Is McCain fit to be President?

[shropshire 0]

That's O.K

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I was off by a couple years, once the baby-boomers are in full-swing retirement, SSI will begin negative flow as early as 2017.
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=85749

Yes, the benefits will exceed the taxes in 2017 with no action taken. However, it will take until (best estimates) 2041 before the revenue generated from the trust fund plus the taxes is exceeded by benefits. Insolvency doesn't come in 2017.

Quote

This is why we (as a nation) should be kicking ourselves for at least not allowing a partial privatization of Social Security withholding. The return I could get, as an individual, by saving $50/month, for 30 years is so much better, it makes financial sense to abandon SSI completely.

That defeats the purpose of Social Security. It's a safety net, not a retirement plan. Private accounts mean that some people will invest poorly, ending up with too few or no benefits.

Instead of private accounts, I would suggest allowing people to match their SS taxes in retirement accounts that are tax free going in, like a traditional IRA, and out, like a Roth IRA.

Quote

Sh*t....with SSI's performance, crazy negative return and Medicare barely holding on, why would anyone want the government to handle healthcare?

In a democracy, most anything the people can accomplish privately can be accomplished by the government. The people just have to be active in said government.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

• Quote

[Gawain 0]

Quote

In a democracy, most anything the people can accomplish privately can be accomplished by the government. The people just have to be active in said government.

However, I fail to remember anything in the Constitution that mandates the government provide supplemental income post retirement, or provide welfare checks that encourage remaining out of work, or provide healthcare, or do anything of the like....

None of it is efficient. In fact, for every government program, there is a private solution that is more cost effective, more efficient, better run, and flat out works.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rushmc 23]

In a democracy, most anything the people can accomplish privately can be accomplished by the government. The people just have to be active in said government.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

However, I fail to remember anything in the Constitution that mandates the government provide supplemental income post retirement, or provide welfare checks that encourage remaining out of work, or provide healthcare, or do anything of the like....

Did you check the Preamble?

Quote

None of it is efficient. In fact, for every government program, there is a private solution that is more cost effective, more efficient, better run, and flat out works.

Private industry does not have the market cornered on efficiency. One only needs to look as far as the private healthcare industry in the US for an obvious example. We pay more than anywhere else in the world, yet we do not have the best healthcare. There are numerous countries with socialized healthcare that receive better care at lower cost, on a per capita basis.

From a mathematical perspective, sometimes a cooperative, socialist strategy is a more efficient, and sometimes a competitive, capitalist strategy is more efficient. Neither is a superior strategy all the time, in all situations.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

the US is not a "democracy" .

So true. In a democracy, the citizens would make the effort to fulfill their minimal civic responsibility of voting.

Can you offer any examples of problems in government that are not directly or indirectly caused by the large proportion of politically apathetic citizens?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,008]

>However, I fail to remember anything in the Constitution that mandates
>the government provide supplemental income post retirement, or provide
>welfare checks that encourage remaining out of work, or provide
>healthcare, or do anything of the like....

It's actually in the very first line.

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty . . ."

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

It's actually in the very first line.

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty . . ."

Constructionist!

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

promote the general welfare

I dislike the ambiguity of that phrase.

Plus, too many people seem to see the word "provide" in there somewhere.

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 3,008]

>I dislike the ambiguity of that phrase.

I do as well. But it's in there.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Did you check the Preamble?

Yes, I did - the word used is "promote", not "provide".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

As I tremble typing this, I will admit that I believe Clinton would make a better president than Obama. He may talk a good talk, but the experience is just not there. It's like promoting the janitor to CEO.

I find that a weak argument.

Your current president may have had some experience, but has has also bankrupted a large number of companies and organizations he was ever associated with. Is any experience better than little experience in your books?

I don't think McCain is fit to be President. His stupidity on foreign affairs is shocking. The fact that many will still vote for him is even more shocking.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Of course, your country would have far more money to spend on it's citizens health and social issues (and pay off it's massive debt) if it didn't waste so much sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong, in other people countries.

Oh, 100% true.

But perhaps it's time that we stop looking at, "We'd have more money to spend" and instead start asking ourselves, "Why are we spending so much?"

There is also the argument of, "We could be spending the war money on healthcare." Yeah, and then we'd still be in huge deficit trouble.

PJ O'Rourke has his circumcision principle: "You can cut 10% off of anything."

I think US Congress should be viewed as a paraphrase to Winston Churchill: "Never have so few spent so much for so little..."

Instead of redirecting the spending of money we don't have, should not we just stop spending money we don't have?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Instead of redirecting the spending of money we don't have, should not we just stop spending money we don't have?

Yes to both.

[shropshire 0]

Indeed but now you need a plan to impliment the change... It does not seem to be in the politicians interest to do so.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

However, I fail to remember anything in the Constitution that mandates the government provide supplemental income post retirement, or provide welfare checks that encourage remaining out of work, or provide healthcare, or do anything of the like....

The Constitution also says nothing about a Space Exploration program, limiting stem cell research, oil industry subsidies, the Farm Bill, systematic signage on the interstate freeway system, nanotechnology, missile defense (there’s over $12B/y that some characterize as “corporate welfare” that I recommend eliminating), the internet, or the disposal of nuclear waste to name a few.

As has been pointed out, the Constitution does mention the general welfare (along with common defense).

Quote

In fact, for every government program, there is a private solution that is more cost effective, more efficient, better run, and flat out works.

“Every”? Really? [surprised]

In his Congressional testimony last fall, what did Eric Prince say w/r/t cost effectiveness and efficiency of private military security contractors? He said he didn’t know and recommended a study be done.

What did the US Air Force Air Logistics find w/r/t cost effectiveness and efficiency of privatization of contracting Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) and unscheduled repair activities on F-15, C-130, C-5 and C-17 aircraft? They tried it and found it was so inefficient and cost more than federal employees. WR-ALC 402d MXW reversed the decision and is now hiring.

What did Vannevar Bush say about the importance of federal funding for research – because the private sector wouldn’t do it – in his famous letter (& report) to President Roosevelt? That it was critical to national defense, and his recommendations led to the creation of the National Science Foundation.

How about standards? Do we really want Beta vs VHS, HD vs BlueRay playing out w/r/t all things that depend on measurements and standards? From clocks to nuclear security? I don’t.

Public Health Services? Microbes don't discriminate based on class, race, ethnic group, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or political affiliation.

Intelligence?

As Marc noted directly below your post: “This is a good pipe dream but it has been proven untrue for decades.” Too much government stifles innovation and competition; too little results in a variety of ills, ranging from “thalidomide” babies to the unemployment of the 1930s & the Great Depression to failed states. The 'trick' is finding the right mix, figuring out which ones are better to be more conservative on (e.g., intelligence - on the side of federal), and creating flexible programs that can respond as situations and needs change.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

The mathematics is relatively simple, but if we take action now, a small tax increase is all that is necessary. The longer we wait, the bigger the required tax increase will be.

Quote

President Bush tried to get Congress moving on this one.

Do you really believe Bush would sign a bill raising taxes? His method of operation has thus far been to cut taxes and increase government spending. I'm pretty sure simple maths is not one of his strengths.

NO NO NO, I didn't mean I was in favor of a tax increase. Quite the opposite. I want the program to go away.

About Bush - he could not do this by himself. Just like he didn't create the war by himself. His job was to provide leadership - to provide the vision of what congress needed to address. They fought for several weeks, and ended up doing nothing, prefering to pass the buck to another congress. Rs and Ds alike, none of them have the balls to stand up and do what's right. So, eventually, it will hit a brick wall.

Gawain is spot on in his last post. Let us have our money, let us invest it. If I screw it up, I'll work till I'm 90. I'd rather take that chance than to ask YOU to fund my retirement.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Of course, your country would have far more money to spend on it's citizens health and social issues (and pay off it's massive debt) if it didn't waste so much sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong, in other people countries.

Yeah, like when we had a bunch of fighter pilots volunteer to help an ally fight off the Luftwaffe in 1941. That was none our business. Or, when we invaded France three years later.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

The Constitution also says nothing about a Space Exploration program, limiting stem cell research, oil industry subsidies, the Farm Bill, systematic signage on the interstate freeway system, nanotechnology, missile defense (there’s over $12B/y that some characterize as “corporate welfare” that I recommend eliminating), the internet, or the disposal of nuclear waste to name a few.

As has been pointed out, the Constitution does mention the general welfare (along with common defense).

The Space program was a military program first. When NASA was created, partnerships with the private sector were created. Privatization should have continued to pursue the space station, while retaining military endeavors for additional spy satellites or GPS systems.

The Interstate System was built on the basis of national defense.

Subsidies and/or tax breaks are matters of policy, not a direct hand out like "food stamps" per se. But I agree to a point that those blur the line.

You pointed out multiple programs tied with national defense and items that have nothing to do with government.

The preamble of the Constitution states:

Quote

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There is a reason why it states to "PROVIDE" for the common defense versus "PROMOTE" the general welfare.

Quote

In his Congressional testimony last fall, what did Eric Prince say w/r/t cost effectiveness and efficiency of private military security contractors? He said he didn’t know and recommended a study be done.

What did the US Air Force Air Logistics find w/r/t cost effectiveness and efficiency of privatization of contracting Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) and unscheduled repair activities on F-15, C-130, C-5 and C-17 aircraft? They tried it and found it was so inefficient and cost more than federal employees. WR-ALC 402d MXW reversed the decision and is now hiring.

What did Vannevar Bush say about the importance of federal funding for research – because the private sector wouldn’t do it – in his famous letter (& report) to President Roosevelt? That it was critical to national defense, and his recommendations led to the creation of the National Science Foundation.

These are easily tied into national defense. Not a social handout. While the USAF could not find value in private contractors for maintenance, the Army National Guard uses private contracts for maintenance on all their fixed wing assets.

Quote

How about standards? Do we really want Beta vs VHS, HD vs BlueRay playing out w/r/t all things that depend on measurements and standards? From clocks to nuclear security?

I don't know what you mean by this. IEEE standards or DVD standards are not government mandates. Same with ISO. Those are not government programs.

Quote

Public Health Services? Microbes don't discriminate based on class, race, ethnic group, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or political affiliation.

CDC plays a critical role, and inherent to the defense of the country, as well promote the general welfare. It does not provide direct care. There are better mechanisms to do that.

Quote

Intelligence?

Defense.

Quote

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

• Quote

[kallend 2,030]

Quote

Quote

Of course, your country would have far more money to spend on it's citizens health and social issues (and pay off it's massive debt) if it didn't waste so much sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong, in other people countries.

Yeah, like when we had a bunch of fighter pilots volunteer to help an ally fight off the Luftwaffe in 1941. That was none our business.

I think you mean 1940, and the "bunch" was 7. Fine men all of them but a rather small bunch. AND ALL DEFYING US LAW to do it so it hardly counts as the US sticking its nose in.

Nationality Number
Poland 139
New Zealand 98
Canada 86
Czechoslovakia 84
Belgium 29
Australia 21
South Africa 20
France 13
Ireland 10
United States 7
Jamaica 1
Palestine Mandate 1
Southern Rhodesia 1

Quote

Or, when we invaded France three years later.

"WE" being the Allies, right? After Germany declared war on the USA in December 1941.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

There is a reason why it states to "PROVIDE" for the common defense versus "PROMOTE" the general welfare.

Exactly what is it about "promote" that precludes providing, if necessary?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,008]

>Let us have our money, let us invest it.

Would you be willing to cancel this war to achieve that goal?

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

I think you mean 1940, and the "bunch" was 7. Fine men all of them but a rather small bunch. AND ALL DEFYING US LAW to do it so it hardly counts as the US sticking its nose in.

Yep, I hate having to say this but.....here goes - Kallend you're right. Whew - glad that's over. It's late, I've had a couple of beers, and I hit the wrong key. 1940. I'm sleep deprived I mis-spoke. My count was 10 American pilots, not the 7 your Wikipedia chart shows. What law were they defying? We actually had a special arangement such that these brave men did not have to give up their citizenship to fly with the RAF.

The point for Shropshire is this. There was a huge isolationist mentality then and Americans who didn't think that entering the European war was our business either. Lucky for him, and us, we answered the call.

Professor, I know you hate GW. Just consider this. Sadam had been warned by the UN. We tried to convince the UN that action was needed. Sadam still would allow no inspectors. He had a history of using chemical weapons agains his enemies (Iran) and his own people (Iraqi Kurds). He was a ruthless murderer, and his sons and other henchmn were worse. They had a nuclear program. At some point a decision had to be made. Congress agreed. If we had not gone in, and later some chemical or biological weapon had been loosed on a major American city, you would be calling for his head.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

Colin Powell is a great man. An American hero and Patriot. I don't think he is a liar.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

>Let us have our money, let us invest it.

Would you be willing to cancel this war to achieve that goal?

The way it was sold to the American people originally, one would have nothing to do with the other.

If we end SS and payroll deductions today, the war wouldn't be impacted, would it?

Oh, and back to topic, I still think McCain is the best choice, unless you guys want to write me in.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[billvon 3,008]

>The way it was sold . . .

I'll take that as a "no."

And hence you see the reason why we keep spending more. You want the war. People close to retirement want social security. People with sick relatives want better medical funding. People who drive a lot want more/wider roads and cheaper gas. People who want jobs want more government projects.

And until you can give up the things _you_ want, it's not that reasonable to expect others to give up what _they_ want. (And in many of the above cases, need more than you need the war.)