libertarian ideal than Somalia, btw.

      Yeah, because what Libertarians advocate for is a power-hungry theocracy which executes rape victims.

      You're either trolling, or you're seriously out of touch with reality.

    81. Re:Easy enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is? Do you know what your local city council does all the time?

    82. Re:Easy enough by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      It's not about dissent, it's about stupidity. What is intolerable is stupidity.

      As to 'give me mine, fuck yours' - nonsense, I earn mine, earn yours. There is nothing burning anywhere in my conscious, it's clear. It's your conscious that should be burning, as you want the world to descend into poverty through government oppression.

    83. Re:Easy enough by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      I agree with ArcherB; when people complain government is too big, immediately people jump into Washington Monument Syndrome and claim that shrinking government will take away the really valuable things that most people want... but more than that, it conflates different kinds of tax revenues and where and how they are collected and what they are used for.

      If you take a look at the huge debate going on in Washington right now, you don't hear people complaining about gasoline taxes - which is what is supposed to be used for transportation infrastructure. In fact, despite the very high cost of gasoline (from a U.S. perspective), I don't hear people complaining about the fact that the government is making more revenue off a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies.

      One of the reasons we can't have honest political discourse in this country is the knee jerk reactions to some people's stances:

      too much government != no government

      lower taxes != no taxes

      government spends too much != no fire departments, no schools, no police, no roads, no nothing!

      What he's saying is most taxes should be local. If that means the state government keeps track of the mining industry, so be it. Most local roads and transportation infrastructure should be done at the local level (except perhaps interstates and agencies like the FAA). There were half a dozen stimulus projects making major upgrades to intersections in my town... the upgrades (what's finished, anyway) are awesome... but here's the rub: I would have paid an extra $0.02/gallon in local taxes and not burdened people in Alaska and Hawaii with millions of dollars in road upgrades done in my little town in GA. Why should someone in CA care about fixing up a park in Lilburn, GA? If the people in Lilburn, GA want to fix it up, they should fix it up... it's really just that simple.

      That's the kind of spending people complain about - 95% of governance should be at the local (state and below) level in times of peace (which we, more or less, are, despite troop deployments). If they'd stuck by the constitution and by the 10th amendment, the federal government wouldn't be in the mess it's in now, and all the while they could still be protecting you and me from the big businesses that don't "play fair." Win-win.

      It's not even that we'd necessarily be paying less taxes... just paying more to the cities and states and less to the federal government. I have 1/330 millionth voice in the federal government. I have a 1/10 millionth voice in GA... I have a 1/790 thousandth voice in Gwinnett County, and I have a 1/12 thousandth voice in Lilburn, GA. THAT'S why governance should come more from the local levels.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    84. Re:Easy enough by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1

      The 10th has been effectively trumped by the Interstate Commerce Clause. Which is probably the single largest reorienting of power in the country's history. If anyone realized what was happening at the time, it should have started a revolution.

      I wonder if that was the intent of using the ICC, or if that's just how it has turned out; but the federal consolidation of power is absolutely been garnered by the expansion of that power beyond it's clear intent.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    85. Re:Easy enough by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      Even if the practical stumbling blocks DrgnDancer pointed out could be overcome, there is still a very large political barrier. The highway system is a perfect example. You ever wonder why the drinking age in every single state is 21? B/c the Federal government came in years ago and said "You want funds for your highways? Drinking age needs to be 21". Giving states money is how the Federal government affects policies that they technically have no say in. They have no desire to reduce that influence by passing some of the purse strings back to the stats.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    86. Re:Easy enough by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

      No. It would not, unless, of course, you have some facts to back up this remarkable assertion.

      Well, I know that the total of federal, state, and local governmental spending was 6.9% of GDP around 1900. I also know that projections for this year are for that to be 40%. So, if one assumes that what has happened in the past isn't impossible, then one should conclude that government could be much smaller. Possibly the GP's claim of 1/10 is an exaggeration, but if one compares the 1/10 claim to your "can [not] operate on a tiny fraction of it's current revenue. Not even close" then I think I would have to side with the 1/10. After all, 6.9% is one-sixth of 40%.

      No? Didn't think so.

      I just wanted to mention this in order to say that I find it extremely irritating. By saying this you've claimed that it is absolutely certain that no evidence could possibly be presented to support the assertion. I have an image in mind of a dog scurrying away with its tail between its legs. It's as though you want to assert your dominance so completely that you prohibit anyone from gainsaying you. Well, I find it irritating.

      I mean that it's absurd to suggest that the government we want can operate on a tiny fraction of it's current revenue.

      The government we want? I believe that the government I want can operate on a tiny fraction of its current revenue. Perhaps it's the government you want that is incapable of doing so.

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    87. Re:Easy enough by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1


      "Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people"

      This section makes no sense whatsoever.

      Which "American people"'s policy would they have to abide to, by law? In what world do you live that you think there is a common healthcare policy for all of the people across the land? If you want to be in the business of writing policy, learn how a basic contract works, first.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    88. Re:Easy enough by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      If you want the government to run a lot cheaper, be prepared for a very scary government where corruption is very common. A lot of the government funded money goes into making sure that it isn't abused.

      Up to a point, auditors and inspectors pay for themselves.
      We haven't reached that point yet and entrenched interests constantly fight to prevent us from reaching it.
      Worse, leaders do not have the will to deal with the steady trickle of scandals uncovered by auditing anything the size of the US Government.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    89. Re:Easy enough by John+Newman · · Score: 1

      If we had more local control over our lives, your argument would carry much more weight. You could say, "If you hate government so much, move to Mississippi. Seriously." and you would know that the person you are talking to could truly move to Mississippi. Of course, if they are already in MS, you could tell them to keep their noses out of your state's business.

      And that works not at all for the three things our federal government spends >75% of its budget on: defense, health care, and social security. Is Mississippi going disown protection from the US Army? Does it make the slightest bit of sense to have a "young whuppersnapper" state with no social security and an "old fart" state that everyone moves to when they're 65? This would make it impossible to have such programs at all (including an Army), or at best would make people a prisoner of whatever state they were lucky enough to be born in. Forget about the problem of Mississippi's toxic waste and air pollution flowing into the next state over.

      Do you guys think these things through at all?

    90. Re:Easy enough by black+soap · · Score: 1

      All right, you caught me, I substituted flash point for autoignition temperature. I try to avoid both of them.

    91. Re:Easy enough by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      It's a pretty common mistake. Most people don't understand flash point. Its name doesn't really help either.

    92. Re:Easy enough by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      I mean that it's absurd to suggest that the government we want can operate on a tiny fraction of it's current revenue.

      What's this "We" kimosabe?

      You have an idea of the type of Government YOU want. This does not grant you the ability to extend this desire to all Americans.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    93. Re:Easy enough by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      And yet, you voted with your feet to go to Switzerland, land of regulation and regulation-loving people. Again, please don't vote.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    94. Re:Easy enough by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      I earn mine, earn yours

      Ah, the classic libertarian/randian fallacy: that everything you achieve in life is 100% due to your own actions, and no one else's. If that were truly the case, you could live like a king in the various places in the world that lack anything like a central government. I'm still waiting for you to move to any one of them and fulfill your dream (hint: Switzerland is not it. It's pretty much the opposite of it).

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    95. Re:Easy enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that the USA collects the least tax revenue of any OECD country (as a % of GDP). The government in 1900 did not have a huge military industrial complex (whose cost is smaller but comparable to entitlement programs), and did not have to pave roads, or ensure that the meat you bought was not a public health hazard. That the government does these things is what sets OECD countries apart from countries like Nigeria, where tax revenue really *is* 6% of GDP. There is an obvious direct relationship between the desirability of a country, and the tax-revenue they collect. Norway collects twice the tax as the USA, and they are richer per capita, and have a very stable society. (Mass killings happen everywhere, and are a timeless phenomenon.)

      I am all for entitlement reform, but note that many of these programs are self-funded through pay-roll. i.e.: people pay into them through-out there lives, and then collect the benefits in old age. Perhaps that process should be privatised. I have no problem with that, so long as it is mandatory, and you can choose between a government (not-for-profit) or private (for-profit) system. There is no guarantee that a for-profit organisation will automagically do a better job of managing your retirement.

    96. Re:Easy enough by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.

      If you draw a paycheck, you'll notice that it has much more than just one number on it. Your failure to read those numbers does not mean tha they are obfuscated.

      If you don't draw a paycheck, then you are making estimated tax payments at least every quarter, and cutting a check each time. That's four times a frequently as you recommend. While the instructions may be obscenely difficult to read and follow, the cutting of the check is not obfuscated at all.

    97. Re:Easy enough by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      As I said, you have nothing to say on the idea and your message is limited to ad-hominem attacks, which are completely pointless and irrelevant, but it doesn't matter, it doesn't change the message.

      As to 'everything I achieved is 100% mine' - well, it's certainly 0% yours.

    98. Re:Easy enough by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      No federally dictated minimum wage, taxes are falling (though I prefer Cyprus taxes better), that's just to start, oh, and I am voting, I am always voting.

    99. Re:Easy enough by enjerth · · Score: 1

      Not exactly true. The only "economic freedom" roman is caring about, judging by his posting history, is the freedom to shit on his fellow man from a high perch, unchecked and unchallenged.

      I don't know what roman was referring to, but if you think "keeping what I earned through my own labor, innovation and investments" = "shitting on my fellow man from a high perch," then I'd love to shit on you all day, every day.

    100. Re:Easy enough by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      My, you are persistent

      - well, I am not your president, so what do you care?

      Really? I so thought you were!

    101. Re:Easy enough by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 0

      The problem with term limits, is that in the last term of their tenure, they won't have to listen to the people that voted them in. I know they don't listen now either.

      Everything else I agree with. Especially SS.

    102. Re:Easy enough by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      The point you're missing is that $40 Billion doesn't even buy you the government of a small state like Norway or Belgium. It buys you the government of a state like Vietnam. And putting things at the state level doesn't mean squat. Who suddenly pays for the much larger state budget? The same taxpayer who was paying the federal government. Except now, you're doing it with less economies of scale and less standardization.

      That's a great idea to turn the US into a Banana Republic.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    103. Re:Easy enough by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      You mean keeping what you earned by benefiting from the whole society around you, all the infrastructure and background services it provided you? No, cannot be, it is all YOURS, you are the sole prodigy that came up out of nothing with no help at all, so you are DESERVING to KEEP IT ALL! Right? But thanks for making it clear. The mentality of a sociopath.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    104. Re:Easy enough by prezkennedy.org · · Score: 1

      We tried that voluntary stuff back when we had the Articles of Confederation. It didn't work out so well.

      --
      It started back in Team Fortress Classic
    105. Re:Easy enough by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Of course you have nothing to say. We knew that. By the way, asshole, this is an insult, not an ad hominem. We are not saying "roman is an asshole, therefor his arguments have no merit", we are saying "roman's arguments are prima facie worthless, but, as he won't engage his two remaining braincells at any time, he is an asshole." Just plainly insulting you - that's not a fallacy, that's a rhetorical tactic. For the lulz.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    106. Re:Easy enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't "give a fuck what the parrots think about this post", then why post it to a public discussion board? If Slashdot sucks so bad, why do you still visit and post? I agree somewhat with you - people here are no longer interested about thinking. They just post stupid things like yours complaining about Slashdot and insulting people. In other words - YOU ARE THE PROBLEM YOU ARE RAILING AGAINST. Your post brought nothing to the discussion. Do you like to read posts that are just rants with nothing useful in them? Then why would you think others would want to read yours?

    107. Re:Easy enough by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 2

      My state pays more to the government than it collects as do 90% of the blue states in the union. I also happen to work for the state so I know the limits of what the state is allowed to do. So in your model, a company from Va. comes to my state and mines gold then leaves a huge mess to clean up. The company then leaves a huge toxic mess and goes back to Va. My state goes after said company for the cost of the cleanup. There are 2 scenarios here under your schema: 1. Said company cannot be pursued because it is a Va. company and my state has no actual juridsiction over it or 2. Said company then dissolves the corporation and reforms under a different name leaving no actual entity available for recovery of funds. (This is what actually happens) Then my state is left with the associated costs of cleaning up a huge toxic strip mining mess. Oh wait, the state doesn't have enough money to pay for the clean up because the Va. company signed a contract stating they would be a good corporate citizen and not do what they just did. Does that then mean my state could go after Va. for the cost? If not, then who do we turn to? Like it or not, we are a union, not a series of countries, and no matter how much your cry "states rights" nothing is going to change the fact that we need a large centralized entity to watch over the country as a whole. Keep in mind, I'm not saying there is no place for states rights, but there has to be a federal government to oversee things like the military and international trade. You can't trust each state to properly take care of it's people as it is, do you think it would get better if we gave them all the power?

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    108. Re:Easy enough by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Left leaning anarchists (e.g. Bakunin) predicted the tyranny that would follow if a Marxist revolution ever occurred. I'd say that makes them at least a bit more realistic than Marx was.

      The secret hope of left leaning anarchists is little more than seeing todays successful democratic socialist governments taken to their logical conclusion. More direct democracy and more direct ownership of the means of production.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    109. Re:Easy enough by mikechant · · Score: 1

      If you hate government so much, move to Somalia. Seriously.

      Shame this is modded troll. There are quite a lot of posters here of a 'libertarian' nature who express the opinion that 'all tax is theft' or at least would like to reduce taxes to the point where governments would be unable to be effective in any sense - and the logical conclusion of going down that road is something quite like Somalia.
      To summarize: All Governments suck to some extent; having no government generally sucks even more.

    110. Re:Easy enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about regulations of business, labor laws, minimum wage laws, everything that government does that I am against and I will always vote against all of it with my vote and with my money and with my feet.

      You, sir, are full of very dangerous notions indeed. The laws you are referring to were enacted in a time when people called for them -- seeing en mass that they are needed. Read the history of the introduction of these laws. Examine countries that do not have them today.

      Your utopian paradise /already/ exists in the world. No minimum wage, no labor laws, no regulations on business, tax at about 5-10% of GDP. That would be most of the third world. If you had your way, then that is what would happen to the USA.

    111. Re:Easy enough by enjerth · · Score: 1

      You mean keeping what you earned by benefiting from the whole society around you, all the infrastructure and background services it provided you? No, cannot be, it is all YOURS, you are the sole prodigy that came up out of nothing with no help at all, so you are DESERVING to KEEP IT ALL! Right? But thanks for making it clear. The mentality of a sociopath.

      In trade, both parties are enriched, as they both find a greater value in what they got than what they gave. Trade, in itself, automatically benefits society.

      Background services? I would voluntarily trade, and pay for such services as I require or see fit. I do so on a daily basis. The fact that the government runs some of these, and so claiming that I would not pay for them because I object to taxation, is a strawman. The government doesn't need to run things. Roads can be privatized (and some are) and I would pay for my use of these roads. Same deal, value for value. And I keep the rest.

      A sociopath, or anti-social person, is one who would demand that others contribute to one's benefit through the use of violence. And make no mistake, government force is not eloquence, it is not reason, it is force. It is violence. If I choose non-compliance, the government will use force, increasing it's violence up to and including deadly force, asserting their dominion over me. You advocate slavery.

    112. Re:Easy enough by TheoCryst · · Score: 1

      I can't think of a single government function that is supported by "all" (for absolutely any reasonable fraction of "all") of the American people. Social Security? Gone. Medicare? Nixed. NASA, FDA, FCC, Department of Transportation? Won't stand a chance.

      --
      Warning: Contents May Be Flammable. Keep Out Of Reach Of Children.
    113. Re:Easy enough by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      As I said, I find your existence to be insulting, not what you write here, that's because existence of stupidity is insulting, as it should be.

    114. Re:Easy enough by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I don't have a teleprompter, so I am disqualified on that basis alone.

    115. Re:Easy enough by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Well they were all about the decimal system really...

    116. Re:Easy enough by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

      Note that the USA collects the least tax revenue of any OECD country [wikipedia.org] (as a % of GDP).

      From your source..

      In the most recent year, total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, equaled 38.9 percent of GDP. Spending increases totaled well over $1 trillion in 2009 alone, an increase of more than 20 percent over 2008. Stimulus spending has hurt the fiscal balance and placed federal debt on an unsustainable trajectory. Gross government debt exceeded 90 percent of GDP in 2010.

      I am all for entitlement reform, but note that many of these programs are self-funded through pay-roll. i.e.: people pay into them through-out there lives, and then collect the benefits in old age.

      Well, no. The supreme court has ruled that is a particular tax that was enacted at the same time as a particular benefit program. Your acts of paying in convey to you no vesting whatsoever. Just to give you an example of what I mean, if I buy a private life insurance program I can borrow against it or will it to my heirs. I can't do that with OASDI or SSI. The legislature could repeal the benefits tomorrow (logically, not practically) and you would have to continue paying, but could not withdraw once you become old. Similarly, they could repeal the tax tomorrow, but continue the benefits. If a private company were to try the former, then you could sue and, if nothing else, gain ownership of their property if any. If a private company were to try the latter...well, they wouldn't.

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    117. Re:Easy enough by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      I agree with both of you. By the way, I generally consider myself left of center, but I'm in Upstate New York. Basically, rather than cutting services wholesale I'd like New York to have a choice of keeping the services it wants, and keeping more of the tax money. Currently the federal government receives far more in taxes from NY than is spent here. If the federal government cut services and forced states to pick up the slack, NY could probably do it. Eventually federal taxes would go down as the debt crisis passed and we ended one or two of the current wars. State taxes would likely go up, and so long as the increase is in income tax but not property tax, I can live with that. (I have a job, I pay income tax, but property taxes in Monroe County are already too high).

      I think that the federal government would resist giving up their power, but it's power that doesn't rightfully belong to them. Plus, by concentrating all of this power in the federal government I think we've made it more difficult to get things done, and allowed fanatical laws to be applied nationwide.

      For states with serious financial imbalances, there would certainly be cuts in services and high taxes. For those states, some level of transfer payment could probably be made, though it would be controversial. I think most voters would quickly see the logic of "if it's expensive to live where you live, move". For very conservative states that simply won't spend the money, they'll eventually see the local economic issues caused by businesses leaving. I imagine Texas (which I identify as very conservative financially) would do just fine, because they would be willing to tax to pay for necessary services.

      Overall, cutting intergovernmental revenue would force states to decide which services they really need.

      As for highways being used for national defense, I think they're used enough for commerce and leisure that the states can justifiably be required to pay for them, even if national defense is a side benefit.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    118. Re:Easy enough by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

      There is an obvious direct relationship between the desirability of a country, and the tax-revenue they collect. Norway collects twice the tax as the USA, and they are richer per capita, and have a very stable society. (Mass killings happen everywhere, and are a timeless phenomenon.)

      I did a little more digging around in your source and found the following tidbit regarding Zimbabwe:

      In the most recent year, total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, equaled 97.8 percent of GDP. Underinvestment has led to inadequate infrastructure. The wage bill is high and climbing.

      By your theory Zimbabwe ought to be a veritable utopia.

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    119. Re:Easy enough by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Well, the thing with taking democratic socialism to its conclusion is along the lines of Schumpeter then, I guess. That's one of the brighter projections of the future, indeed. I have to admit that I am not that versed in the classic theory of anarchism, I was working from my experience with current examples that I had met. I don't know much about Bakunin, in particular I have no idea how he would ensure that his egalitarian anarcho-socialist utopia would stay stable. How do you prevent concentration of power and downfall of such a system? All I ever got was a belief in an essentially good nature of the individual - but I kinda doubt that this is reality. If you got anything to enlighten me there - feel free to do so. I am interested.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    120. Re:Easy enough by skids · · Score: 1

      How is the "Big Dig" a "very needed purpose" in my life? I've never seen it. I'll never drive through it.

      There's a very good chance that someday you or someone you care for will be treated by a doctor who had to commute that route to one of the huge number of medical schools in the Boston area. He'll have retained more of the material due to the extra half hour per day he spent catching up on sleep instead of sitting behind a wheel listening to WAAF. Also, anything you ever purchase that had to travel that route will potentially be cheaper due to lower transportation costs.

      That, and thousands of other efficiencies gained by the Big Dig will add up to a huge economic plus eventually. Or in other words, the point many people seem to miss: when your neighbors do better, you do better. Which is kind of the definition of an economy.

    121. Re:Easy enough by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      I'm acknowledging the end-game of free-for-alls where no one gives a shit about their fellow man. Sociopaths rise to power.

    122. Re:Easy enough by skids · · Score: 1

      Because different local populations all have their own brand of stupidity. Countless times the Feds have saved states from the consequences of bad policy, just as countless times state governments have stayed bad policies coming from Washington. Having the two systems offers another check and balance. One system harnesses the best the country has to offer to find the best overall policies. The other harnesses the region-specific knowledge to adapt those policies locally.

      Obviously, the system is broken, but it isn't in the way the anti-federalists think. Downsizing the federal government is a simple and wrong solution to many complex problems.

    123. Re:Easy enough by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      What he's saying is most taxes should be local.

      But should it, really? And how local is local?

      Number 1, just moving taxes to the state level (or even the county/city level) is not going to fix the budget problem. It just means someone else is responsible for it. Number 2, a significant number of states manage to have a balanced budget only because of help from the federal government for infrastructure, health care, education and security. Increasing their budgets while reducing their revenue is going to make the problem worse. Number 3, there is the implicit assumption here that a more local government is more accountable and more transparent, which is nonsense. That is a feature of the people who are in government, not of how many people vote for each representant. Number 4, local governments are actually at higher risk to be inefficient, because now it only takes a few hundred morons to band together to ruin everything. Granted, you also have a higher chance of having an effectively run government, just because you have a small enclave of smart, responsible people working together for the greater common good. But it certainly isn't a guarantee that smaller is better.

      Finally, the mantra that government should be more local. How much more local should be? You mention that you have 60 times more influence at the city level than at the county level. Shouldn't the city then get the majority of your taxes? But how do you then build something like the Hoover dam? Pursue criminals across city lines? Well, you could have cities in various counties band together until they get enough money to build something like a dam, or set up a unified police force that that agrees to share information, tools and prosecutions... and now you're right back where you started off: moving things up government chain, because there are huge economies of scale that can't be accessed by city governments.

      Not to mention: if you move the government power to small entities like city or even state governments, how do you deal with corporations whose profits exceed the state's revenue and completely dwarf that of county or city governments?

      Yes, government isn't always better when it's bigger. But it also certainly isn't always better when it's smaller. The real problem is that the devil is in the detail, and a lot of people can't or refuse to understand that. Then we get shit like some party ideologues holding America's AAA credit rating hostage in order to advance their sophomoric ideas.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    124. Re:Easy enough by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Then please move to Cyprus. Or are you saying that you like all the social stability and safety that the Swiss regulations buy you? Like, for example, the various minimum wage agreements hashed out between trade unions and employers in various sectors of the economy, and enforced by the government?

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    125. Re:Easy enough by skids · · Score: 1

      If the Congress restricted itself to what the Constitution explicitly grants it, there would be no debt ceiling to raise. Congress has the authority to appropriate money, not to refuse to pay the bills for the things they already spent it on. In fact the 14th amendment specifically says that U.S. debt should never be called into question, which is why dubya should have been censured for his Social Security "IOU" stunt.

      But then, when the Constitution doesn't agree with the Teabagger line it can be conveniently ignored, I guess. It's only important when someone can manage to twist it around in some way to give rich people more tax breaks.

    126. Re:Easy enough by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Also, Social Security was never envisioned by our Founding Fathers ... I doubt if they would have ever have voted for it.

      So? I don't want to live in a country that is governed by long dead patricians. I'd rather that the living run things, and in the here and now, Social Security seems to be well liked and useful (if not implemented as well as we might hope). I don't have a problem with its existence.

      The issue isn't any of that stuff that you posted. It's that Goverment Pensions, Social Security, Medicare, and Interest on the Debt account for almost 100% of our current budget. That leaves only 25 billion (less than 1.5%!) for our entire defense department, military, and, well, literally thousands and thousands of programs and agencies. Until we get rid of these four items, we're broke. We could cut the military to $0. Kill off every single social spending program. Get rid of student aid. Stop patrolling our borders. Stop foreign aid. Close down NASA. None of it would make any more difference than spitting on a bonfire. Those four items alone are literally killing our nation, and until we get rid of them entirely, we are doomed.

      Well, you seem to be ignoring half of the picture. Why have you forgotten about raising additional revenue? (Which is not to say that we should not address some of our current spending priorities)

      We could:

      • Add additional brackets to the top of the income tax, and raise rates in the various top brackets.
      • Increase the capital gains tax
      • Establish financial transaction taxes (has a good side benefit of reducing speculation in the markets; we've seen where too much of that gets us)
      • Increase / modify estate taxes. There is a long-standing public policy in the US against substantial inherited wealth, you know (Jefferson considered one of his greatest accomplishments, alongside the Declaration of Independence, to be abolishing the fee tail). People often complain that this could cause the loss of small, family-owned and operated businesses, but I'm sure some skilled tax lawyers and snake warriors could work out a way to avoid that outcome while still collecting a reasonable amount and discouraging people from becoming indolent on the basis of inherited wealth. It's fine to want to provide for one's family, but it's not fine for people to not have to work to make their own way in the world, if they're able.
      • Wealth taxes (as above, the country does not need a lot of idle rich people)
      • Eliminate the cap on payroll deductions for Social Security
      • Set the pay of federal employees in a regulatory capacity to a floating level commensurate with their private sector opposites, establish lifetime Chinese walls on federal employees' dealings with those industries (to avoid regulatory capture) and tax the regulated industries to pay for it, to avoid a brain drain on the basis of compensation.
      • We should also do a study to see if there's any financial advantage in nationalizing industries where the government could or is obligated to participate in without reducing services to customers (I'm mainly thinking of the Post Office here, but railroad trackage is another, and single-payer health care effectively is as well). If the study indicates that it would be advantageous to do so, let's.

      I'd also suggest that we pursue full employment policies; there are too many beneficial effects to ignore. True, it tends to cause moderate inflation, as we discovered in the 60's and 70's, but our experience since then demonstrates, I think, that inflation is the lesser evil. COLA adjustments would be needed for payrolls, benefits, etc., of course. This would also help substantially with the crushing debt load that most individual Americans carry.

      As for our spending, I'd suggest cutting the military significantly. We might merely shift that money elsewhere -- infrastructure, jobs programs, NASA, etc. -- but doing so would have a nice side benefit of

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    127. Re:Easy enough by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      A sociopath, or anti-social person, is one who would demand that others contribute to one's benefit through the use of violence.

      You have no idea what you're talking about.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    128. Re:Easy enough by enjerth · · Score: 1

      You mean like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder#Millon.27s_subtypes ?
      * covetous antisocial - variant of the pure pattern where individuals feel that life has not given them their due.

    129. Re:Easy enough by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      whatever happens between private entities is none of my concern, they are not the government. Cyprus is where I keep my hq, I like Swiss climate more.

    130. Re:Easy enough by Plekto · · Score: 1

      We could double taxes at this point and still be in the red.

      And, yes, I left out the military to make a point as these four are retirement and support services-related, and of course interest on the debt, which isn't going away. We have four single items out of thousands that are enough to cripple us. If we count the military, we'd have to raise taxes by almost 30% to just cover those five items. And none of that includes welfare or unemployment programs and the like. If we dropped the entire defense budget to $0, it still would not be enough If we paid $0 for any government aid or farm subsidies or welfare programs, it still wouldn't make a dent in the problem.

      We're broke and nobody wants to address the three big items that are causing us to bleed out. It's like complaining about a paper cut when you have a 3 inch hole in your leg that's caused by a flesh-eating virus. It just keeps getting bigger and bigger and still everyone just comes up with idiocy that amounts to little band-aids and minor changes. Everything you listed sounds nice, but it's simply impossible to make any of it work at this point. We have to amputate at this point to save the patient's life.

      Or when we go bankrupt and it all comes crashing down, it will be gotten rid of anyways. Just, the chances that our republic survives intact are mighty slim if it actually gets to that point. I personally would rather live without medicare, social security, or pensions rather than have to go through what Argentina did.

    131. Re:Easy enough by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      If you read what the guy said, he suggested collecting the cleanup costs up front, and then refunding the difference to the company.

      Of course, that would require some intelligence on the part of the state governments, which is unlikely to happen.

    132. Re:Easy enough by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Note that the USA collects the least tax revenue of any OECD country (as a % of GDP).

      Because in most other OECD countries, health care is included in the tax burden and services of the government. Add our health care expenses to our taxes, and you'll see we're very heavily "taxed".

      It's also important to point out that government expenses have risen 50% in the last 5 years, but revenues have dropped 20% in the same time period (though it is projected to be back at parity next year).

      So when the Republicans say it's a spending problem, they're right. When Democrats say that we need to increase revenues/taxes, well, maybe a little. Certainly not by the 50% we'll need to balance the bipartisan drunken-sailor spending spree.

    133. Re:Easy enough by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      We could double taxes at this point and still be in the red.

      Are you sure? The 2010 federal budget was about $3.4 billion, and 2010 federal tax receipts were about $2.1 billion. Doubling taxes -- your suggestion -- sounds like it might just work, without having to reduce spending. If we also reduced spending, and we could stick to this long enough to seriously pay down our debt, we'd probably be sitting pretty. Better still if we could stick to it even longer so that when we have good times we're building up a rainy day fund.

      And, yes, I left out the military to make a point as these four are retirement and support services-related, and of course interest on the debt, which isn't going away.

      And other than, perhaps that you oppose cutting the military budget, what point was that, exactly? (Also, federal pensions don't seem to be a big deal, so why'd you include them?)

      If we dropped the entire defense budget to $0, it still would not be enough

      No, but it would get us much closer. That would bring that 2010 budget down to about $2.8 trillion with $2.1 in receipts. But I don't think that anyone is seriously suggesting disbanding the entire military. It needs substantial cuts, but not outright dissolution.

      Everything you listed sounds nice, but it's simply impossible to make any of it work at this point.

      Why so glum? The new receipts would take a little while to come in but so long as there's a viable plan in place, it's not as though we couldn't obtain coverage in the interim one way or another. The problem is political is all.

      Or when we go bankrupt

      That would take a lot of effort, actually. The US isn't like a person or a business. It prints its own money and its debts are denominated in US currency. It would come at the cost of inflation, and it would likely not be repeatable, but the country can't go bankrupt anytime soon unless it done very deliberately.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    134. Re:Easy enough by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Then people should be allowed to only fund the portions they believe in, and the parts that can't attract enough support can die.

    135. Re:Easy enough by Plekto · · Score: 1

      The doubling of taxes includes projected future interest and the massive amounts of tax-dodging by corporations through outright lying, money laundering, creative financing, or loopholes. Doubling taxes would generate about 3.5 trillion actually collected.(payroll tax won't go up much if we double corporate and income taxes, and may actually go down a bit due to lost jobs)

      I included government pensions as that's also of the same type of spending problem, is listed on that site, and also is pretty much set in stone.
      That's the real issue, though. That we have four untouchable programs in the U.S. that alone are enough to cripple us. Also, we do agree that the military should be closer to 50 billion a year. That's plenty for research and to defend ourselves. Nobody is going to actually invade us, after all.

      That we are spending at least 600 billion a year on our two wars and other idiocy, and that also isn't helping. The combination of it all just its too much. Something has to change, but absolutely nobody in Congress wants to change it. So the only choices are either for the states to take back their own destiny or a total collapse.

    136. Re:Easy enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is that the size of the government would return to what it was when it was established.

    137. Re:Easy enough by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>We have among the lowest taxes in the developed world in this country, and we have the infrastructure to prove it.

      Infrastructure spending is a very small percentage of our budget. All of our transportation funding hovers around 2% or so. (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/)

      The "lowest taxes" thing is just a Democrat talking point. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world (second only to Japan in the OECD - http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/corptaxrates_usvsoecd_state&fed-2011-20110117.pdf). We also don't provide universal health care through our national government, as many other OECD countries do, which means you get to add health care expenses our our "tax burden" to equalize the assessments.

      We're taxed quite highly, actually.

      The real problem is that spending has gone up 50% in the last 5 years, while revenue has fallen 20% in the same time period (though it is estimated to break even for next year).

    138. Re:Easy enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flash point is the temperature at which a flammable liquid (at STP) releases a flammable vapor

      I should have said 1 atm, not STP, obviously.

      (Can't be bothered to log in)

    139. Re:Easy enough by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      Your view of history is downright scary but if you were indeed born in the USSR then it would make sense that you have a very incomplete picture of how the USA developed in the 1800s and early 1900s.

      As for corporate taxes I laugh as your assertion given that GE paid zero tax dollars and did billions of dollars in business and is by no means unprofitable. On a smaller scale, my company does a few hundred million and again, pays almost no taxes due to loopholes and reinvestment. When you can afford to pay for a tax lawyer you end up paying almost no taxes, this is why GE pays for an army of them.

      Rail in America died not because of the interstate system but because of corruption on a massive scale, see the very definition of robber barren.

      Fire codes were established because private businesses were building unsafe buildings which resulted in the deaths of thousands of people by the early 1900s. They are very much necessary. Minimum wage effectively ended slavery and serfdom as workers could no longer be taken such advantage of. This is the product of textile mills with their corporation owned towns that paid their workers just enough to pay rent ensuring that they would forever work in the textile mill. There is no reason to think lifting it now would be anything but bad for the people already hit the hardest by the recession. Apprenticeships still exist today so I'm not sure how you think they were destroyed. I myself have an apprentice and many people in my family have gone through the electrical apprenticeship process. It is quite alive and well, you just have to pay people enough to live.

      As for Canada as it sounds like that is where you moved to. They have the exact same corruption of their process through monopolies gaining significant power and influence. I give the Canadian people a lot of credit for standing up to some of the more ridiculous proposals brought forth but Canada is headed in the same direction especially if the U.S. defaults on its debt.

      Given the success of the American economy immediately after the great infrastructure project of the 30's and 40's I'm not sure how you can claim that it destroyed anything. Rail systems were already on their way out at that time and following it America saw more growth than any country ever before it.

      Now for tech history which is always fun, the telcos got packet switching from DARPA, not the other way around. DARP created it, they then worked with universities around the world to establish Arpanet, the world's first packet switched network. TCP/IP followed almost a decade later. DARPA has been responsible for a lot of the technical innovation in use today as are held as THE example of why the government should be involved in the research process.

      One last thing, the U.S. in the 1800s was not a creditor nation at all. Until the early 1900s we weren't on the radar of any other nation. Our contributions to WWI set the stage for operating in the world theater but again, we weren't really that special until WW2 when our manufacturing capacity and military allowed us to supply Britain with weapons, ammo, and vehicles. That set the stage for America as a manufacturing powerhouse through the 1990's where outsourcing began heavily shrinking exports and drastically increasing imports which set us down the path we're currently dealing with. Of course corporate greed and unregulated commerce played huge parts in it as well which are arguments why we need the government to do its job.

    140. Re:Easy enough by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      I agree with you in principle, but again must point out some practicalities. The reason it would expensive to live in some states is because they have low populations to begin with. Force people out with unreasonable tax burdens and those places will become truly abandoned. This is a) bad for our international image ("Yeah, we used to have 50 states, but after they abandoned Montana and Alaska we couldn't figure out a way to tax the bears") b) a potentially serious issue for agriculture. Remember that the more rural a state is, the lower the population density, and (with a few exceptions where desert or cold make it unfeasible) the more agriculture it supports. If we drive everyone out of Iowa with impossibly high taxes or total lack of government services, we're all gonna be a mite hungry this winter.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    141. Re:Easy enough by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I'm acknowledging the end-game of free-for-alls where no one gives a shit about their fellow man.

      Again, you're either trolling, or you're seriously out of touch with reality. If the former, please, go away. If the latter, do yourself a favor and try either reading some books on the subject, or having an honest discussion with a libertarian. Either way, your current strawman arguments are completely pointless.

    142. Re:Easy enough by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      And that works not at all for the three things our federal government spends >75% of its budget on: defense, health care, and social security

      That's only true of defense, which unsurprisingly the founding fathers thought of when granting the federal government the power to maintain a standing army. Both healthcare and social security could easily be implemented at lower levels of government. In fact, many other countries have already done this (one example is Canada, where each province has its own healthcare program). Massachusetts had (has?) its own healthcare program as well.

      Does it make the slightest bit of sense to have a "young whuppersnapper" state with no social security and an "old fart" state that everyone moves to when they're 65?

      Yup, they're called "California" and "Florida", respectively. Believe it or not, it wouldn't exactly change much.

      at best would make people a prisoner of whatever state they were lucky enough to be born in.

      Not entirely true. For instance, if one state had a social program you paid into all your life and then you move to another state, I see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed (either by law or by ethics) to collect funds from that state even if you are living there no longer. Pensions certainly work this way (after you stop working for a company).

      Do you guys think these things through at all?

      Yes, moreso than most.

    143. Re:Easy enough by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      My, you are persistent. No, the reason that the US became the wealthiest country in the world is that it was able to harness enormous amounts of cheap resources without much interference by neighboring countries nor effective resistance by the native populations.

      We were also the only large, industrialized nation whose manufacturing and infrastructure weren't bombed to cinders during WW2.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    144. Re:Easy enough by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      f things are not going your way, convince enough people to vote the way you want. (Not an easy thing, certainly.)

      With enough money, it's all too easy. With enough cash, you can get people to support your agenda even if it's the polar opposite of their own best interests. We now have millions of poor and lower middle class Americans who vehemently believe that labor protections are bad, taxing the rich is "stealing", affordable health care is "socialism", that allowing companies to pillage pension funds how the Free Market is meant to work, and that gutting Medicare and Social Security is "good fiscal policy". Keep in mind that this is the same demographic that needs labor protections, as their jobs are generally easy to offshore, will never ever be rich enough to be taxed for $250,000 in income, could easily be bankrupted by an unforeseen medical expense, and will tend to really need the safety net that social security and medicare provide.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    145. Re:Easy enough by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      Also, Social Security was never envisioned by our Founding Fathers

      None of the Founding Fathers envisioned a negro President, either. Just sayin'.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    146. Re:Easy enough by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      Which "American people"'s policy would they have to abide to, by law?

      The one that jacks premiums through the roof every year while cutting service, countermands doctor's wishes, and kicks them to the curb as soon as they get a long-term illness. You know, just like the rest of us.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    147. Re:Easy enough by registrationssucks · · Score: 1

      I mean that it's absurd to suggest that the government we want can operate on a tiny fraction of it's current revenue.

      What kind of fat, disgusting, progressive mouse do you have living in your pocket?

    148. Re:Easy enough by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Why don't you investigate into why there are these two systems you speak of. I'm willing to be once you find that answer, you will not only stop confusing federalism (federalist) but maybe support their ideas in the process.

      And BTW, in case you are wandering, it's the federalist who what a smaller federal government, not anti-federalist which I think you just invented out of ignorance.

    149. Re:Easy enough by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed (either by law or by ethics) to collect funds from that state even if you are living there no longer

      And who would enforce that law, if the state said "go take a jump, we're keeping it"?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    150. Re:Easy enough by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That's a great idea to turn the US into a Banana Republic.

      Only one?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    151. Re:Easy enough by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Just like Delaware and North Dakota ruined any attempts by states to regulate lending. Some small state would take a dump at the dinner table. "No up front cleanup costs here! We are creating jobs for Americans!"

      Then their mess would flow down the river to every other state.

    152. Re:Easy enough by Danse · · Score: 1

      While I may be able to get behind removing some of the powers and responsibilities that the federal government currently has, it sure as hell wouldn't be through the slash and burn methods that the Tea Party apparently favors. It requires planning and an orderly transfer of control from the federal government to state governments or whoever will be taking over the role. Otherwise we'll have chaos and a lot of people trying to cash in on that. We've had more than enough crap to deal with in the last several years, we don't need that to top it off.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    153. Re:Easy enough by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      My, you are persistent

      - well, I am not your president, so what do you care?

      Really? I so thought you were!

      Damn, I wish he WAS!!

      Too bad, as he'd be a whole *hell* of a lot better than anyone the American political system is offering up currently for the position. He's certainly demonstrated a far greater understanding of what the US *was* all about than any US politician, or even most of its' citizens.

      Sadly, I find any more that I have much more ideologically in common with those survivors from the former USSR and satellite countries that actually understand what freedom is and it's value, and also tyranny and it's horrors, than I do most of my fellow countrymen, many who seem hell-bent on repeating those horrors of tyranny.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    154. Re:Easy enough by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      If you can't come up with any reason why that's a bad idea, you're either not thinking very hard or you're an anarchist.

      If I were a betting man, I'd lay money on it being both.

    155. Re:Easy enough by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      "Sure, if federal grants went away and the states had to fend for themselves, places like New York or California would just up the state tax rate by a few percent (after much political wrangling, no doubt) and be fine. Most people in those states would probably see little or no difference in their overall (state and federal combined) tax burdens, some might even see it lower. Places like Montana and Alaska would have a serious problem. "

      Well, the ones that get more from the feds than they pay are mostly places like Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia. All the most populous states - California, New York, Illinois, Texas, even Florida pay more to the feds than they get. Some of the low-population western states such as Nevada and Wyoming don't break even, or only barely. Others such as the Dakotas, Idaho and Montana get more than they put in. Alaska has gotten more and more over the years - it wasn't breaking even on taxes in the early '80s, now they get $1.84/$. New Mexico would have a problem, as it gets about double what it puts in. The problem is that most expenditures are for salaries one way or another - Los Alamos workers in New Mexico, for instance. So even if the direct aid to the states were cut off, the apportionment of federal spending among the states would not change that much in most cases.

      See: Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    156. Re:Easy enough by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      there is an amendment process that will allow for whatever expanded powers the federal government needs

      Passing amendments isn't fashionable, because doing it only gives legitimacy to the idea that government is limited by a constitution. Who wants that?

      The constitution has no more ability to bestow or limit power than the people want it to. If the constitution says the federal government isn't allowed to do X, but the people vote for federal representatives who then do X, then the federal government is going to do X. Who's gonna stop 'em? Not the people; they decided they want federal Xing even if they never bothered to update the old document.

      Ink on a page has no teeth. We were the teeth. But who bites us?

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    157. Re:Easy enough by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I've thought of similar. Unluckily it falls down as most normal people can't afford to take 2+ years off of their life. Being self-employed I'd come back to close to zero clients.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    158. Re:Easy enough by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The reason USA became the wealthiest country in the world in 19 century was capitalist free market and industrialization, which only became possible because the US was so free to do business in because the government was so limited, so small and so insignificant.

      I'm sure being free of belligerent neighbours like the UK, France and Germany helped. (If you're really lucky, you get all three!).

      And just being big had nothing to do with it at all.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    159. Re:Easy enough by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      The top rate is meaningless, particularly without mentioning what it actually applies to - what are the exemptions, what are the lower rates, what levels do they kick in, are they counting the "employer's side" of payroll taxes, etc. The meaningful number is what is the actual percent paid of profits. And even that can be gamed by adjusting executive salaries, perks, offshore entities, depreciation scams, etc. US corporations pay very little tax.

      For 2009, for instance (latest available) the total federal corporate income tax receipts were only $225,482M vs. $858,164M in payroll taxes, the latter of which were paid disproportionately by people who has moderate to low incomes (and which directly more than paid for those social programs which right-wing idiots claim are going to bankrupt the country, but which in fact have a surplus which finances the deficit in rest of the budget, including all that corporate welfare, pork for weapons and mercenaries sold by the right wingers' firms, and those tax breaks for the rich, and which also take a good deal of the pension and healthcare burden off employers.)

      On top of payroll taxes, individual federal tax receipts were over 5 times corporate receipts.

      The state rates are even more meaningless, as it is easy to choose a state which not only has no income tax, but which for any large venture will abate property taxes and give other incentives.

      The IRS reports that corporations after deducting:
          Cost of goods sold
          Compensation of officers
          Salaries and wages
          Repairs
          Bad debts
          Rent paid on business property
          Taxes paid
          Interest paid
          Amortization
          Depreciation
          Depletion
          Advertising
          Pension, profit-sharing, stock, annuity
          Employee benefit programs and
          Net loss, noncapital assets
      from the $6,126B in total receipts (nearly all by corporations with over $250M in yearly receipts)

      AFTER deducting all that, the " Other deductions" category ALONE was over $612B in 2008 - almost as big as salaries and wages,($618B), more than twice as big as total claimed net corporate income (if we leave out rent income - $302B, if we also leave out portfolio income, $240B) .

      Big corporations are all cheating on their taxes, and big corporations own the economy, the workers, the media and the politicians. Yet the individual middle and lower income taxpayer is somehow supposed to pay more because the corporations and their rich management won't pay their share, even though the taxpayer doesn't have a job anymore because the corporation sent it overseas.

      Remind me again why the public has to grant these freeloading traitors corporate charters?

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    160. Re:Easy enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since gov't was mandating that Freddie/Fannie and FHA subsidize 30% of substandard mortgages by 1992 and 50% of them by 1999 and 65% of them by 2006

      [Citation needed]

    161. Re:Easy enough by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>those tax breaks for the rich

      Ah, yes, the mythical tax breaks for the rich.

      Unless you're talking about capital gains tax being set lower than the normal income tax level, but there's a reason for that. You may disagree with the reason (it encourages investment-making which leads to growth), but it's not a tax-break per se. When Warren Buffet talks about paying less in taxes than his secretary, he's talking about 1) Percentages, not absolute amounts (which are quite high), and 2) The fact that he's primarily paying capital gains tax instead of income tax.

      >>$858,164M in payroll taxes, the latter of which were paid disproportionately by people who has moderate to low incomes

      No. Just... no. Educate the fuck out of yourself, dude.

      For one thing, philosophically speaking, Social Security and Medicare aren't taxes unless you expect them to go bankrupt in the future. Even still, they do not pay a disproportionate amount. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/currentdistribution.cfm)

      When it comes to income tax, the lowest quintile makes money off the income tax (-10% tax rate), the next quintile pays next to nothing (3.1%), but the top quintile pays 67.2% of all income tax.

      Man, those "tax breaks for the rich" are pretty powerful, aren't they? All those blue-collar workers are sure suffering what with the 3 cents on the dollar they pay to Uncle Sam. And don't get me started on the poor who *collect* money from income tax. When I was making $19k a year as a grad student, I didn't have a lot of spare money, but I never complained about the nonexistent taxes I was paying.

      >>On top of payroll taxes, individual federal tax receipts were over 5 times corporate receipts.

      Meaningless because they're two different kinds of taxes. Corporations pay taxes on net profits, individuals pay taxes on gross. In a bad economy, corporations don't pay "income" tax (it's really a profits tax), but the fed still gets its piece of pie when the corporations pay for wages, rent, advertising, and all those other "writeoffs" you're talking about.

      >>Big corporations are all cheating on their taxes

      It's not cheating when you play by the rules. (Though I have reservations about things like Google's Double Irish and the like.) Every dollar that goes into a corporation will trigger a tax event. If the corporation retains it, it pays taxes itself. If they spend it, the people they spend it on pay the tax. The net result is to incentivize spending (mostly on hiring people), which is where the tax ultimately gets paid. It doesn't matter, honestly, to separate the two. While you might be busting a blood vessel over the fact that "people" are paying more than "big businesses", believe me when I say that it's better this way. You don't want corporations retaining all of their earnings and not hiring people.

    162. Re:Easy enough by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      And who would enforce that law, if the state said "go take a jump, we're keeping it"?

      lol, they can do that even if you're living in the state, and several are threatening to do just that: http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2011/01/27/state-pensions-well-cut-benefits/

      But what you ask is exactly one critical role of the federal government: regulating interstate commerce. I would imagine in a case where more and more services are being pushed down to the state level, legal clauses would be built in to protect earned benefits and that law would be upheld by the federal government. There's no reason the implementation of the program itself has to rest at the federal level. They just need to step in to make sure everyone plays nice. And frankly, it's not that all uncommon in decentralized governments. Take a look at Canada. Each province ("state") has its own healthcare law. However, their federal government has a set of guidelines and stipulations that each program must meet. They don't run things at the federal level, they merely moderate.

    163. Re:Easy enough by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The Interstate Highway System was created to move military equipment around. It serves a military function and should be funded through the military. The fact that civilians may use it daily is an added perk.

      Seriously? You think that the interstate system is a "perk" rather than an essential resource that the economy would suffer greatly without? You really want to let military thinking and values control them?

      The rest was tl;dr after that statement.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    164. Re:Easy enough by V+for+Vendetta · · Score: 1

      The reason USA became the wealthiest country in the world in 19 century was capitalist free market and industrialization, which only became possible because the US was so free to do business in because the government was so limited, so small and so insignificant.

      You seem to ignore the fact that this wealth was gained at the expense of future generations. If you let the "Free Market" run free, it will only look for the short term outcome. Gigantic monocultures, killing diversity and easy fall prey to any vermin. Wastelands where resource were pulled out of the ground with whatever toxic material helped speeding up the process.

      While that generated a lot of wealth for 2-3 generations, the future generations most likely have to spent even more money to remove and undo the remnants.

    165. Re:Easy enough by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The problem is too many small government authorities and lack of control/oversight by a large central government.

      If you have lots of small local government then they usually don't have enough power to really get things done. If central government is too small people are forced to get ripped off by private companies supplying services that otherwise the government would have. Most people get government services at below market cost thanks to subsidy via higher taxation for the rich.

      The government is the servant of the people. If it isn't then it is broken and needs fixing, but the general idea is that we all get a better deal and get protection from pure market forces by banding together.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    166. Re:Easy enough by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      That has always been the big issue with allocating power to the states and was the big holdup to the whole "shopping for health insurance across state lines" bullshit. There will always be one state (usually a more rural one) that will sell it's own people down the toxic river just to entice some mega corp or another to come do business in their state thus forcing the lower common denominator for the rest of the country.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    167. Re:Easy enough by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I see your google fingers aren't broken, it's just your comprehension skills that are. I like the way you attempt to hide that by inserting what you think is a slam on my intelligence by associating my knowledge with that of the infamously evil Glenn Beck. Oh well, I guess this is why it's fun to watch the special Olympics.

      Federalist wanted a stronger government then the articles of confederation allowed, but they were very much a practice of federalism which is focused more on the constitutional contract limiting government at the federal level focusing most of the rights over sovereignty with the states.

      The anti federalist simply wanted to keep the Articles of confederation. They are not relevant to today's political realm at all because their opposition was to a constitutional government as apposed to the confederacy. To use it in the sense you did pretends that they are in practice today and we are still debating a constitution over the articles of confederacy. In fact, the federalism of today is actually more aligned with a strict adherence to the the US constitution which would require a smaller government and anything anti to that would be indicative of wanting a larger government.

      If you would have made you comment 250 years ago, you would be somewhat right, yet still wrong if you consider the breadth of the US government today. It's the federalist who wanted a strong but limited government and we have went way beyond the constitutional role of government starting with the civil war and greatly exaggerated in the 1930s with FDR.

      But go ahead, don't take my word for it, try reading up on federalism in the US, the federalist in the US, and the rest of the anti-federalist in the article you cited. You eventually will get a clue. And if you think that is something that someone who listens to Glenn Beck might know, it might do you some good to actually listen to him or something because that person would still have a better grasp on this then you seem to have.

    168. Re:Easy enough by operagost · · Score: 1

      What if Mindcontrolled is an asshole, AND his arguments are prima facie worthless?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    169. Re:Easy enough by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      I see you found a pal in roman - share your meds, guys, perhaps it helps.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    170. Re:Easy enough by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      I am an anarchist. It used to say so in my slashdot profile, but I'm finding that slashdot has changed so much that I can't figure out how to view those profiles any more.

      I make no secret of the fact I'm an anarchist, and I see no more shame in it than being a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent. It's my political point of view, just like anyone else has their political point of view.

      I find it interesting that you seem to believe a person could only be an anarchist if they don't think very hard. I came to my beliefs after much thought.

    171. Re:Easy enough by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that you seem to believe a person could only be an anarchist if they don't think very hard.

      That's not quite what I said.

      I said you'd need to not think very hard to not see any drawbacks or potential pitfalls to what you suggested. It's the kind of statement that usually would be followed by a facetious, "What could possibly go wrong?"

    172. Re:Easy enough by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      I believe that the government I want can operate on a tiny fraction of its current revenue.

      Fair enough. So stipulated. The government you want (apparently) being one that is incapable of doing any of the things that our government was intended to do, which is, primarily, the defense and maintenance of the commons. Most people, by far, want something quite different. Good luck with that in your fantasy world where federal revenue is 6.9% of GDP.

    173. Re:Easy enough by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      It is an undeniable fact that there is, somewhere out there, a consensus on what "we want". It is safe to say that it is nowhere near what the noisy extremists on the far left or right have in mind. It is also safe to say that, based on any poll you care to use as your yardstick, it can't be done on 1/10th of the current budget. Not even close. So we is "most of us" and certainly not mindless Tea Baggers who really have no idea what they're idealistic, wild-eyed noise-making would actually reap for them were anything close to their "vision" actually come to pass.

    174. Re:Easy enough by skids · · Score: 1

      To use it in the sense you did pretends that they are in practice today and we are still debating a constitution over the articles of confederacy. In fact, the federalism of today is actually more aligned with a strict adherence to the the US constitution which would require a smaller government and anything anti to that would be indicative of wanting a larger government.

      ...or that's what they like to tell themselves, and how they want to be portrayed. In fact, however, the modern tea party effectively wants a return back beyond even the articles of confederation. I chose that term specifically because it IS accurate. They are indeed that regressive.

    175. Re:Easy enough by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. So stipulated. The government you want (apparently) being one that is incapable of doing any of the things that our government was intended to do, which is, primarily, the defense and maintenance of the commons. Most people, by far, want something quite different. Good luck with that in your fantasy world where federal revenue is 6.9% of GDP.

      Don't forget that my reference was to the U.S. government of 1900 A.D. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary I'm going to have to assume that the government at that time was doing many of the things it was intended to do. After all, this was some one hundred and twelve years after it was established.

      ~Loyal

      p.s. How do you equate the actual world as recorded by the federal government of the past to a fantasy world?

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
  16. The Hobbits won... by cirby · · Score: 1

    Sorta forgot that part, didn't ya?

    1. Re:The Hobbits won... by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      Sorta forgot that part, didn't ya?

      Did you RTFA? His point is that, much like LoTR, the tea bagger plan is pure fantasy.

    2. Re:The Hobbits won... by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      And came home to discover Hobbiton was trashed and their people were enslaved (movie ending notwithstanding).

  17. Congressional/Confessional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I initially read "Congressional Record" as "Confessional Record". Is that a bad thing?

  18. This is an insult to Hobbits everywhere! by cvtan · · Score: 2

    I thought Hobbits where the good guys. He meant to say trolls. Yeah, that's it. A big ugly mountain troll. Hobbits aren't real anyway.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:This is an insult to Hobbits everywhere! by mcmonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think a better analogy is, the Tea Party is like the Jedi in the Star Wars prequels.

      For the most part, they are earnest and mean well but not too bright. In the end, they will win. And only then will they realize they've been working for the dark side the whole time. Only then will they realize the disastrous conclusion of their campaign.

      And of course, by then it will be too late.

      If it makes you feel any better, just like the younglings at Jedi HQ, the Tea Party folks will be the first up against the wall when the time comes.

    2. Re:This is an insult to Hobbits everywhere! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hobbits smoke weed.

      Nobody likes filthy Hippies, and that smells like some Hippie Shit to me...

    3. Re:This is an insult to Hobbits everywhere! by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      Do the Tea Partiers like to kiss their siblings?

      And/or wookies?

    4. Re:This is an insult to Hobbits everywhere! by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Hi, Tea Partier here.

      What "Dark Side"?

      And what makes you so confident that this isn't the case for your side?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    5. Re:This is an insult to Hobbits everywhere! by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      By "Dark Side" I mean, widespread implementation of Tea Party ideals in US government is not in the best interest of most members of the Tea Party, any more than victory by the Empire was in the long term interests of the Jedi.

      My side is that those who benefited most from the policies that resulted in the huge government debt should play a proportional role in paying off that debt.

      Another aspect of the Jedi comparison which did not occur to me originally but I think is interesting is eventually you reach a point where it doesn't matter who wins. In the movies, the Jedi defeat the rebels and the robot armies, and we know how that worked out for the Jedi. Would the fate of the Jedi been different if the rebels had defeated the Empire?

      I'm sure most Tea Party folks are middle class, small-c conservative, not anarchists but don't want the government in folks' personal lives either. Call me a cynic if you will, but how much do you think the winner of the next presidential election will effect those people's lives?

    6. Re:This is an insult to Hobbits everywhere! by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      "That Sauron [Koch] bred them none doubted...Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race, strong, agile, fierce and cunning, [or rather: obese, clumsy, loud and moronic] but harder than stone. [mentally, at least] Unlike the older race of the Twilight they could endure the Sun, so long as the will of Sauron held sway over them. They spoke little, and the only tongue that they knew was the Black Speech of Barad-dur" [Fox]

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    7. Re:This is an insult to Hobbits everywhere! by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Ah. Dark side means "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."

      That's...universal, and not really a dark side.

      My side is that those who benefited most from the policies that resulted in the huge government debt should play a proportional role in paying off that debt.

      Then why have government redistribution? Just have people pay for what they use in a market system.

      Call me a cynic if you will, but how much do you think the winner of the next presidential election will effect those people's lives?

      It's not Cynicism, it's Realism. ;)

      Well, lets see, the winner of the last Presidential election started us on the path of universal health care, and through that has caused businesses to curl up in fear and stop hiring. That's effected everyone's lives pretty strongly.

      The one before that has gotten us into several badly defined wars, and bailed out banks which should have died due to their bad business policy. Know anyone who went to the wars or has had problems with their mortgage?

      The one before that showed that Feminism was just another special interest group.

      So...looks like you're being a Cynic. The Presidency is a leadership position. A place where you can influence the country without the force of law.

      In the end, it's only one piece of the Government, and not the solution to all of our problems.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    8. Re:This is an insult to Hobbits everywhere! by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      Ah. Dark side means "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."

      I think of it more as, Dark Side means, "think about why you are wishing for a particular outcome; do the people pointing you towards a particular outcome have a hidden agenda?"

      The one before that has gotten us into several badly defined wars, and bailed out banks which should have died due to their bad business policy.

      For the most part what the current president has done was strictly reactionary for the given situation (wars, economy, etc.). In the same situation, with the same Congress, I don't think the world would be a much different place if McCain had won.

      As for the previous president, in the end we got expansions of the size of government (in terms of jobs), the size of government (in terms of the economy), the size of government (in terms of citizens' lives and personal privacy). And this was with the guy from the supposedly small-government party.

      Think things would have been much different if the guy from the supposedly big-government party had won?

      Does the war in Iraq happen if Gore carries his home state? Probably not. But what will have the bigger lasting effect on the American people: the particular names at the top in Baghdad oppressing the Iraqi people? Or the deconstruction of the American economy to deal with overwhelming federal debt?

      I say the debt. And I say, that debt happens anyway, even without the war in Iraq.

      I'm not a conspiracy nut (which I realize is the first thing I would say if I was a conspiracy nut), but just look at the facts of the previous presidency.

      Under Bush we a new cabinet-level department in the federal government, expansion of socialized medicine, the unprecedented bail out. They were actually loading up cargo planes with pallets full of cash to send to Iraq.

      The one common thread in every policy enacted under Bush, the guiding principle of the Republican Party--if I was to divine such a thing from past actions--is to downplay to the extreme the cost of any action, and then spend spend spend! like crazy when given the chance.

      If you ask Republicans, they say they are for smaller federal government, more responsible economic policies, balanced budgets, lower debt. Then they vote for the exact opposite. How do you explain that?

      Are the majority of Republicans idiots, who just keep voting for the wrong people? Were the Jedi idiots, who just kept fighting for a sith lord?

      I'm sure the Jedi did not think they were idiots, but look how that turned. I'm sure Republicans don't think they are idiots, but how is that working out?

      And before the Republicans jump on me, I could say the very same about Democrats. And that's my point. When you realize the same sith load is behind the empire and the rebels, the question of "which side are you on" takes on a new meaning.

      The powers-that-be, both Republican and Democratic, are purposely destroying the US economy so it can be rebuilt, the same way the galactic federation was destroyed to be rebuilt as an empire.

      So to go back to the Tea Party/Jedi analogy: if that is the case, if both "sides" in the US government are both working towards the same end, where does the Tea Party fit in?

  19. Secret Weapon by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

    The Tea Party is the best thing that could happen to Democrats. It's their secret weapon. By the 2012 elections, the Republican party will be down to only a handful of nutcases that can pass their litmus test.

    --
    Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    1. Re:Secret Weapon by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 2

      Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

      --
      "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    2. Re:Secret Weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and the country will truly have been lost.

      Big Brother, Big Government, Wholesale raping of the "rich" to feed the "poor", no personal property, no personal responsibility, and 100% dependance on a government designed and built to serve only itself.

      Government should not serve itself.

      Government should not serve the people.

      Government should be beaten back and pushed down at every opportunity. It may be a necessary evil, but we don't have to like it, in fact, it was intended in the US for us to despise it.

    3. Re:Secret Weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Governments are comprised of the people.

      People should not serve themselves?
      People should not serve others?
      People should be beaten back and pushed down at every opportunity?

      It's you self-hating Calvinists who need to be beaten down...or hugged.

    4. Re:Secret Weapon by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      Exactly; I have to wonder whether, from a purely re-election standpoint, whether Obama would be better off if Boener's plan were passed as-is and the whole issue re-emerged in an election year with even more emphasis on "taxing the minority" vs "beggaring the majority", with further rumblings about national credit ratings and with a national discussion about whether compromise is or is not a feature of reasonable adult's behavioral process.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    5. Re:Secret Weapon by rhsanborn · · Score: 1

      Wholesale raping of the rich to feed the poor? Well, I'm convinced, I should feel terrible for the rich, seeing as we have some the largest disparities in income in modern history and one of the lowest marginal tax rates. They are truly being raped.

    6. Re:Secret Weapon by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Maybe he should've referred to them as "Ross Perots" instead of hobbits.. although, stature-wise, close enough.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    7. Re:Secret Weapon by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Governments are comprised of the people.

      Governments are comprised of a subset of the people, that more often than not put their own interest above that of others.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  20. If someone's English is better than your Quenya by tepples · · Score: 1

    you, sir, have shown me an entirely new level of disrespect for the concept of communication.

    If we had respect for the concept of communication, we'd all be speaking dialects of Quenya. But alas, men have made up thousands of mutually unintelligible languages in which to communicate. So when someone makes an error in what might not be one's native language, please don't use such tone when pointing it out.

    1. Re:If someone's English is better than your Quenya by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      If we had respect for the concept of communication, we'd all be speaking dialects of Quenya

      Obviously, that would impose no communicative or epistemological difficulties...

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  21. Does whatever a Saru can by tepples · · Score: 4, Funny

    So with Tolkien done and Superheros on the way out what's next?

    Crossovers! "Saru-man, Saru-man, does whatever a Saru can"

    1. Re:Does whatever a Saru can by Lifyre · · Score: 2

      Something tells me there is youtube gold in that idea...

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
  22. McCain should look in the mirror. by Beelzebud · · Score: 0

    Which campaign propped up, and played to the teabaggers? It was John McCain's campaing. For crying out loud he put the teabagger queen Palin in as his running mate. Now he wants to complain about the Frankenstein monster he helped create? Piss off!

    1. Re:McCain should look in the mirror. by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure McCain's campaign pre-dated the "Tea party" by a long shot. If I remember correctly, The Tea party movement began after Obama took office and started working on universal health care. They focus on cutting government spending as a way to keep dark-skinned people poor without appearing racist.

      --
      "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    2. Re:McCain should look in the mirror. by Espresso2xshot · · Score: 1

      Except that Palin is not a true Teabagger. This whole tea party thing is as much smoke and mirrors as any of it. Palin jumped on the bandwagon when she saw it as a real way to align herself with a group of people that would pay attention to her and get her to appear on all those cable "News Channels" (and I use the term news loosely). I have lost complete faith in the system as a whole. They're all crooked, every last one of them Repub, Dem, Libritarian (who are they anyways), Teabaggers etc, ALL crooks.

      Damn politics has reduced me to a fecking TROLL!

    3. Re:McCain should look in the mirror. by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Tea Party, is just a revamp of the Religious Right. They kept the craziness and took God out of it. Figuring they can get others to join... It worked.

      Palin was chosen because she was a Young, Woman who had a position high enough to carry the title and do the work as president... To counter balance Young Minority President Obama. Just to make sure if you voted for McCain you are not feeling bad about voting against a history changing moment.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:McCain should look in the mirror. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was trying to placate those same people to get the nut job far right base by adding Palin.

      Just because they've spun "nut job" to "tea party" doesn't make them different people.

    5. Re:McCain should look in the mirror. by radtea · · Score: 2

      This whole tea party thing is as much smoke and mirrors as any of it.

      The Tea Party is the biggest astroturf of all time, heavily funded and orchestrated by the Koch brothers. The only people who don't know this are the useful idiots who are members. The TP message is tailored to appeal to the politically naive, and it is working brilliantly: an army of idiots who think that the next time a project is behind schedule they should stop working on it and instead spend all their time agitating for senior management to change the company's articles of incorporation to include a "No Missed Deadlines" amendment.

      This is not to say the TP's aren't sincere in their rather belated concern about Federal spending, which somehow never once managed to come to their attention during the 80's, the 90's or the Bush II presidency. But don't for a moment think that they are suddenly getting all this media attention and organizational competency because Joe Plumber has finally realized he's a slave to the oligarchs who have borrowed America into servitude. It is because the oligarchs need something to further diminish American democracy.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    6. Re:McCain should look in the mirror. by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      And you remember incorrectly. It started to spark at the state level in New York and Seattle, and less than a moth later turned into a national firestorm when Rick Santelli bitchslapped the utter stupidity of the mortgage bill on CNBC. The stupidity of which, I might add, has merely postponed the full crash of the real estate market, not stopped it, and has therefore prevented any sort of recovery from taking place as everyone waits for the full realization of value to occur.

    7. Re:McCain should look in the mirror. by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Yeah, nothing says "Batshit insane" like wanting a smaller government.

      It's really amazing how much hatred the Tea Party drums up by simply being "Not one of us".

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    8. Re:McCain should look in the mirror. by ErikZ · · Score: 2

      The Tea Party wasn't even a concept until the Rick Santelli broadcast of 2009.

      So, you're saying John McCain propped up, and played to a movement 2 years before it existed?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    9. Re:McCain should look in the mirror. by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Yeah, why doesn't the Tea Party use that time machine and travel back to complain about the Federal spending?

      Oh wait, it didn't even start to exist until 2009. And you know this. Looks like you're trying to manipulate people through lies of omission.

      Unless you honestly believed that the Tea Party has been in existence since the 80s.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    10. Re:McCain should look in the mirror. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to look at the history of Porkbusters. And you know, judging by charts like this, there might be a reason it coalesced in 2009.

    11. Re:McCain should look in the mirror. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're all crooked, every last one of them Repub, Dem, Libritarian (who are they anyways), Teabaggers etc, ALL crooks.

      There are people in politics who *WANT* you to believe that.

      Because: then *you* won't vote, because you're desillusioned; what's the point.
      Whereas you can be sure that the fanatical Teabaggers will all be spurred on to vote.
      This shifts the balance from the political center (well.. far right, from European perspective) well into the "brown" color of the spectrum...

      And once the Tea Party is in power, there is no need anymore for you or anyone to vote, if you know what I mean.

    12. Re:McCain should look in the mirror. by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      If they were talking about taking your "gubmint" check and making you get off your ass and fend for yourself, you'd be pissed, too.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    13. Re:McCain should look in the mirror. by radtea · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that chart shows the point at which the Koch-funded spin machine stopped down-playing the deficit and started promoting the mess Obama inherited from Bush--and subsequently made worse--as something terrible. The instant there is a Republican back in the White House deficits will again cease to matter.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    14. Re:McCain should look in the mirror. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, an awful lot of tea partiers were quietly grumbling about Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush senior and Reagan, but didn't feel the urge to actually do something. Tripling the deficit is pretty big reason for people to start doing something. Obama can't even deny some responsibility for the 2009 budget since he voted for it as a senator on a nearly party line vote.

  23. I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congress is now down to the point of crafting LOTR styled insults at each other rather than actually doing anything about the real problem in this country - unemployment. That place is entirely dysfunctional since the last election.

    1. Re:I don't believe it by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

      That place is entirely dysfunctional since the last election.

      No really unexpected. Republicans can't afford to allow Obama to be successful, even if it means destroying the country in the process.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    2. Re:I don't believe it by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      When they get to address unemployment, I guess we'll be down to "Your mom" insults.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. Gollum by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

    We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little hobbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!

    --
    THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    1. Re:Gollum by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Imagining McCain as Gollum is actually scary in the way that I could picture it so well...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  25. Dunlendings duh by mirability · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows that Tea Partiers are Dunlendings, simple mountain folk experiencing economic hardship who are being manipulated by Saruman/Boehner.

  26. Pulling an economic Boehner by chemindefer · · Score: 1

    Do Hobbits have sex?

    1. Re:Pulling an economic Boehner by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yes (never heard of rule #34?).

  27. link to original WSJ editorial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone have a link to the original WSJ editorial to which McCain is responding?

  28. Are we in wonderland? by Mab_Mass · · Score: 1

    It certainly sounds like congress has gone down the rabbit hole...

    1. Re:Are we in wonderland? by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Did they reach the "Mad Tea Party" yet?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  29. Oh, please, please, please... by metrometro · · Score: 1

    Please let this turn into an Angry Hobbit cosplay rally put on by the Tea Party. Oh, I cannot wait for that.

    1. Re:Oh, please, please, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially because of the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rules most restaurants have - hobbits go barefoot.

  30. JRRT on applicability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability...

  31. Compromise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neither party understands the meaning of the word "compromise". To Democrats, a Republican is only compromising when he completely abandons the party platform. Ditto with Republicans' view on Democrats. I remember when compromise meant you give a little, I give a little.

    The US is in debt so much that we soon won't be able to even pay the interest on all our loans without granting ourselves permission to borrow even more money. In this dire situation, BOTH parties need to compromise. Republicans need to accept that a tax increase is inevitable, at least for the next decade until we start paying some principle on the loans. Democrats need to accept that the government is too big and expensive to support /everything/ while being fiscally responsible.

    1. Re:Compromise? by nomadic · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's completely incorrect. The Democrats have been willing to compromise; Obama's facing a backlash among his own party for being too willing to compromise. If you've been following the news you know where the Democrats started and where they are now and can see what they've compromised on. The Republicans still refuse to compromise at all on taxes. The trick to a healthy government is for the population to pay attention to what they do, don't just wave your hands vaguely in the air and say both parties are equally culpable.

    2. Re:Compromise? by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Democrats have been willing to compromise;

      Really? When? In fact, the Democrats haven't even proposed a single bill to correct this situation in either house. They just sit there and vote "No" to all options being presented without presenting one of their own. They are, in effect, refusing to cut spending, period. They want to raise the debt ceiling and taxes and not make any real cuts in spending. True to form - Tax-and-Spend-Democrats bankrupting this country, one election at a time.

    3. Re:Compromise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stop lixtening to fox news: obama presented aplan that accepted all the gop's cuts (specifically, cuts the gop had advocated) and redcutions in medicare and SS.

      and the gop said no (cantor pushed boehner into a corner from which boehner has yet to return).

    4. Re:Compromise? by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      Really? When?

      When have the Republicans? When Mitch McConnell woke up on the day of his "negotiation" with Obama and published an open letter about how he refuses to raise taxes? "I'm going to a negotiation but refuse to negotiate!" Lovely. We pay this man hundreds of thousands of dollars for this.

      In fact, the Democrats haven't even proposed a single bill to correct this situation in either house.

      Tax bills must originate in the House -- which the Republicans control. The only reason they bothered writing a bill is because they knew they could shove it through and force the Democrats to vote against it. They knew it had no chance whatsoever of actually becoming law. This is somehow a plus to you?

      They just sit there and vote "No" to all options being presented without presenting one of their own.

      Probably because the "options" have been "give us our way or fuck off." I personally enjoyed the Republicans' two step plan. Step one: Give us exactly what we want and in return we allow you to advance to step two. Step two: Unlike all evidence up until now, we really really promise to negotiate with you this time. Really. Scout's honor. Will you get any part of your way? Oh hells no, we couldn't do that!

      The Republican party has been hijacked by the Tea Party, and they're betting that when the shit hits the fan they won't be the ones blamed. Frankly I'm not so sure. I think this is the first and only election cycle they will be relevant and there is no part of me whatsoever that will be sad about that.

    5. Re:Compromise? by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      The Republicans and Democrats compromised once when they agreed to the spending back when they passed this thing called the Budget. This bill is working out how to pay for the spending they already approved.

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    6. Re:Compromise? by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, they never did agree on a full budget and have been piece-mealing it ever since.

    7. Re:Compromise? by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you need to watch the news. There is no such thing as the "Obama plan" and he therefore cannot have presented it to anyone.

  32. win/win by tverbeek · · Score: 1

    The end of the 2008 election gave us two good things: Obama in the White House, and McCain saying things that make sense again from time to time.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:win/win by demonbug · · Score: 2

      The end of the 2008 election gave us two good things: Obama in the White House, and McCain saying things that make sense again from time to time.

      Yeah, I used to be a fan of McCain pre-election campaign. He used to be a sensible, moderate Republican. He seems to be very (VERY!) slowly moving back towards rational territory after his unfortunate excursion into fantasyland.

  33. LOTR ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he'd used a car analogy it would have made more sense to me.

  34. Not about cuts, about "line in the sand" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "tea party" is the villain b/c they came to a negotiation with only demands and no intentions of negotiating, regardless of the consequences. Nobody wants their taxes raised, not even Warren Buffet who says he should pay more. The problem is the tea partiers draw a line in the sand saying no new taxes or tax cuts or tax laxes or anything that would actually give the country the money it needs. Nobody wants taxes, but part of a politician's job is to "Knee-go-She-ate", not walk into a meeting, make your demands, and then go home. That's being an @-hole.

    1. Re:Not about cuts, about "line in the sand" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tea party: We've put up with your shit long enough. We want our tea, and we want sugar in our tea.
      Obama: Okay, but as a compromise, you have to let me put a tablespoon full of shit in the sugar.
      Tea party: Fuck no. We don't want any of your shit in the tea. We want sugar in the tea.
      Obama: You're stretching my patience, but I'll compromise one last time. A teaspoon full of shit in the sugar. But that's my last offer.
      Tea party: Fuck no! No shit in the sugar in the tea. You're idiots. Fuck you.
      Obama: Wah! Wah! Look at me, I'm trying to make a compromise! Mean Tea partiers won't cooperate! I'm the good guy here!

    2. Re:Not about cuts, about "line in the sand" by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      You forgot:

      MSNBC: Tea Partiers are FOOLS. Obama offered them shit and they turned him down. Idiots.
      CNN: It is obvious the Tea Party doesn't understand how things work. That was some nice brown shit they turned down.
      NightLine: Are Tea Party candidates closet shit eaters?
      Rachel Maddow: The Tea Party won't eat SHIT! Are they crazy? Everybody likes SHIT!

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    3. Re:Not about cuts, about "line in the sand" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm the AC calling out the "Irregardless" higher up. I want to thank you, personally, for using the correct word in this context.

      So long, and thanks for all the fish!
      and the captcha is "obvious"

  35. mod parent up by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    FINALLY somebody points it out! Its no different a strategy than creating multiple brands for your megacorporation -- they hire plenty of P.R. experts... one should expect them to use the same tricks. "Those GM losers.. I'll never buy one of their cars! I'll buy a Cadillac instead."

    Palin was a purely marketing based decision. McCain likely didn't even choose her (other than to simply take the marketing advise... funny that she couldn't ever listen her handlers... the marketing people didn't think that far ahead.)

  36. Should be tagged by the_one_wesp · · Score: 1, Funny

    Teabaggins

    1. Re:Should be tagged by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      I've been a member of the Tea party now for almost three years, and of all the derision, put downs, and insults we've gotten...

      Teabaggins has been the funniest.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    2. Re:Should be tagged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is pretty much my favorite comment of all time.

    3. Re:Should be tagged by mikechant · · Score: 1

      Damn near crapped myself...

  37. only +5... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh my, that was a good one.

    In fact I think we'll need to raise the +5 mod cap. Please? We'll promise to give out mod points less often in the future...

  38. McCain isnt a republican. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is a 'moderate' republican? A DEMOCRAT. McCain flip flops on issues with the best of them..

    He's mad, like every other politician because there is resistance to allowing more debt to be piled on..

    Warren Buffett: "You could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than three percent of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection."

    1. Re:McCain isnt a republican. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't change a thing...the faces would just change more often.

  39. Actually... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    Peter Jackson films are for-profit ventures. Despite of what we may have heard about Hollywood Accounting, profitability always takes priority in such ventures. US Government... not so much.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:Actually... by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      You must not understand what a pork project is . . .

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:Actually... by next_ghost · · Score: 1

      Actually, profitability takes priority even in governments, including USG. The only problem is that it's the kind of profitability that benefits only government figures and their friends, not the people.

  40. Way to completely miss the point by Benfea · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If having less government automagically makes things better, then Somalia must be the best place on Earth. Quite frankly, if you rightists have your way, America will become largely indistinguishable from third world nations like Somalia, so why go through all the effort of destroying America when your ideal society already exists elsewhere in the world?

    1. Re:Way to completely miss the point by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Rightists and leftists are indistinguishable to me. Both sides of the aisle have bought into globalism, and both sides serve Corporate America, rather than the constituents who elect them. So - don't point fingers at the righties. The lefties are just as bad.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:Way to completely miss the point by smelch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why is it that all of a sudden reducing government (which has only grown over the years) is tantamount to becoming anarchy? Some nutjobs do believe in almost no government, most of us believe in a weaker federal government because what people in California want doesn't matter to people in Ohio, and what people in Ohio want doesn't matter to people in Florida. Example: Federal law has it that we can't use marijuana for medicinal purposes. California is in violation of that law, but most Californians don't care, and a lot of people outside of California would like to move there specifically for that. Wouldn't it make sense that people outside of California not have a say in what happens in California? This kind of bullshit happens all the time. It's about granularity. Small democracies work way, way better than big ones. It makes no sense to have the biggest, most diverse, least related group of voters doing the most powerful governing.

      The federal government, as the least representative government of any specific person does a whole hell of a lot it was never intended to do. It's not a matter if government should do it, it's a matter of if a government so far removed should do it. If every single person in Montana wanted to opt out of Social Security in favor of their own locally run version, where do the assholes in the rest of the states get off telling them how to run their lives? If you want to be a dictator to the minority, instead of respect differences of opinion, maybe you should leave. Your ideas of how the government should be run are further out of touch with our laws than small government fans. You obviously don't have the support to change the laws or the constitution would have been ammended to make a lot of these illegal, overreaching programs legal, so you get out. There is nothing stopping any state from implementing any of the federal programs for themselves, they just want to impose it on everybody else whether they agree to it or not so they can get the benefit of other state's resources. That is the evil of strong central government, that is the purpose of the electoral college, and that is why changes to the constitution require more than a simple majority. But you can get around all of that by simply ignoring the constitution, and that's what we as a country have done. Somehow the people that don't support it want to send us back to a third world country? No, not at all. But I guess it's easier for you to cover your ears and scream than to challenge your own beliefs.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    3. Re:Way to completely miss the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I guess it's easier for you to cover your ears and scream than to challenge your own beliefs.

      Well, yeah. The status quo is on our side. We don't have to challenge a thing.

    4. Re:Way to completely miss the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So - don't point fingers at the righties. The lefties are just as bad.

      This is true for the most part. But in the current debt-ceiling talks, the tea party are definitely the biggest joke in town. Everyone should point their fingers at the Tea Party and laugh.

    5. Re:Way to completely miss the point by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Small democracies work way, way better than big ones.

      Like Belgium compared to Germany?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  41. It's so disgusting to be old like that! by anotheryak · · Score: 2

    How dare he be old! Stupid jerk...he should know that once you get old, you are instantly disgusting and should report to a Sleepshop on lastday.

    1. Re:It's so disgusting to be old like that! by jimmerz28 · · Score: 1

      That was the one thing I liked about having to read The Giver. You over 55? Time to be released!

  42. Teabaggers are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hobbits? They are more like Orcs.

  43. Hobbits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not hobbits - Orcs

  44. States' rights? by Unordained · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All power to the Counties! All power to the Cities! All power to the neighborhoods!

    What is the deal with States, that they're so awesome? Maybe it's because I live in Oklahoma at the moment, but I'm just not seeing it. When we talk about mobility, you have to remember that the reason it's relatively (not absolutely, by a long shot) easy to pick up and move between states is that there's a certain amount of standardization provided by the federal government. Even something as simple as "states must recognize marriages from other states" makes a huge difference in where people could/would move for a job, for economic reasons. And it just goes up from there.

    Also, do you really think the people of Missouri have sufficiently different needs and wants from the people of Oklahoma, that they need different laws? Maybe Utah does, and Texas just needs it for its ego, but really? We're all humans [for now], we're all potential works and employers. You might argue that when economic trouble hits, different regions need different economic policies applied because of local industry variations, but that's not prevented by the federal government; it already doles out money to various industries selectively, affecting regions differently. We decry the International Criminal Court as a violation of our sovereignty, we despise super-national unions like the EU, but really we're just drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. This far, and no further.

    Are some states "red" and others "blue"? Maybe, but does that mean that we need states that are right next to each other, with either a 49/51 or 51/49 ratio, to be run entirely differently? Do you think that the resulting "sloshing", as people move out of their current states to escape overly-partisan policies, is good for us in the long term? Do you think polarizing our populations even more will solve our problems?

    I realize this is about ideology, whether you believe that we are generally smarter or dumber as a group than as an individual. And I think that it's both, depending on the issue. Maybe we're smarter individually when running a small business, but we're dumber when it comes to planning health insurance, the military, etc. All of that is debatable, and actively debated, and that's healthy. I guess we could just split the union. Two countries. One centralized, one completely decentralized. Tear families apart. Break our economy. Increase tensions. Lose power in the world. And then split again, when each side disagrees on how much centralization is good.

    States' rights sound awesome, but what would you *do* with that power and granularity, that can't or shouldn't be done at a higher or lower level?

    1. Re:States' rights? by ArcherB · · Score: 2

      States' rights sound awesome, but what would you *do* with that power and granularity, that can't or shouldn't be done at a higher or lower level?

      Well, whatever you want. Your state could legalize marijuana. Your state could legalize gay marriage. Your state could ban abortion. Really, it's whatever your state wanted to do.

      However, you are correct that their are limits. Part of the 10th Amendment states that duties of the federal government are the fed's job, not the states. Coining money, for example is a federal job. States may not coin their own money. Also, states may not violate Constitutional rights. For example, an Oklahoma policeman may not search your house without a warrant. Utah may not decide that Mormon is the state religion. New York City may not prevent the NYPost from publishing a politically damaging story about the Mayor.

      As for being forced to move for economic reasons, maybe there is a reason why a different state has a better economy than yours. Maybe it's good roads. Maybe it's lower taxes. Maybe that other state found the perfect balance between roads and taxes. Whatever it is, if a state sucks at governing itself, then the people will move to a state that does a better job of it until that state gets its act together. As for you, I agree; Oklahoma sux! But there is a reason why you could find a job there and not a state of your liking. You have to decide which one you like better. Do you want a job or do you want to live with like minded people that are all unemployed but also think that Oklahoma sucks.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:States' rights? by Unordained · · Score: 1

      But that still doesn't answer why the State is the ideal layer for this to happen. It's arbitrary. Sure, we can quote the Constitution, or bring up the Founding Fathers, to justify doing things "by the book", but why? Just because that's the way some dead guys designed the system? Including dead guys who felt they had very little right to tell the next generation how to run the show? So then it just becomes an argument about either doing things by the book, or rewriting the book. Which is fine and dandy, but it doesn't speak to the issue of *why*. Why can't I make prostitution illegal on my plot of land? Ultimately, shouldn't I be able to decide? And I'm sure anti-abortionists would feel that banning it in some states, and not in others, is akin to having slavery in the state next door: morally unjustifiable. We clearly recognize that there are basic human rights -- and some less obvious -- that deserve upholding both here and abroad. We don't consider murder in Somalia acceptable just because there's no functioning government to decide that it's wrong -- we're unlikely to be okay with morality issues varying much at all across state (or county) boundaries. We're uncomfortable with them varying across national boundaries as it is.

      Yes, variety is great. But people don't make decisions purely on one factor. You're not going to create a state to put all the republicans in, because it'll satisfy their political desires -- because ultimately, they decide where to live based on politics, religion, family, jobs, landscape, weather, friends, history, culture. You can't create enough buckets to make everyone, or even most, or likely even some, people happy. As it is, clearly, people don't move just because of economic choices -- the south would be empty by now. Clearly, people don't move because of pollution or overpopulation, the north-east would be empty. They don't move because of housing prices, the west would be empty. They don't move because of legalization, the west would be even fuller. The whole "if you don't like it, you can move" argument fails the reality test. People only move when they HAVE to. They move when their governments start shooting them -- and even then, not everyone does. They move when famine sets in -- and even then, not everyone does.

      We need to find solutions that don't require removing people from their current geographical area.

    3. Re:States' rights? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Why can't I make prostitution illegal on my plot of land? Ultimately, shouldn't I be able to decide? And I'm sure anti-abortionists would feel that banning it in some states, and not in others, is akin to having slavery in the state next door: morally unjustifiable. We clearly recognize that there are basic human rights -- and some less obvious -- that deserve upholding both here and abroad.

      Actually, you may make prostitution legal if you want... in Nevada. Laws against prostitution are state laws. If you want to make it "illegal" on your land, say, in a state where it is legal, than you may. It's your land. If you don't want someone paying for sex on your land, then kindly ask them to leave. If you want to be a pimp, and do it legally, you may petition your local state legislature to make prostitution legal or move to a state where it already is (Nevada is the only one).

      You mentioned slavery. Slavery is a fine example of how this is supposed to work. There was no federal law against slavery and no Constitutional given power for the federal government to make one. The solution? Amend the Constitution, which is exactly what happened. So, if you want abortion to be legal in all 50 states, then the Constitution should be amended to allow it. Otherwise, it should be up for each state to decide.

      We don't consider murder in Somalia acceptable just because there's no functioning government to decide that it's wrong -- we're unlikely to be okay with morality issues varying much at all across state (or county) boundaries. We're uncomfortable with them varying across national boundaries as it is.

      Exactly. I'm not comfortable with, say, child prostitution in Somalia, but frankly, there is nothing I can do about it. If Kentucky wanted to make child prostitution legal, it would also make me extremely uncomfortable. For that matter, I believe it would make so many people uncomfortable with it that we would either amend the Constitution to stop it or stop doing business with any company based in KY or that continues to do business in KY. One way or the other, it would stop.

      The Civil Rights Act is another example. I believe it was Ron Paul who got in trouble for saying it is no longer necessary. If a burger joint said "whites only", would you eat there? I certainly wouldn't. I don't know anyone that would. That all cracker burger joint would go out of business and a burger joint with no such limitations would replace it. And even if the market didn't fix the problem, and then the states didn't fix the problem, then it would be up to the feds to step in and make it so that it couldn't happen anywhere, ever again (again, Constitutional amendment).

      We need to find solutions that don't require removing people from their current geographical area.

      You have a point, but it comes down to choice. Let's say Obama's health care plan funds abortions. If I don't want my tax dollars used to fund abortions, because my religion is against it, what choice do I have? I have none. I have to pay for something I vehemently oppose or I can go to jail. Not really a choice. If done at a state level, you would be free to move. Sure, you might stay in the state you're in and bitch and moan about it, but at least you have a choice. But if you make all states the same by laws at a federal level, you strip me of that choice along with anyone else who happens to disagree with at least 50.00001% of the population. Remember, what works for NY City may not work for Climax Michigan. Why should they have the same laws?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:States' rights? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Part of the 10th Amendment states that duties of the federal government are the fed's job, not the states.
      >>Utah may not decide that Mormon is the state religion.

      This would be news to the founding fathers. 9 out of the 13 colonies had established religions. (http://www.kknfa.org/Religion_13Colonies.htm)

      The first amendment applied to the Federal government only, not the states, and the 10th Amendment didn't overwrite this.

      It wasn't until the mid-20th Century that the 14th amendment, in Everson vs. Board of Education, was ruled to prohibit establishment of churches at the state level.

    5. Re:States' rights? by Unordained · · Score: 1

      I believe the standard response, after 9/11, was "if you don't like it, you can move to France." That is, even if laws are federal, people will just be told to switch countries instead of states. It's not a solution, it's just a retort. Your argument seems like it would recommend open borders, freedom of immigration and emigration. (Emigration is rather easy, but if nobody will accept you, it's pointless.) If the people of Mexico don't like it down there, why shouldn't they move here? Oh, wait, because we don't want to let them in! Why not? We're not afraid of migration between states because there's little incentive to move -- only minor differences, thus minor sloshing about. If we have more variety, I expect states will setup barriers to entry, as we have at the national level, because that's what we do when we start having places that are "this way" vs. "that way". We start to want to keep people out who might want to make changes inside our sacred place, people who could skew our votes and cause us to need to leave and setup a new place. And so forth for all eternity, as we run away from each other. Hurray?

      If you're going to go down this path, how about something more clean: any group of people, at any point, can essentially secede from the union, take their land, and make a new country/state/whatever, with their own laws. Why should "states" be sacred? Why should you obey the laws of your own country, when you didn't decide to live here in the first place? Your citizenship (by birth) in this country doesn't guarantee you the right to change citizenship at 18, so you're essentially a prisoner anyway. You should have a right to form your own country, inside the boundaries of this one, and cut ties! If we're going to slosh about, let's do it joyously.

      You mention NY City, but provide no argumentation on why the Federal government should give up power specifically to the State, and not to Cities, etc. I still argue you're making arbitrary distinctions. I'm sure you'd leave some powers at the Federal level, but so far the only argument I see is that the Constitution says so, or that we should amend the Constitution -- but how do we do that, other than through our current process? If 51% of us (at the national level) are okay with that power staying with the Federal government, then you have no way of achieving State power. You have to have the power before you can get the power.

      To be clear: I'm not arguing against individuals having more say, or reducing government, or whatever -- I just don't understand the fascination with *state* rights.

    6. Re:States' rights? by xenoc_1 · · Score: 1

      "States that are right next to each other... run entirely differently" is in fact our Constitutional system.

      States are supposed to have this capability as part of the grand American Experiment. To some extent, they still do. Bicameral legislature may be the norm but there is one US state, two territories, and DC which have unicameral legislatures http://v.gd/0eGJ5A. Massachusetts passed an individual health insurance mandate, much to Romney's now-regret, but other states did not. Gun control laws differ, in large part due to the different sensibilities, geography, customs of life in different states. Auto licensing ages differ.

      There should be much more of this, not less.

  45. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't Slashdot about scientific and tech stories? Or is this some lame way the liberals are trying to sway public opinion, by posting everywhere on the internet. Obama made the biggest mistake of any president by not taking the lead on this and causing this public split by using this childish blame game!

  46. Talk about being deluded, Obama is Saruman by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    First I cannot fit the Tea Party into Lord of the Rings, there really isn't a faction they relate too. As for Obama, he is Saruman. When he speaks people fall under a spell which removes them from reality. The Democrats and Republicans are Mordor, they are willing to burn up the American public to hold onto power. This means they refuse to accept the reality that there is a limit to other people's money. They are quite willing to throw Main Street under the wheels in favor of political power - both while in office and without.

    The Tea Party is a kick in the nuts to regular politicians. The only problem is that there is no authentic group on the left that also calls out their side for their reckless spending. While I will never be part of the Tea Party they are far better than the Democratic and Republican parties who not only lost their way a long time ago but really don't give a shit about us anymore

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Talk about being deluded, Obama is Saruman by RussellSHarris · · Score: 1

      They're the Ents, obviously. Slow-moving and a little bit stuck-in-their-ways, but finally pissed off enough to uproot and go on the offensive.

  47. what would mccain call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    harry reid and his democrats then since they don't support boehner's deal either
    "No D will vote for a short-term Band-Aid that would put economy at risk. Boehner's plan will be defeated"
    "As soon as the House votes on Boehner's bill, the Senate will move to take it up. It will be defeated"

  48. Why is this a story? He's wrong..but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but....why is this a story?

    1. Re:Why is this a story? He's wrong..but.. by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      Is a reminder that any man who would be part of a plan that risked placing Palin in the Oval Office in the event of his statistically imminent death is barely qualified to run a hotdog stand. He should have attracted less derision if he introduced a pony as his sexual partner and running mate.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
  49. Disagree: the only way by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    that comparison holds up is if Hobbits were as virulently racist as the Tea Baggers. Seriously; there are more minorites in an Abercrombie & Fitch catalog than any attending a Tea Bagger rally. Be honest; if polled, around 90% of Baggers would state they believe Obama isn't a Christian or a US citizen or both. Their rallying cry wasn't "Budget!", it was "Ni**er!!".

    1. Re:Disagree: the only way by XJHardware · · Score: 1

      Provide a link. I've never heard any racial rhetoric, or accusations, from any reliable media source. Otherwise I'm just going to assume you have nothing of substance to add and dismiss this ridiculous accusation out of hand.

      --
      The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
  50. Have pitty on him by publiclurker · · Score: 2

    He actually thinks being from Texas is a source of pride instead of a shameful laughingstock.

    1. Re:Have pitty on him by cobrausn · · Score: 1

      We don't expect fools such as you to understand. Feel free to keep living in our shadow, silly internet troll.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    2. Re:Have pitty on him by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      I grew up mostly in Texas, but I didn't realize just how huge the Texas economy had gotten. Over $1.2 trillion. More than half the size of Russia, France or Great Britain. Nearly as big as Canada or South Korea. Bigger than all of Scandinavia combined, with enough left over for Ireland. Bigger than the bottom 90 sovereign nations combined (that's Bolivia and below).

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  51. ?Easterlings? by reasterling · · Score: 1

    No, the Tea Party seems to be much more like the Easterlings

    I am an Easterling you insensitive ...

    Seriously, it has been a long time sense I read the hobbit, were there really a people in the book called the Easterlings?

    --
    "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
  52. So certain are you... by tiltowait · · Score: 1

    Assuming you guys are talking about McCain's 2008 Presidential campaign, that was indeed before the Santelli rant, which happened on 2/19/2009.

  53. Read a book by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    The hobbits are NOT just the members of the fellow ship of the ring but the entire people who believed that if they didn't mind the outside world the outside world wouldn't mind them. The majority of hobbits wanted nothing to do with the outside world problems. Only when the troubles came to them and a few hobbits helped them did they finally make a stand when they had no other option. Scouring of the Shire, the bit that did NOT make it into the movie.

    Really kid, READ a book. Just once, it won't bite.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Read a book by MontyApollo · · Score: 1

      Well, if you RTFA, you would have saw the context of the WSJ article was the hobbits that were heroes and won the war...Really kid, READ TFA. Just once, it won't bite...it was not some great anthropological study of hobbits...it was a sarcastic remark about the Tea Party appearing to be stuck in a fantasy world...

  54. Demand of epSos.de by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They hases my precious. Theys must give back the precious.

    Ahrrrrrrrrr !!!

  55. Ron Paul? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was that a veiled Ron Paul reference?

  56. Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, because America wants a liberal who wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. The democrat voters wanted to get out of Iraq, but failed in 2006, (see Lieberman). I think moderate is what a power grubbing politician without any principles calls him/herself.

    Seriously, if there was no foreign wars in the last 10 years, would the American Public think money spent by Washington disappeared into nothingness?

  57. Regardless... by No2NT · · Score: 1

    .. the hobbits won.

  58. Supervillain by ukemike · · Score: 1

    I see the current crop of Republican Tea Party Types as being very much like a cartoon super villain. For example right now they are holding our future and economy hostage and seem perfectly willing to screw us all if they don't get 110% of what they want and 0% of what they don't want. Their priorities are preventing reasonable taxes being re-instituted for the rich and corporations. Now it looks like they are trying to arrange a situation where we have a debt limit crisis every 6 months so they can hold us all hostage over and over. It's like Lex Luthor controls congress and the supreme court.

    --
    -- QED
    1. Re:Supervillain by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I have a hard time believing Lex Luthor, criminal genius extraordinaire, would be as clumsy and moronic as the Tea Party members tend to be. I can see him fucking over the government, but with some cleverness. The Tea Party is more like Godzilla smashing Tokyo. Yes, big and scary, but ultimately with the brains of a cockroach.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  59. Dear John by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Retire already, you RINO fart.

  60. Incorrect, sir by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    the issue is that they want to do it ALL at once

    To do it all at once would be to not raise the debt ceiling, ever again, thereby forcing our annual deficit to suddenly go from $1.5 trillion to zero.

    You're right, that would be quite a shock to the system, causing much short-term pain; and I haven't heard anybody, no matter how far on the right, propose that.

    I have, however, done a thought experiment about it.

    If you're going to stop spending money on things that you shouldn't be spending money on, is it better to phase out the improper spending over a period of 10+ years, or to do it all at once?

    Depends whether you want to minimize your short-term pain, or the total amount of pain that accumulates in future years. Because if you phase out the spending too gradually, our national debt keeps increasing -- from the current $14 trillion, to $30 trillion and beyond. We, and our kids and grandkids, will have to pay the interest on that enormous sum, every year -- probably forever, because after paying the interest you're exhausted and you can't pay down any principal.

    If you really think about it, we are stealing from our kids and grandkids by not biting the bullet and doing it all at once.

    And then there's the likelihood that future Congresses, any time they're not faced with an immediate crisis, will return to their old ways and not honor the restrained spending plans agreed to by previous Congresses. (It's not accurate to call them spending "cuts," because they aren't cuts, they are merely smaller increases in government spending. So I'll generously call them "restrained spending plans," not cuts.)

    If that happens, we may be looking at a $45 trillion debt 10 years from now, not $30 trillion.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  61. No, he understood. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't like the guy, but in McCain's defense, it was sarcasm.

    Here is his actual comment: "The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue and the public will turn en masse against Barack Obama.... Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the tea party hobbits could return to Middle-earth having defeated Mordor."

    He refers to this as "worse than foolish".

    He's correct.

    Now I'm wondering, when did he see or read LotR, or who told him about it? I mean, John McCain making a LotR reference is just incredible.

  62. fairy tales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fairy tale endings: you mean the part where the evil step parents/siblings get their eyes gouged out while the hero/ine lives happily every after?

    Or the politically corrected Disney-fied version?

  63. Looking forward to the Third Age... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's all fucked up. let the federal fucked-up government default and go bankrupt. let gondor fall! let the power fall...back where it belongs...in the local provinces and regions.

  64. Re:fartknockers' rights? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Huh huh. You said KY Heh heh.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  65. He's in trouble now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i can't wait for the NAAHP (National American Association of Hobbit People) to burn a cross in his yard...

  66. You Know How I Went In For Shiriffing ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The original post was on the right track. Tea baggers are Hobbits. Tea baggers are Shiriffs, goaded on by Sharkey's Big Men.

  67. UN PRESIDENT TIM KALEMKARIAN, US PRESIDENT,SENATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UN President TIM KALEMKARIAN, US President TIM KALEMKARIAN, US Senate TIM KALEMKARIAN, US House TIM KALEMKARIAN: best major candidate.