Minorities in politics: only the "right kind" coun

[The Cid]

Alright, Deacon, that'd make a good point.

The problem is, if we're going to have a big To Do about Cocaine, shouldn't we have people in Columbia, stopping the damn problem? I mean, since we've decided it's Our Business To Send Our Troops Everywhere and all, shouldn't we fix things that ACTUALLY become domestic problems? Get rid of the Cocaine and Heroin problems. It'll be quick--it CAN'T be that hard--and it doesn't require profiling/sending everybody to jail. Burn the fields. Salt the Earth. If we're fighting a "war on drugs," we should stop chasing every stoner and start going on the offensive.

[Deacon]

Well, there are really three parts to stopping a contraban problem: stop the production, stop the trafficking, and stop the demand. In your case, you're saying that if you can prevent the production of the drug, then there will be no drug problem. But humans are corrupt and selfish. If one human is prevented from making it, another human will pick up where the original left off as long as there is demand for it and a way to get it to the customer. You can try to stop the trafficking, which can be done but is quite a huge task. You can also try to stop the demand. But really, all three of these things needs to be halted at the same time to really put the drug into the history books. And all three, when you think about it, boil down to making the process not profitable. For the producers, that probably means blowing their shit up and making life so hard on them in general that it's not worth doing. For the traffickers, that means a swift and severe punishment, enough to convince them that it's not worth it. For the users, well, that one's harder to deal with, especially since we've successfully shot the whole mythical education-stops-bad-things fairy tale full of holes with big ol' reality bullets.

The real problem is that we want people to just play nice and put ourselves in a position where we're not really willing to do what it takes to get the job done, and if we ever did, the entire international community would be up in arms so fast. It's like a gentle giant being pulled down by smug, self-righteous, hateful little ants.

[Silux]

Not to get off topic or anything, but one thing MB said kind of bugged me...

[quote="Martin Blank";p="508729"]Many Democrats want to leave Social Security largely as it is. OK, but what happens when Social Security is paying out far more than it takes in? That's a lot of non-SSA funding getting routed over to the elderly, which means that some of your precious programs are going to have to get cut back. You have a choice, therefore: change SSA, or lose programs. (Note that I think that programs should get cut, anyway, but that's another matter.)
[/quote]

I don't think there's many Democrats out there that don't recognize the aging baby boomer problem related to social security. It's not that they oppose solvency, but feel that privatized accounts is not the way to go. I'm sure that if there was a proposal out there for raising the age for benefits, increasing funding taken from other programs, increasing taxes, decreasing benefits, or some combination of those that would make SS solvent in the long run, they would be all for it. Unfortunately Karl Rove is in all or nothing mode, and doesn't want to look like an ass by giving in.

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8235966/ ...

White House aides have been locked in a debate over whether it would be a victory if Bush settled for a Social Security deal without private accounts. Some White House domestic policy officials have suggested that the savings that would flow from reducing future Social Security costs would go a long way toward fixing the government's long-term financial problems.

But Rove, among others, has told Republicans that it would be unwise, both from a political and policy standpoint, to reduce benefits without offering people the potential of better returns through personal accounts, aides said. "It gets no easier without private accounts," a senior White House official said.

So can someone tell me why exactly private accounts are necessary for solvency?

[The Cid]

I think the most concieted thing you could say about America is that we're a "Gentle Giant." I'd say "Lumbering Monster," though I don't think that's necessarily such a bad thing.

I think we're at a pass because of what you said. See, we have to do something about it. But what we're doing NOW doesn't work, and what progress we ARE making is leading to more racial profiling and things that are considerably more harm than good. And if the ideal situation is damn near impossible, what CAN we do about it?

...Maybe we should just quit?

[Deacon]

Silux, the Democrats went from spending years talking about how Social Security needed a drastic overhaul to suddenly saying that it's just fine the way it is when Bush is trying to figure out a way to get it on the right track, trying to use the elderly as pawns, playing them against the administration with talk of how Bush is trying to make them suffer and die. Muahahahaha! That evil Bush guy hates you and hopes you die! We don't have any ideas of our own that could actually work, but if it comes from the White House, it's automatically evil!

It's like someone rolling in a car twoards a cliff, the gas pedal pushing closer and closer to the floor until it's rocketing towards the edge, and the Democrats are in the passenger seat fervently pleading with the driver to just shut their eyes and go faster and ignore the guys off to the side jumping and waving and hollering and trying to think of something to put in the way before it's too late.

Posted Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:32 am:

[quote="The Cid";p="508907"]I think the most concieted thing you could say about America is that we're a "Gentle Giant." I'd say "Lumbering Monster," though I don't think that's necessarily such a bad thing.[/quote]
I guess that depends on what you're talking about. When I say gentle giant, I'm referring to the US DoJ that's both huge and trying to play this game blindfolded and with both arms and one leg tied behind its back. I'm not talking about the US in general.

But what we're doing NOW doesn't work

Tell me how you measure success and how you would determine where the problem lies for any failures, because what we're doing now does "work" though it does not cut off any and all illicit drug usage.

and what progress we ARE making is leading to more racial profiling and things that are considerably more harm than good.

Such as? And what's this about racial profiling?

And if the ideal situation is damn near impossible, what CAN we do about it?

...Maybe we should just quit?

I'm of the mind that we've GOT to fight it. Otherwise we simply allow ourselves to implode and have to clean up the mess, and nobody's any better off.

[The Cid]

Republican: I want to blow up the moon.
Democrat: You shouldn't blow up the moon.
Republican: Oh yeah? What would YOU do?
Democrat: ...
Democrat: ...YOU SHOULDN'T BLOW UP THE MOON!
Republican: But we need other ideas then.
Democrat: YOU SHOULDN'T BLOW UP THE MOON!

(Anyone see the problem? I do.)

[Deacon]

No... What's this about the moon? What problem is that trying to solve?

[The Cid]

It's partially a joke, and I should have noted that.

What I was trying to say with it was that the only thing you hear Democrats say is that plan X by Republicans is a bad idea. You never hear what they'd do about something, just what they WOULDN'T. If people ask them any questions, they just intensify their argument against the right.

This goes back to my "we need more opinions" thing.

[Silux]

Ok so we know Deacon is a Republican. That's all I got from that rant. Why aren't the Democrats putting forth a proposal to fix social security WITHOUT private accounts? Good question. Let's see. Do you really think it would go through with a Republican majority and Karl Rove and Bush saying "We have to have private accounts!"? How exactly is it the Democrats fault they can't get support for their plan? And once again, why exactly do we need private accounts for long term solvency?

[Deacon]

Wait...you seem to be taking the idea that they have a plan for granted. Are you aware of any such plan?

[Silux]

I meant, "How exactly is it the Democrats fault the Repuplicans can't get support for their private accounts plan?"

I agree with you though. I think the Democrats SHOULD come up with their own plan that addresses aging baby boomers, wage disparity, and the wage cap. I think they have a huge opportunity here with Bush and Rove doing damage control sweeping this little private accounts thing under the rug. Because if it passes, yay, solvent social security. If it doesn't and the majority shoots it down, well, then you'll realize what a bunch of hypocrits the hardline conservatives are.

But you can't really blame the Democrats for taking a back seat and watching the GOP fall on their faces.

[Deacon]

[quote="Silux";p="508946"]I meant, "How exactly is it the Democrats fault the Repuplicans can't get support for their private accounts plan?"[/quote]
Technically, yes, but that's kind of weird question to ask.

I agree with you though. I think the Democrats SHOULD come up with their own plan that addresses aging baby boomers, wage disparity, and the wage cap.

I'm not sure what you mean about "the wage cap," but those three things don't seem like they have anything to do with each other, and only the first seems to have anything to do with Social Security, the topic at hand (all of a sudden).

I think they have a huge opportunity here with Bush and Rove doing damage control sweeping this little private accounts thing under the rug. Because if it passes, yay, solvent social security. If it doesn't and the majority shoots it down, well, then you'll realize what a bunch of hypocrits the hardline conservatives are.

I'm not exactly sure, really, what you mean about "sweeping this little private accounts thing under the rug," but I'm REALLY unconvinced about whatever it is you're talking about or insinuating with hypocrisy. "If it passes..." If what passes? Whatever plan the Dems slap together, assuming they're capable of such a thing? You make it sound like the Democrats who insist that there's nothing wrong with Social Security strike down economically solid plans that don't come from within their own rank-and-file, they're heroes. But if the Republicans strike down ANY plan, apparently specifically any plan the Dems happen to come up with, they're hypocrites. Can you explain that? It doesn't add up.

But you can't really blame the Democrats for taking a back seat and watching the GOP fall on their faces.

Heh, that's funny, because that's what many of the Republicans feel they've been doing, watching the Dems implode and lose legitimacy with all but the mainstream group of people who attach themselves blindly to that label and support whatever any liberal happens to say. But honestly, I seriously don't understand what you're getting at, where this "GOP falling on their faces" thing comes from.

Posted Thu Jun 16, 2005 3:34 pm:

Oh yeah, the topic was originally the hypocritical nature in which the Democrats, run mostly by whites, treat "defective" minorities.

[Silux]

[quote="Deacon";p="508964"]I'm not sure what you mean about "the wage cap," but those three things don't seem like they have anything to do with each other, and only the first seems to have anything to do with Social Security, the topic at hand (all of a sudden).[/quote]

They have a lot to do with social security. I believe the wage cap for 2005 is $90,000. This means that your first $90,000 in income is taxed for social security, the rest isn't. So if you make say $500,000 your actually paying something like 1% into social security compared to the rest of us under the $90,000 mark, paying the 6 or 7%. Doesn't really seem fair. Couple that with wage disparity. This is the difference between the top earners in the country and the rest of us middle income earners. And guess what, it's growing. So while the rich are indeed getting richer, the median income in America is staying pretty flat. This means an increasing burden on the average joe, while the average movie star or CEO is barely feeling anything. Meanwhile, benefit increases are based on an average wage index. The top earners in the country drive benefit increases higher. Not to say that there shouldn't be benefit increases, but it would make much more sense basing it on the rate of inflation, or on the median wage (what most of us make). I'm certain that if these issues were addressed, we wouldn't have to worry about social security becoming insolvent in 20-40 years.

[quote="Deacon";p="508964"]I'm not exactly sure, really, what you mean about "sweeping this little private accounts thing under the rug," but I'm REALLY unconvinced about whatever it is you're talking about or insinuating with hypocrisy.[/quote]

You must not have read the article I pasted. Basically the Republican leaders in Congress are telling Bush, "This private accounts plan ain't happening." I guarantee you we will not be hearing Bush parading around the country talking about privatizing social security anymore. Not only will private accounts not solve the real problems, but they will burden our national debt even further. I guess my point is why is it the Democrats fault for not getting private accounts up and running when the Republicans in Congress aren't even fully behind it. Why are we so quick to judge the Democrats for not coming up with a better plan, when the Karl Rove is over there saying anything less than private accounts will not do?

As far as the hypocrisy goes, let's just say hypothetically, the Democrats did put out a plan that would address these issues, and "fix" social security. I for one (and this is purely my opinion) strongly doubt it would go through. If it wasn't shot down in Congress, it would be vetoed by Bush. They wouldn't allow the minority to show them up. It's all political and that's all I'm saying.

[quote="Deacon";p="508964"]
Oh yeah, the topic was originally the hypocritical nature in which the Democrats, run mostly by whites, treat "defective" minorities.[/quote]

I know. Sorry. Like I said, I didn't mean to get so off topic. But Democrat bashing seems kind of lame. And believe it or not, I don't consider myself a Democrat.

[The Cid]

I am twenty-two years old.

Now, I don't know much about social security. I know that the political left thinks it's a great idea. The right, however, has a new idea I am not entirely clear on.

What I have made clear to you is that I do not trust the average human being, much less a politician.

Because I do not like seeing people starve to death begging for government cheese, I feel it necessary to advise every last one of you to set up a certain amount of money in a low-risk security (a mutual fund, CD, munipal bond) immediately.

Do not trust the United States Government to give you a damned thing. That is an example of taking too many things for granted. Look out for number one. Get a good insurance policy, set up a nest egg (retirement account). That way, no matter what happens with social security, you will not need worry.

Posted Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:01 am:

P.S.: We might finish behind fucking Nader, but sometimes it's good to be Libertarian.

[Deacon]

EDIT: Whoa...ninja'ed by like half an hour. Must've hit Submit right after I hit Quote. This post is directed to Silux, not The Cid.

First of all, can I get your take on exactly what Social Security is and what it's supposed to be?

[quote="Silux";p="509101"]I believe the wage cap for 2005 is $90,000. This means that your first $90,000 in income is taxed for social security, the rest isn't. So if you make say $500,000 your actually paying something like 1% into social security compared to the rest of us under the $90,000 mark, paying the 6 or 7%. Doesn't really seem fair.[/quote]
Do the people putting in more money get more money out? If so, then the wage cap is unfair. If not, I'd suggest that this isn't a charity and the recipients haven't "earned" Other People's Money.

Couple that with wage disparity. This is the difference between the top earners in the country and the rest of us middle income earners. And guess what, it's growing. So while the rich are indeed getting richer, the median income in America is staying pretty flat.

I assume your solution to the lack of advancement made by individuals in the middle class is to punish those who have? I'm sorry, but this to me doesn't indicate anything other than the complacency and comfort that exists with us here in the middle class.

This means an increasing burden on the average joe, while the average movie star or CEO is barely feeling anything.

Wait...which burden is this? Surely you're not referring to the tax burden, nor are you suggesting that CEOs and movie stars should be stressed out trying to make ends meet.

Meanwhile, benefit increases are based on an average wage index. The top earners in the country drive benefit increases higher. Not to say that there shouldn't be benefit increases, but it would make much more sense basing it on the rate of inflation, or on the median wage (what most of us make).

Whoa whoa whoa...are you seriously suggesting that people are living to lavishly on Social Security? That Social Security is paying out too much?

I'm certain that if these issues were addressed, we wouldn't have to worry about social security becoming insolvent in 20-40 years.

OK, let's just assume that's correct. I'm not convinced, but for the sake of argument we'll say I am. How do you suggest that "these issues be addressed" then?

Basically the Republican leaders in Congress are telling Bush, "This private accounts plan ain't happening." I guarantee you we will not be hearing Bush parading around the country talking about privatizing social security anymore.

Maybe I'm missing something, but...if they told him, "No, move on," then why would he be "parading around the country talking about privatizing social security" after that?

Not only will private accounts not solve the real problems, but they will burden our national debt even further.

Hmmmm...I've heard that tossed out there once before, but I never have heard the reasoning for those allegations.

I guess my point is why is it the Democrats fault for not getting private accounts up and running when the Republicans in Congress aren't even fully behind it. Why are we so quick to judge the Democrats for not coming up with a better plan, when the Karl Rove is over there saying anything less than private accounts will not do?

OK, first of all, if the Democrats vote against getting private accounts up and running, then it IS their "fault" when if fails. They would probably argue that's a good thing, however, so I'm not really sure of your point. And I'm sorry, but you're totally losing me with this Karl Rove stuff. What does Karl Rove have to do with a total lack of substance on the left side of the aisle? Especially considering that Karl Rove isn't on either side of the aisle OR in the White House. He's a political advisor...

As far as the hypocrisy goes, let's just say hypothetically, the Democrats did put out a plan that would address these issues, and "fix" social security. I for one (and this is purely my opinion) strongly doubt it would go through. If it wasn't shot down in Congress, it would be vetoed by Bush. They wouldn't allow the minority to show them up. It's all political and that's all I'm saying.

And if the Democrats put out a reasonable plan that I was convinced could actually work, and Republicans shot it down, I would condemn that. Just FYI. But that's a pretty big if.

But Democrat bashing seems kind of lame. And believe it or not, I don't consider myself a Democrat.

Heh, believe it or not, I'm not a registered Republican, though with this 2-party system, I find myself on the Republican side of the issues more often than not.