Obama, Daschle will destroy GOP by preventing government shrinkage?

I just skimmed the article. It is interesting. Essentially the most serious threat to conservative ideology is government programs that work and are popular. It is even better than watching conservative anti-government ideology fail as we are currently seeing with the aftermath of deregulation in the security and mortgage markets.

That is why Reagan and Bush tried so hard to weaken social security.

from the article.

 

What was Buckley's motto for conservatism: "Standing athwart history, yelling, 'Stop!'"

By definition, conservatives have opposed every social progress we've made in this country. Medicaid. Medicare. Social Security.

Universal health care won't be any different.

 

So true. They like to call themselves at times libertarians or apparently "reformers" or even mavericks or code words.

 

I don't think that was the meaning. I think he meant that even a disastrous health care plan would be nearly impossible to eliminate.

I don't think the jury is out on SS yet. It may yet prove to be inherently unsustainable. With lower birthrates and longer lifespans - it is going to cost more and more for the average worker to support SS. Also - the recipients of SS will continue to grow in population percentage and may very well vote in their own interests and increase benefits, etc. I think we have to go through a few generations at the very least to determine whether or not SS was "successful". Maybe we will reach a point where birthrates and lifespans will stabilize. Or maybe we can add some incentive for people to keep working if they are able to. I'm not sure.

In theory, maybe some sort of "enforced savings plan" is better. Maybe it sounds a bit like Bush's plan. But instead of a general pool, we have some sort of concept of a "personal account" that has to be invested in T-bills. I don't think that is how it currently work is it?

 

Operation Coffee Cup

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fRdLpem-AAs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fRdLpem-AAs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

This might be my favorite album cover all-time.

Thing is, appeals to fears of communism or socialism have lost their novelty. Thus today's conservatives in order to get elected have to lie and claim they'll preserve, say, Social Security, while at the same time attempting to undermine/destroy it (i.e. "private accounts").

 

I think there 2 elements to "private accounts". One is more of a conecpt of an enforced savings plan (govt bonds?) that can be willed, inherited, etc.

The other is allowing SS revenues to be invested in the stock market.

While both have failings, I don't see number one as radically conservative. number one sort of ensures that the system wiill fund itself and be more resillient to demographic changes.

 

The conservatives haven't been shrinking the govt. in years. They've had their shot.

 

LOL. that is s huge point. the GOP isn't run by conservatives any more. there's more to fiscal conservatism than lower taxes.

 

Rush Limbaugh hates F.D.R.


Maybe the best president we ever had.

 

I don't think FDR;s opinion really matters in the scope of SS today. He meant it as a temporary program. That would be extremely "conservative" by today's standards. I think even most GOP congressman would be against a phase-out of the program.

 

You mean three costly programs that are complete disasters? Programs where the government has to hide the true cost from taxpayers by "splitting" it between the employer and the employee because to have a 15% tax taken from paychecks in a visible way would cause them to totally lose popular support?

 

Yep, and they would be clamoring to bail it out if is needed some general revenue. Political reality. You can talk birthrates etc.

People forget that Republicans voted heavily against Social Security originally and whenever the tide of conservatism crests they dare to try to eliminate it. Their main success to date is to use phony number to create fear among the young that they won't get benefits.

 

I agree.

That's why it's strange to point fingers at just Obama and/or Daschle.

 

I WAS IN THE POOL!!
<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v285/lpbman/?action=view&current=george_costanza036.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v285/lpbman/george_costanza036.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

 

Yes we conservatives have opposed all this progress because the liberals have no clue how to pay for all these programs.

"The U.S. government is committed under current law to mandatory payments for programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The GAO projects that payouts for these programs will significantly exceed tax revenues over the next 75 years. The Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) payouts already exceed program tax revenues and Social Security payroll taxes fully cover payouts only until 2017. These deficits require funding from other tax sources or borrowing.The present value of these deficits or unfunded obligations is an estimated $41 trillion. This is the amount that would have to be set aside during 2008 such that the principal and interest would pay for the unfunded commitments through 2082. Approximately $7 trillion relates to Social Security, while $34 trillion relates to Medicare and Medicaid. In other words, healthcare programs are nearly five times as serious a funding challenge as Social Security. Adding this to the national debt during September 2008 of nearly $10 trillion and other federal commitments brings the total obligations to nearly $53 trillion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#cite_note-67

So by definition Liberals have made significant "progress", towards BANKRUPTCY.

Universal health care won't be any different.

 

Ronald Reagan passed into law the Low Income Tax Credit, which has been one of the most effective social program in the past 25 years.

so true,

likewise,

there is more to liberal Democratic policies than just tax increases.

there is more to welfare programs than just the poor; Corporations are welfare recipients and they also get bailouts as well.

 

One of the biggest expenditures in the whole welfare system is health care. If we fix that, then it could actually end up saving the govt. money.

 

WE sure could. Private medicine can't compete with a national health care system.. One of every 4 dollars goes toward bureaucracy and profits, which are heavily skewed to the executives and upper class stock holders. Less than 5% is diverted away from health care with Medicare. That's why we can have so many uninsured, yet spend much more per capita than the other advanced countries.

42% of the government budget supposedly goes to the military. Times are tough we just can't afford to outspend or equal the rest of the world.

The lobbyists for the health care mess and the military boondoggle will be fierce , but they must be overcome. America must stop waste in these two huge areas.

 

If only conservatives would understand that government shrinkage includes the military. I am for a leaner government but I'm not gonna give up spending on healthcare plans just so we can pay for a war.